• AFGHANISTAN / QATAR
  • Secretary Kerry Calls President Karzai
  • Opening of Political Office of the Afghan Taliban in Doha
  • Support for Afghan-led Peace and Reconciliation / Commitment to Continuing Negotiations
  • Role of Pakistan and India
  • Amb. Dobbins Travel / Secretary Kerry Travel to Doha
  • Topics of Potential U.S.-Taliban Meetings / We Remain in Discussion with Afghans and High Peace Council about Next Steps
  • Women's Rights / Parliament's Draft New Electoral Law
• ISRAEL / PALESTINIANS
  • Secretary Kerry's Trip / Meetings with Jordanian, Israeli and Palestinian Officials Announced
• SYRIA
  • Secretary Kerry's Discussions with Administration Officials on Range of Options
  • Coordination with Jordanians
• R.O.K. / JAPAN / D.P.R.K.
  • Readout of Glyn Davies' Bilateral Meetings with Japan and ROK on DPRK
  • Trilateral Meeting Today
• D.P.R.K.
  • Six-Party Talks / Denuclearization
  • President Obama's Announcement
  • Working with Russians and Other Allies
• VENEZUELA
  • Working to Schedule Next Meeting / Assistant Secretary Jacobson will be Lead
  • Venezuelan Opposition Leader in DC
• HONDURAS
  • Letter from 21 Senators to Secretary Kerry Regarding Human Rights Concerns in Honduras
• PAKISTAN
  • Ongoing Dialogue with Prime Minister
  • Secretary Kerry Plans to Travel to Pakistan
• INDIA / PAKISTAN
  • Secretary Kerry to Discuss Regional Issues while in India
  • Encourage Cooperation between Governments of India and Pakistan
• BANGLADESH
  • U.S. Focus on Bangladesh
• R.O.K. / JAPAN
  • U.S. Supports Close Cooperation

1:28 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hello, everyone. All right. Well, before we get started, I just had one readout that I wanted to do at the top. The Secretary spoke with President Karzai last night and again this morning. Just to reiterate, in January, President Karzai and President Obama jointly called on the Government of Qatar to facilitate an office in Doha for the purposes of negotiations between the Afghan High Peace Council and the authorized representatives of the Taliban. The U.S. supports, as you all know, the opening of the political office of the Afghan Taliban for this purpose.

The Secretary reiterated the fact that we do not recognize the name Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. We note – he noted that the Government of Qatar has taken steps today to ensure that the political office is in compliance with the conditions established by the Government of Qatar for its operations, and noted also that we are pleased that the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement clarifying that the name of the office is the Political Office of the Afghan Taliban and not the Political Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and has had the sign with the incorrect name in front of the door taken down. The office must not be treated as or represent itself as an embassy or other office representing the Afghan Taliban as an emirate government or sovereign.

With that, let’s move to what’s on your minds. What I did at the top was I read out – the Secretary spoke with President Karzai last night and again early this afternoon.

QUESTION: So I see you saying the sign’s been taken down now. What response do you have to President Karzai’s statement that he’s suspending the U.S. bilateral security agreement talks as a result of this?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Jo, as you know, we’ve seen the palace statement, of course. And as President Obama and President Karzai affirmed in January, an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process is the surest way to end violence and assure – ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and the region. The U.S. supports, of course, a peaceful, democratic, and unified Afghanistan. We remain committed to peace and reconciliation, and remain prepared to negotiate with Afghanistan to conclude a BSA that supports our shared objectives.

So we remain committed to the process. And again, there – the update I provided at the front end were several conversations he had with President Karzai, and we continue to work to coordinate and work with Afghanistan on all of these issues.

QUESTION: But despite those conversations, do the talks remain suspended by the Afghan Government or --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would refer you to the Afghan Government. They put out the statement, of course, saying they were suspended. But we remain committed to continuing these negotiations and open to discussing, and are hopeful that we will be able to do that.

QUESTION: So how do you respond to criticism from people who are longtime observers of the situation in Afghanistan that the whole rollout of this very important announcement that the talks were going to start between the U.S. and Taliban has been mishandled the State Department and this Administration, because it just immediately got President Karzai’s back up?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Jo, I would point you to what the President said this morning, or this afternoon, in Germany, which is that we always knew that there would be bumps in the road. This is a case where there have been decades of strife. They’re – are at war and continue to be at war. Clearly, this is challenging. But diplomacy is hard, and we are – remain focused on it. Obviously, as evidence of that is the – are the Secretary’s calls, the statements the President has made, and our continued commitment to moving towards a political reconciliation.

QUESTION: So you do accept, though, that their having a sign, the Taliban having a press conference with a sign saying the Islamic Government of the Emirates of Afghanistan or whatever it was, it was inappropriate?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, we do.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Deb.

QUESTION: Didn’t anybody know that that the flag issue and the naming of the office was going to tick him off? I mean, he said that long ago, so --

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly that was not what was agreed to. And that’s --

QUESTION: Was it a surprise on the part of the Taliban or the Government of Qatar?

MS. PSAKI: Was it a surprise to --

QUESTION: The U.S. that they did it this way.

MS. PSAKI: Well, it certainly wasn’t what the agreed-to proposal was here. And as I stated at the top, the Qataris have taken steps which the Secretary and others are pleased by.

QUESTION: Jen, so – also, Jen, there’s another thing that they’re angry about, or I would say Karzai is angry about, which is that they would say that they are taking the back seat to the United States. After all, as we discussed yesterday, the United States is the first country that’s going to be talking with the Taliban, not the Afghans. So there’s another obvious problem. I mean, what do you say to that backseat comment, number one?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I would point to comments we’ve made for months and months about how these negotiations and discussions need to be Afghan-led and Afghans talking to Afghans. And we certainly anticipate that that will be the case. The U.S., as I mentioned yesterday, certainly has stakes here and we certainly have stakes that we will be conveying, as I mentioned yesterday, as a part of our own discussions. But this is ultimately up to the Afghan people, I should say Afghans of all sides, talking to one another, and that’s consistently been our position and our belief.

QUESTION: Yes, correct. But I mean, just again we’re into the rollout and the symbolism, and if the first meeting is going to be the United States with the Taliban, you’d have to say, “Why didn’t you take a pass and say no, please, go ahead? Why don’t you talk?”

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re continuing to coordinate with the Afghan Government and the High Peace Council on the next steps. I know there have been lots of reports out there about various meetings that have been scheduled or not scheduled, but what I can tell you is that we’re coordinating closely with them, and our goal, of course, is to play a positive role in moving towards a political reconciliation here.

QUESTION: So does the U.S. then meet with them, as we expect, on Thursday?

MS. PSAKI: We never confirmed that was a meeting from here. And so, again, we are continuing to work with the Afghan Government and with the High Peace Council to determine next steps.

QUESTION: I thought you said --

QUESTION: So just again --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So you never confirmed it, as we know, from yesterday, but can you say right now what is the status? I mean, will there be talks? What is going to happen?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have an update for you. And as we do, I’m sure we’ll talk about this in the days ahead as well. So we’re continuing to coordinate. That’s where we are right now.

QUESTION: Can you clarify --

QUESTION: This seems to have risen out of background briefings from senior Administration officials. I mean, is this an appropriate way to announce a huge milestone in a 12-year war? I mean, it seems to have resulted in an awful lot of confusion and possibly the breaker of these talks. What will happen?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure specifically what you’re referring to, but the President has spoken to this. We talked significantly about this yesterday. The Secretary spoke to this briefly yesterday. So I would hardly say this was a rollout solely with a background briefing. Often we do that, as you know, to explain a process or provide additional details that would be helpful to all of you in your reporting.

QUESTION: Jen --

MS. PSAKI: Let’s just keep focused on this issue.

QUESTION: Yeah. Could you clarify something for us? Now, the talks are still taking place tomorrow, correct?

MS. PSAKI: I think that Jill just asked that question.

QUESTION: Okay. So the --

MS. PSAKI: We’re continuing to – let me just finish.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: So what I just said was we’re in close coordination with the Afghan Government and their High Peace Council on the next steps. At the top, as you know – and I think you were here for this – I outlined the two calls that the Secretary did last night and today with President Karzai, and some of the steps that have been taken over the course of the last 24 hours.

QUESTION: Okay, and that’s exactly the point. I mean, Karzai seems to be – to remain displeased with your announcement about the talks. And the Taliban have taken action, actually, that are intended to scuttle these talks before they begin. So when you say Afghan-led and Afghan-owned and all these things, which Afghan and Afghan are you talking about?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you know, the Afghans. But let me just reiterate something I said, which is – and which is pointing to what the President has said and what – today, which is that this is going to be a difficult process. We never thought it wouldn’t be. Let’s not forget that the context here is that the parties have been fighting for a very long time. They continue to fight even now. And we don’t expect this process to be easy, but there have been a number of public statements, not just from the President but from military leaders and others, about how moving towards a political process and political reconciliation is the best path forward. So we will remain focused on it.

QUESTION: So you think that the Taliban taking credit for killing American soldiers in the last 24 hours, that does not in any way scuttle the talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we didn’t expect that they would decry al-Qaida and decry terrorism immediately off the top. This was – this is an end result, or an end goal, I should say. It’s a bumpy road. We always knew it would be. And – but we’re focused on moving forward because we know political process is the best path forward.

QUESTION: Jen, the – publicly denouncing or breaking ties with al-Qaida used to be a precondition for talks going ahead. Since when it has become an end goal?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I --

QUESTION: And does this not feed into the perception that the United States is ready to make any kind of concessions, because actually, it’s just getting ready to cut and run from Afghanistan?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our goals, or our end goals here have been very consistent in breaking ties with al-Qaida, ending violence, and accepting the Afghan constitution. I referenced yesterday the statement that was issued. That was a positive step. This is a first step. We’re still working towards the first step. And we know the first step is difficult. It’s hard to take, often, to kick these things off. But again, I think there’s broad agreement from President Karzai, who said this long before the U.S., has supported this, that the political reconciliation and the political process is the best path forward. But we know it’s not going to be easy.

QUESTION: Just to follow quickly?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Madam, (1) you are recognizing Talibans as a political party or is going to be leading in the future maybe some kind of a political – I mean more than a political office? And (2) Talibans are coming from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Which Talibans we are talking about? And finally, are you also in touch with the Pakistan Government? Because they are the one who will be playing major role in this process (inaudible) peace in Afghanistan?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mentioned yesterday how we were pleased with the support by the Government of Pakistan, but it’s up to Afghan – the Afghans to determine next steps forward. In terms of what role they’ll play, this is the whole point with the naming of the office, that this is a political office for the purpose of moving forward on a political reconciliation.

QUESTION: Is this going to be just a political office or some kind of consulate or embassy in the future for Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that – I would point you back to the statement I made in the beginning about what the purpose of the office is and what the Secretary reiterated on his phone calls.

QUESTION: And finally one more, quickly. Are you also in touch – because this is very major steps that the U.S. or international community has taken, and I understand that you have spoken with President Karzai, and he must be agreeing what you are talking about – are you all staying in touch with the Indian Government? Because they are also playing a major role there in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and this will affect the entire region.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re in regular contact with the Government of India. As you know, because we just announced it, we are – the Secretary will be traveling to India next week, and I’m sure there’ll be a range of topics that will be discussed as part of that visit.

QUESTION: Thank you. Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Alysa.

QUESTION: Just on our wire is two Afghan officials saying that the U.S. has given Afghanistan written assurance that the new Taliban office in Qatar does not constitute political recognition. Do you – can you confirm that this was a written assurance?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what the written assurance would be in reference to, although I believe I just stated that in terms of what was discussed on the call with President Karzai.

QUESTION: Oh, I’m sorry. I missed the top, so --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Oh, no, I just – at the top, I read out the fact the Secretary had spoken with President Karzai both early this afternoon and last night, and that was part of the discussion.

QUESTION: Can you – I mean, look. Apparently the conversation last night didn’t go very well, did it? I mean, because it was after that phone call that Karzai announced that he was breaking off the bilateral security talks, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Was there some confusion from the first phone call?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think there was any confusion, but again, this is a fluid process, Matt.

QUESTION: So – okay. Fair enough, then so what was the second --

MS. PSAKI: And so it’s not irregular for them to be talking regularly.

QUESTION: Well, would you describe the first conversation as cordial or friendly?

MS. PSAKI: I would describe it as the Secretary reiterating what our positions are, which are consistent with what he has said to President Karzai in the past.

QUESTION: Well, then why did he – but then he felt the need to call back again. So what, he called him up and said, “Doh, Hamid, what the – what’s going on here?” What – I mean, was there – (laughter) --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think you have a future as an actor. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Was he surprised for – (laughter) – “Yo, Hamid, wtf?”

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to characterize whether he was surprised or what his feelings were, but there were developments, obviously, including the Qataris’ involvement overnight. And so it’s not at all abnormal. As you know, the Secretary believes in personal diplomacy and rolling up his sleeves and making phone calls, so not at all abnormal he would speak to him twice given the importance of this issue and importance of moving forward.

QUESTION: Well, let me put it this way: Was he or the Administration kind of taken aback by the position that President Karzai took earlier today?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say that we were disappointed by the rollout on the ground, of course.

QUESTION: I understand that.

MS. PSAKI: And in terms of the position that he took, it was inconsistent with what we all believed the rollout would be. So I don’t know that I’m going to characterize it further, but --

QUESTION: There were – well, but yesterday you talked about how you liked the rollout, you thought the rollout was good and that the Qataris had made everything clear. So clearly that didn’t work out exactly the way it was planned. So it is fair to say, then, that you were kind of taken aback because President Karzai – or maybe he didn’t misunderstand, but it was – there was enough confusion there that he --

MS. PSAKI: Well, take --

QUESTION: You weren’t expecting him yesterday to say, “You know what? I’m going to stop the negotiations on the bilateral security agreement,” were you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, this is --

QUESTION: You didn’t think he would be upset?

MS. PSAKI: “Taken aback” would be an overstatement. I don’t think we went into any of this process here expecting that everything would be a smooth and sunny road.

QUESTION: All right. Fair enough.

MS. PSAKI: We knew it would be bumpy. This is an example of that.

QUESTION: So you think that – all right, so you – but your experience with Karzai is that he is that flighty and unpredictable that you’re not surprised by anything he does?

MS. PSAKI: That’s not – what I was talking about was the announcement and the rollout of the office, Matt. So that’s what I was referring to.

QUESTION: Okay. So you think the problem here was the mishandling of the way the office was rolled out; that’s what your position is?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think that where we are now is that --

QUESTION: No, no, no. I don’t want to know where you’re at. The problem that – what led President Karzai to doing what he did and saying what he said was that – was the – was because the rollout wasn’t handled appropriately, not because of any greater problem that he might have with the entire idea --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to --

QUESTION: -- of negotiating through the process?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to attribute what his thinking was or what his reasons were.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: But let me just point you to the fact that he has supported reconciliation long before the U.S. has, as you know, and he knows and believes this is the positive path forward.

QUESTION: All right. Okay. Is it your understanding now after the – post the second phone call with the Secretary that he is now okay, that he’s been mollified that his concerns have been addressed and that negotiations on the security accord will continue? Or is there – are you not at that point yet?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to characterize his view or how he feels. I just wanted to read out what we had done and why we feel it’s important.

QUESTION: Okay. And then my last bit on this: You talked – I think you were asked about Dobbins’ travel.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is he – I’m not asking about the meeting date in particular, but is he still planning to go to those three places that you said he was going to yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: He’s still in Washington now.

QUESTION: So he didn’t leave yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: He did not. And we’re still in – or in discussions with the Afghan Government about the appropriate next steps, so I don’t have any updates on if and when he’ll travel.

QUESTION: But does – really? If and when? I mean, yesterday, it was pretty – you – it was pretty solid, it seemed pretty – you seemed pretty confident that he was leaving yesterday and that – without giving a date for a meeting in --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- with the Taliban, that he was going to go to these three places. That is now up in the air?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we’re – what we’re determining is what is the best next step. So, based on what the best next step is, we’ll determine his travel. He’s got his passport; he’s ready to go.

QUESTION: I would hope so. Okay.

QUESTION: These are --

QUESTION: And then the Secretary is also going to Doha, per your announcement.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is he going to have any discussions related with – I mean, I don’t expect that he would meet with the Taliban himself, but will he talk with the Qataris about this or maybe Afghans who happen to be in Doha?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you saw from our announcement, the purpose of the trip is both to talk about bilateral issues, of course, which this is often one that is discussed, but also there’s a meeting of the London 11 in Doha which is a big part of the reason why we’ll be going there.

QUESTION: So in other words, it’s mainly – you would say it’s mainly Syria and not so much Afghanistan?

MS. PSAKI: Well, just that there are certainly a range of issues, including this, we expect will be discussed. But that’s a big part of our purpose of the trip.

QUESTION: And just to put a fine point on it --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- the Secretary is not going to be meeting with any Taliban in Doha --

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: -- at this office --

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: -- or visiting this political office or cutting a ribbon or anything like that? He’s not going to be doing that?

MS. PSAKI: Not that is planned, Matt, no.

QUESTION: So was Special Representative Dobbins’s travel postponed as a result of what happened overnight with the office and --

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, our focus is on what the next best steps are. And I know I’ve said this a few times, but it’s very applicable here: We knew that this would be a bumpy road and a bumpy process. That’s exactly what it is. And so when it’s appropriate for him to travel, I’m sure he will travel. I just don’t have an update on that at this point.

QUESTION: Yeah, I understand. I’m just wondering why yesterday there was an announcement made from the podium that he would be traveling to places where he would be going --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and then suddenly today, he’s still here. What happened in the intervening period that stopped that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, clearly, we’ve talked about some of what’s happened in the intervening period.

QUESTION: So that did impact the – his visit?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly.

QUESTION: It was a result of that?

QUESTION: Did you expect the road to be this bumpy this soon? (Laughter.) I mean, literally, you pulled out of the garage and you hit a major pothole instantly. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Matt, all you need is a jeep and you can drive right through.

QUESTION: It’s that famous rearview mirror. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: So you’re comparing the American foreign policy – the Administration is a jeep.

MS. PSAKI: No, I was just having a little fun with you.

QUESTION: Let’s hope it’s not one of the ones that’s just been recalled.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one real easy question?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: An easy question.

MS. PSAKI: I’m excited. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: During the Secretary’s phone calls with President Karzai --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- did he encourage Karzai to indeed send representatives from the High Peace Council to the meetings that were announced?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he clearly conveyed that the political process is the best process forward. Obviously, we know what the steps are, but in terms of specific asks, it was more a broad conversation about what’s happened and where we need to go moving forward.

QUESTION: He would say, “Come on, Mr. President, please send your High Peace Council guys as planned?”

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the Secretary understands that this is something that we have to continue to work on. The President knows what steps need to be taken, so it’s not really a secret on either side, how they need to move the ball forward.

Kim.

QUESTION: I missed the very top, so forgive me if you’ve already answered that in some form or another. But I’m struggling to understand exactly what went wrong. Did you fail to coordinate closely with President Karzai, with the details, before making this announcement? Was there a general understanding about the fact that this announcement would be made, but the details were not discussed? Or is he changing the goalposts?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would dispute that anything went wrong. This is a process which has been long coming, one that we’ve been long focused on, making – moving forward, as you know, as the President and the Secretary have spoken about this a number of times.

What I did at the top was read out that the President – I mean that the Secretary had spoken and reiterated our agreement that we don’t recognize the name “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,” which, as you know, was what was displayed as the office was announced, and as you know, the Qataris have also taken steps to change the banner and change other pieces of how this is displayed.

So I would refer you to President Karzai and his statements and what he has said are his concerns here. But he has also stated in the past his broad support for a reconciliation process, which we also support, and that’s what we’re going to be focused on moving forward.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up. Did you coordinate and discuss the details of the announcement with President Karzai before making the decision to go forward with these talks?

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, there have been a lot of conversations. And I said also at the beginning that we were disappointed by how the office was opened, including all of the details that I just mentioned.

QUESTION: Did you say the Qataris were wrong, did something wrong?

MS. PSAKI: Again, these are issues about how the office was opened by the Taliban. We’ve been in close contact with the Qataris. I don’t think I need to define it that way. There have been adjustments made, and I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Jen, can I just ask – I don’t understand your logic. In your answer to Kim, you said, “I dispute that anything went wrong.” (Laughter.) How are you able to say that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, what I meant --

QUESTION: You mean that everything went just fine and that you wanted Karzai to break off the talks and say he wasn’t going to attend and he wasn’t going to --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ve already said, which I think Kim and some others missed, including you, at the top, that we were disappointed --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: -- by how the office was opened --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- that the Secretary had spoken with President Karzai and reiterated our support for and our opposition to the naming.

QUESTION: I got --

MS. PSAKI: So there are certain things that clearly did not go as planned.

QUESTION: Well --

MS. PSAKI: But again, the larger point here is that this is a process we knew would be challenging. There have been challenges. We’ve been talking about them and – but we’re ready to move forward.

QUESTION: Jen? Jen?

QUESTION: Can we – I have --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Afghan ministry folks in Kabul are saying that it’s their understanding that there are sort of two diplomatic missions that are decoupled here. One is that the Americans can talk about Americans who have been kidnapped and the recovery of them, and then the other one is peace talks, and that when it comes to peace talks, Afghans have to be present. Is that the U.S. understanding?

MS. PSAKI: It’s not just Afghans have to be present; it’s Afghans talking to Afghans. It would be the Afghans determining if the U.S. have any kind of role in the room on that.

QUESTION: But – so is that the correct understanding, though, that any U.S.-Taliban meetings at this point are restricted in topic to simply the recovery of Americans’ interests?

MS. PSAKI: No, I talked about this yesterday, so I’d point you to that --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- in terms of the broad range of issues that the U.S. is concerned about. So I mentioned, yes, absolutely, a discussion of Sergeant Bergdahl and others would be a part of what would be brought up and a part of what remains a concern. But the main dialogue would also be about the need for the Taliban to completely and verifiably break with terrorism, which is, of course, an end goal --

QUESTION: It’s an end goal.

MS. PSAKI: -- of this entire process. So that would be a big part of our focus in our conversations as well.

QUESTION: So – but the Afghans are saying that that’s their sticking point here; that when it comes to anything more than just pure U.S. interests, that they’re not supportive of this process, period.

MS. PSAKI: That whom? The Taliban or the --

QUESTION: The Afghan Government and the Afghan ministry is saying that right now.

MS. PSAKI: Well, President Karzai has said many times that this is the preferred process, even before – or the ideal process, a political process moving toward reconciliation, even before the U.S. supported the process. So certainly there may be some officials who are opposed to that, but we still feel, as do many Afghans, that this is the right step and the right process moving forward.

QUESTION: So nothing has changed in the mission of these talks between yesterday, the office blowup, the breaking-off of the official meetings, and now?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve talked about a little bit of what’s happened over the past 24 hours, but in terms of the bottom-line goal of what we’re trying to accomplish, that is exactly the same.

QUESTION: And so is the Ambassador --

QUESTION: So the Ambassador’s trip is no longer definite?

MS. PSAKI: But our goal is the same, that’s what I’m saying. What we’d like to accomplish here is exactly the same thing.

QUESTION: Well, and world peace and the end of hunger is also your goal at the --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we do have those as well, Matt.

QUESTION: Exactly. But you’re about as close to getting to those goals as you are to this. But no – but the – the point is, is that the one significant thing is that – other than what was done on the ground by President Karzai, the one significant thing that is different between yesterday, 24 hours ago, and now is that Ambassador Dobbins and presumably General Lute, their travel plans, which had meant to include a meeting in Doha with the Taliban, are now either on hold or postponed; is that correct? Or canceled altogether?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there, again, were – I don’t have – we did talk about their plans yesterday. Right now, Ambassador Dobbins is in Washington. I don’t have any planned travel for you to announce.

QUESTION: Right. Right.

MS. PSAKI: What I heard Margaret’s question – and clarify for me if this is not what you were asking – what I was answering was what our end goal is here, what we’re trying to accomplish here.

QUESTION: Not the end goal, the premise for the conversation. The Afghans are saying the premise for the conversation between America and Taliban they’re cool with if it’s just about American interests. Anything that involves Afghan-to-Afghan peace, they need to be part of and they’re not okay with the separation of that.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, and we talked about this a lot yesterday, so let me clarify some of the facts here. We’ve always thought and always said this would be Afghans talking to Afghans; the Afghans would determine if the U.S. would have a role here.

QUESTION: But the --

MS. PSAKI: But the U.S. has separate --

QUESTION: -- the first meeting is the U.S. and Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: The U.S. has a separate interest, our own stake and our own interests, which I just talked about, including them denouncing terrorism, including some of the issues with Sergeant Bergdahl as well, which we will discuss. But in terms of the reconciliation process, that is a process – Afghans between Afghans. That’s – that hasn’t changed from yesterday to today to a month ago and longer.

QUESTION: But for the Afghans, that’s a problem for them.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what you’re saying the problem is.

QUESTION: The fact that the first meeting is going to be between the United States and the Taliban. Has that changed?

MS. PSAKI: Well, because we’re working with the Afghans on what the next appropriate step is, there isn’t a meeting. I know there were reports of it, but reports of a meeting being scheduled or on the books aren’t accurate. I also didn’t confirm them yesterday, to be clear. But beyond that, the process is going to be – this is what I’m just trying to get at as I’m hearing the issue they’re raising – is Afghans talking to Afghans about how the reconciliation process moves forward. If there’s a role for the U.S. to play in that, that’s up to the Afghans to decide.

QUESTION: But then any U.S. --

QUESTION: On that point, Jen, on that very point --

QUESTION: Just to – wait, just to button up on it. So the U.S.-Taliban meeting is now on hold as the broader process is also on hold; there will not be a U.S.-Taliban meeting, period, right now until we move forward as part of this conversation?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re in coordination and in discussion with the Afghans and the High Peace Council about how to move forward.

QUESTION: So on that – on this point that you just mentioned --

QUESTION: When you say the reports weren’t accurate, can you clarify what you mean there? There was never a meeting scheduled or --

MS. PSAKI: Well, there was – there were reports yesterday of one being scheduled Thursday, which we didn’t confirm from here. So again, we’re continuing to work on the process, and as we have more to update you all on, I’m sure we will.

QUESTION: Could you clarify --

QUESTION: Jen, you said --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead, Jill.

QUESTION: Jen, you said that the United States did talk numerous times with President Karzai --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- of course, in setting this up. Did the U.S. talk directly with the Taliban about setting this up, in other words, perhaps telling them here are the ground rules? Was there anything like that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our end goals here have been very clear both publicly and privately. I’m not sure when the last conversation was on that. I’m happy to look into that. But it – there has been no secret about what we wanted to accomplish and what we felt the end goal should be here.

QUESTION: Jen, on something that you said, just to clarify, you said that the U.S. will participate if the Afghans wanted to participate. So if one or two parties decide that no, we don’t want the U.S. to participate, would that be acceptable to you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I’m not going to get ahead of where we are. We’re obviously --

QUESTION: But you said that.

MS. PSAKI: Let me just finish. We’re obviously in discussions, we’re working very closely. I mentioned two calls just today, over the last 24 hours, the Secretary himself has had. We are committed to a process. There is broad agreement that that is the right process. But again, I’m not going to get ahead of where we are and what it means. I think there’s been some confusion about the different components of this.

QUESTION: Jen, there’s another thing. Senator Casey issued a statement on women’s rights in Afghanistan, and he said that he’s very concerned about these recent attempts by the government – actually, I should say, I guess, their parliament – to erode women’s rights and political representation, and now especially, he said, with the reports about talking with the Taliban. What is the State Department’s position? There’s apparently a new draft of an electoral law that takes away some of the provisions for women to be represented. Senator Casey is saying it’s dangerously undermining gains by women in the political arena in the past decade. What does the U.S. think about that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we share the concern. We’re aware that the parliament is considering its election legislation that would remove the requirement that 25 percent of provisional council seats be reserved for women. We urge the Afghan Government to uphold the rights previously granted to women in an effort to protect their political participation. Certainly, as you know, we broadly support, of course, women not only participating in the process but also being in elected office. And this is a point that we have made to the Afghan Government as well.

QUESTION: To President Karzai?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure if it was part of the conversations over the last 24 hours, but certainly our position is known there.

QUESTION: Jen, to clarify the disappointment that you mentioned, had you discussed this name before the meeting that you had – before the announcement, the name which will appear in front of this office?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: And Taliban changed it, that name?

MS. PSAKI: Again, there was agreement about what the name of the office would be to indicate what the purpose of the office would be.

QUESTION: And the Taliban changed that name later?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I need to confirm that for you.

QUESTION: Was there anything other than that that was disappointing about the ceremony, or was that just – was that the main thing?

MS. PSAKI: I think that --

QUESTION: I mean, the photo op didn’t – wasn’t a problem for you?

MS. PSAKI: Clearly, the --

QUESTION: I mean, what was in the photo --

MS. PSAKI: Clearly, the rollout, Matt, on that end was disappointing.

QUESTION: Well, but I mean, specifically, was there anything other than the name about the rollout that was problematic for you guys or that was disappointing for you guys?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’re familiar with what – some of the components of this. And again, we were hopeful that this would be moving things forward, but we are still committed to the process.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

QUESTION: What was the name that you agreed?

MS. PSAKI: It’s the same one that I’ve stated a couple of times, which is the Political Office of the Afghan Taliban.

QUESTION: And how soon do you hope to end this stalemate, and what should the Afghan Government do in order to let this process move on?

MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry, can you repeat it just one more time?

QUESTION: And how soon do you hope to end this stalemate in the process, and what should the Afghan Government do to encourage this process to move on?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve – I’ve read out a couple of calls and indicated to you a couple of the steps that have been taken over the past 24 hours. And let me just reiterate here that we knew this would be challenging – the President said that just this morning – there would be bumps in the road. We were prepared for that, and so we’re going to focus on moving forward.

QUESTION: Jen, what is a political office?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, the purpose of this whole process is to move towards a political reconciliation and not be representative of any particular government or body, but to move towards reconciling all the parties.

QUESTION: So there’s no particular, like, legal --

QUESTION: Diplomatic sense?

QUESTION: -- diplomatic meaning to that word, “political office,” other than just it’s not a military office?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it was important to be clear on what the purpose of the office was.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s see if there’s any --

QUESTION: Could you just clarify quickly why this office in Qatar, not in Afghanistan? And second finally, are you hoping that one day, someday Taliban will be back in political power in Afghanistan?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you’re getting a bit ahead of where we are, Goyal, but the goal here is to move this to Afghanistan. The Government of Qatar, of course, offered to have this office there and have it under conditions that would help move this process forward, which was why it was a positive step. Said?

Oh, go ahead, Jo.

QUESTION: I’m sorry – it’s just – I’m sorry to belabor the point, but --

MS. PSAKI: No, it’s okay.

QUESTION: -- who is responsible for building this particular bump in the road? I mean, clearly there must have been an agreement between yourselves, the Taliban, and Afghanistan to have this rollout yesterday. And as Matt said, you’re not even out of the garage door yet. I mean, was it the Taliban that gleefully kind of seized on this opportunity to give itself some kind of diplomatic recognition and status which you hadn’t agreed to? Or was it the United States that didn’t set their terms clearly? Whose fault was it?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to place fault or blame. Again, this is a case where the circumstances and the conditions were clear. Obviously, the course of the last 12 hours, as we’ve talked about a bit, has been a bump in the road. But where our focus is now is moving forward. But I’m not going to place blame or anything along those lines.

QUESTION: So the conditions were clear to whom, exactly?

MS. PSAKI: To all parties involved.

QUESTION: To three parties involved.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure which three parties --

QUESTION: Well, I would talk about the United States, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.

QUESTION: And Qatar.

MS. PSAKI: And Qatar.

QUESTION: And Qatar. Sorry, four parties.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Yep.

QUESTION: So all four parties had agreed to terms over the previous months --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: -- how it was supposed to happen?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So somebody changed the conditions. Who was it?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into a blame game from here. I think our focus is on moving forward and what’s productive to do just that.

QUESTION: Outside of the blame game, did you make your terms clear enough? I mean, I think that’s --

MS. PSAKI: Yes. Said?

QUESTION: Move on?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Secretary’s trip.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) subject.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip?

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. The portion that deals with the Palestinian and the Israeli --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- portion of that. Is the Secretary taking some new ideas, like on land sharing and perhaps refugee issues and so on? Is he going to have meetings – trilateral meetings with the Israelis and the Palestinians all at the same time?

MS. PSAKI: Well, all I have to report on for you is what’s been announced and put out in our trip announcement we just put out.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: And I believe on there it outlines the fact that the Secretary will have meetings with Jordanian, Israeli, and Palestinian Authority officials. We’re still working to set those up. Those were with a number of the officials he’s had many meetings with to date. In terms of what will be discussed, as usual I’m not going to predict or read that out for all of you.

QUESTION: Okay. Now will these meetings take place in Ramallah, in Amman, or Tel Aviv?

MS. PSAKI: Again, the meetings will take place in Amman and Jerusalem, which is outlined in our trip announcement.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Are you – your expectation at the moment, though, is these are all – just part of his question – they’re all separate meetings?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct.

QUESTION: There aren’t any group meetings?

MS. PSAKI: There are none scheduled, no. Again, these are meetings with a number of the officials he’s met with before, and we’re continuing to work on the schedule.

QUESTION: He’s not going to go to Ramallah? Is he not going to Ramallah or the West Bank at all?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe that the trip announcement makes very clear the meetings are in Amman and Jerusalem.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: To Asia?

QUESTION: I think you might want to say why he – how he can meet with all three – Palestinians, Israelis, and Jordanians – without going to the West Bank. Might you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I --

QUESTION: Explain it.

MS. PSAKI: It is well known and a simple statement of fact that President Abbas has a home in Amman.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to outline specifics, but he’ll be meeting with him there.

QUESTION: New subject?

MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead, Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject. Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There is a report that the Secretary was involved in a meeting that became rather heated with our military concerning Syria, and that the Secretary supports using some type of airstrikes to destroy the ability of the Syrians to launch planes that could deliver strikes with chemical weapons, et cetera. What – did that conversation take place? Does the Secretary think that airstrikes would be a good idea?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say, of course, I’m not going to read out discussions happening at the highest level in the government. But I can say broadly, and many of you have spent a great deal of time with the Secretary as well as the military official in question, and I can assure you that their style is to have a discussion and a productive debate about a range of issues. And in this case, as the President has said, and as the Secretary has said, the President asked his team, his national security team, to come up with a range of options for him. The Secretary has taken that and run with it, as have a number of other officials. And so they have had a discussion, and I expect they will continue to have a discussion about a range of issues. But I’ve seen some of those reports about the tone, which is very inaccurate, and can just assure you that the Secretary and the – and all Department of Defense officials are here to give the President the best advice and debate out the pros and cons of every option.

QUESTION: But it was – was it a theoretical debate, or is he actually proposing a position?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into what options are discussed in a private meeting with high-level officials. But I think we’ve been pretty clear – even from here, even from the podium, that all options remain on the table aside from military boots on the ground. So it should be no surprise that many, many options are being discussed in private meetings.

QUESTION: So that only comes in the realm of possible scenarios, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Hmm?

QUESTION: Plausible scenarios.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there isn’t a decision I have to announce for you at this point, but again, as we’ve said many times, all options remain on the table aside from military boots on the ground.

QUESTION: About --

QUESTION: Could you tell us what is going on in terms of coordination with the Jordanians in terms of training and supplying the opposition right now, from the Jordan side?

MS. PSAKI: I know that the Department of Defense had an announcement, I believe it was last week, about some of their equipment they would be leaving there. And I would point you to that for the specifics of that. And beyond that I don’t have anything for you.

QUESTION: Okay. It is precisely that, because the U.S. is leaving airplanes and some 2,400 Marines either off-coast or on the ground in Jordan. Will – is that the kind of thing that – or the kind of type of equipment and so on that the Secretary might be talking about in terms of destroying Syrian air defenses?

MS. PSAKI: I appreciate your effort here, but I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Jen, about Asia.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the consultations and the trilateral meetings among the U.S., South Korea, and Japan?

MS. PSAKI: With Glyn Davies?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Sure.

QUESTION: You do?

MS. PSAKI: I have a little update for you, Matt.

QUESTION: A little, right?

MS. PSAKI: Keep your expectations low, my friend.

QUESTION: Don’t worry. They’re really low.

MS. PSAKI: All right.

QUESTION: They talked about issues of mutual concern, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would like to answer the matching young lady’s question here. So Special Representative for North Korea Policy Glyn Davies had productive and in-depth bilateral meetings on North Korea with Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs Sugiyama and Republic of Korea Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Cho Tae-yong.

Special Representative Davies and his South Korean and Japanese counterparts agree to continue our very close coordination on North Korea and to deepen consultations with China and Russia. These discussions reflect the close cooperation among the United States, South Korea, and Japan and reflect our common interest in ensuring regional peace and stability. And as you know, I’m sure there’s also a trilateral meeting today. And as that concludes, we’ll see if we have something more to say about that.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Today.

QUESTION: Any conditions --

QUESTION: No. When do you expect it to be concluded?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure the exact time of day.

QUESTION: What are the changes in terms of the approach to North Korea? Are there any changes?

MS. PSAKI: There’s nothing to announce. Our position has been very consistent in that – and the purpose of these meetings was to closely coordinate on the continued pressure that we’re pushing on North Korea. And as you know, the Secretary has spoken about this a number of times. It’s important for regional allies and regional stakeholders to work with us on that, as they have been.

QUESTION: Have you reached any conclusions?

QUESTION: Right. Your position hasn’t changed. You mean the North Koreans still have to do something --

MS. PSAKI: Right.

QUESTION: They have to meet these conditions?

MS. PSAKI: Yep.

QUESTION: So for talks with the North Koreans, they actually have to do something, but for talks with the Taliban, they don’t have to do anything? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, they did put out a statement, as we mentioned. This is moving towards a political process --

QUESTION: The North Koreans have exploded nuclear weapons.

MS. PSAKI: -- that we feel will move towards a positive end in Afghanistan. Our position on North Korea has been very clear. I was answering her question on whether there was a change in policy.

QUESTION: Jen --

QUESTION: But it just strikes me as odd that a group that doesn’t even exist as a government or – it gets a freer pass to have talks with the U.S. than a government that you – is a member of the United Nations. I don’t really understand that, but I’ll let it go for the moment.

QUESTION: Jen, North Korea --

QUESTION: Your previous --

QUESTION: -- and North Korean Government announced today that North Korea want the Six-Party Talks and were discussing about the denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and included under U.S. or issue of the United States protect nuclear umbrella to South Korea. In the meantime, North Korea will not give up their nuclear programs. It seems too like North Korea want to talk for the talks. What is your comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure if this was a new call today or if this was from earlier this week, which I spoke to at the time and just conveyed that we’ve long expressed our openness in coordination with our key partners, Six-Party Talks partners. However, there are steps that North Korea needs to take, including credible denuclearization, abiding by their international obligations and by the 2005 joint statement. And certainly we’re not for talks for talks.

QUESTION: Well, they have a new subject about U.S. protect nuclear umbrella to South Korea, that they are having new issue (inaudible). What did you think of --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I’ve seen that specifically, but again, our position hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: In your previous briefing you mentioned it’s important for the D.P.R.K. to move towards concrete denuclearization. So I wonder what should the D.P.R.K. do to show its willingness to denuclearize to have those meeting with the U.S.?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I just stated what they need to do, which is abide by their international obligations, including the 2005 joint statement of the Six-Party Talks and credible steps to denuclearize. And beyond that, that’s what they need to take --

QUESTION: Credible steps?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m happy to send you the joint statement, and you can take a look at that for yourself.

Jill.

QUESTION: On the President’s announcement today on nuclear cuts, has there been any reaction – I have not seen any yet – but any reaction? And also since the State Department, Rose Gottemoeller’s office, usually does this, is there any plan for a trip to Moscow, begin discussions? Or are we still in the proposal stage?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you mentioned, obviously this was the President proposing this today. Just I think many of you saw this, but he announced a proposal for a one-third – pursuing a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear weapons from the level established in the New START Treaty. This is something that we’ve been in close contact with the Russians, with a number of our allies around the world on. And obviously talking with them, working together, is a part of the process. But I don’t have any updates on a trip or anything like that at this point in time.

QUESTION: How long will it take at this meeting, three party talks meeting today?

MS. PSAKI: How long was the – well, it’s still ongoing today, so I don’t have any update on how long it has taken or will take.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: I have one.

QUESTION: I just have one more.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Today marks the first year anniversary of Julian Assange’s living inside the Ecuador Embassy in London. Ecuadorian authorities have also said that they’re not going to let him go unless there’s any guarantee of safe passage to Ecuador. Could I have a comment on that, please?

MS. PSAKI: I have to just look into that more closely, Jo, and I’m happy to, and get you any comment that we have.

QUESTION: Okay. That would be great.

QUESTION: I have --

QUESTION: When you do, could you actually find out if anyone in the U.S. Government cares where Julian Assange actually is?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure that’s part of the taken question process, but I’m happy to raise it.

QUESTION: Well, no, because I reckon that if you don’t get an answer, it will be because they say they don’t care.

I’ve got two very brief ones.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Latin America, two on Venezuela and one on Honduras.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: On Venezuela, have we gotten anywhere since the meeting in Guatemala with – in terms of the --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re still working to schedule the next meeting.

QUESTION: Okay. Nothing yet?

MS. PSAKI: As you know, Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson will be a lead on that. But I don’t have an update on the exact timing yet.

QUESTION: All right. And then, apparently, there’s a Venezuelan opposition leader in town right now. He’s one of Capriles’ top deputies. He’s got meetings on the Hill. I’m just wondering if he’s coming here at all, if you’re aware of it. And if you’re not, if you could look into it.

MS. PSAKI: We’ll – I’ll check on that for you and see – do you know what the – this individual’s name is?

QUESTION: I do, but I don’t have it with me here.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: And then on Honduras, you’ve seen this letter that the senators wrote, 21 senators wrote to the Secretary yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: We have.

QUESTION: Do you have any response, reaction to it? Are these good ideas that they’ve proposed? Are you willing to accept them, or do you think that they’re unnecessary?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have, of course, received the letter and we share the concerns regarding human rights conditions in Honduras expressed by members of Congress. Encouraging respect for human rights and rule of law is one of our highest priorities, as you all know. We remain concerned about reports of abuses by members of Honduran police and we urge the Government of Honduras to investigate thoroughly all credible allegations. I believe part of this was referring to funding, if I’m correct – the letter – and the United States – part of this is an effort to improve and strengthen what is happening there on the ground, which is what the funding goes to. And we continue to support the government’s efforts to reform and professionalize the Honduran National Police, which is an effort to kind of address a number of the concerns they raised that we agree with.

QUESTION: Okay. And then, sorry, I had one more on this. It’ll probably be extremely brief, but were you able to get any more information about the – on the questions that were asked yesterday about this deposition and the DS – the Diplomatic Security officials, or is that just all buttoned down because of being an ongoing --

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, it’s an ongoing case, so I just wouldn’t have any specific comment on it, given it’s an ongoing case that the deposition was a part of.

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Now Pakistan has, of course, a democratically elected prime minister, Mr. Nawaz Sharif. Recently he had someone – some U.S. diplomats about protesting the drone attacks. What is the future of these drone attacks? Because since he’s facing all these problems as his government go ahead with a more political and democratic process.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve had an ongoing dialogue about this with the Prime Minister, as you know, and I’m surprised you didn’t ask me about visiting Pakistan. That’s what I thought your question was going to be, so let me --

QUESTION: I was going to follow, thank you.

MS. PSAKI: I was reading your mind. Secretary Kerry – for everybody – plans to travel to Pakistan as soon as his schedule permits. As he has consistently stated, he is eager to meet with the new civilian government which just took office there. Given the range of bilateral issues of mutual importance to both us and Pakistan, including, of course, counterterrorism and coordination on that, it is very important to the Secretary that he have sufficient time in Pakistan when he travels there. And as all of you know, we combined two trips here, so we wanted to make some decisions that enabled him, at his request, to be able to spend a good amount of time on the ground.

QUESTION: Can I just follow about this?

QUESTION: So does that mean that the reason that he’s not going on this trip is because he wasn’t going to be able to spend as much time as he wanted to?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: But he – all right. So the Pakistanis weren’t making it up last week when they announced that he was coming? He had planned to go, but the way his schedule ended up he wouldn’t have been able to spend as much time as he wanted to --

MS. PSAKI: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- if he had gone on this trip?

MS. PSAKI: That’s right.

QUESTION: And he explained this in his phone call with Prime Minister Sharif the other day?

MS. PSAKI: It’s likely they did discuss this. I am not totally positive, but it’s likely they did discuss it, and we’re working out a time to go visit.

QUESTION: So there’s no snub to Pakistan?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely not. The Secretary is ready to go, he wants to go; we’re working on scheduling and time to go.

QUESTION: Can you confirm for us that --

QUESTION: As far as this --

QUESTION: -- during his visit to India, Secretary Kerry would be talking about the regional issues, including Pakistan-India relations?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe in our trip announcement we talked about how he’ll be giving a speech broadly on regional issues. That’s still being written. And as you know, there are a range of issues that are of great importance to the Government of India, to the people of India, including energy and innovation, and I’m certain that will be a part of what he discusses during his time there.

QUESTION: And just a couple of things. Since the inception of the new Pakistani Government, the Prime Minister has expressed his willingness to improve relations with India. But in between that time and now, two events have taken place. One was the Indian jets violated the Pakistani airspace which were turned back by the Pakistani jets, and then today there has been fighting going across the line of control in Kashmir and one Pakistani – one Kashmiri girl, a 10-year-old, she has been killed. Where do you stand on encouraging India and Pakistan to resolve their disputes, especially Kashmir?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as always, we encourage cooperation and consultation and discussion between the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan. Our position has not changed on Kashmir, as you know – well, I’ll just tell you it hasn’t changed. And those discussions are up to the governments of India and Pakistan.

QUESTION: As far as this trip is concerned, Madam, Bangladesh – they need U.S. help. So how Secretary is going to think about this ongoing problem in Bangladesh as far as economically and those trade and U.S. companies’ problems?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is an issue we’ve talked about in the briefing room before, but I can assure you that our team has been very focused on. As you know, Under Secretary Sherman was just there a couple of weeks ago. Assistant Secretary Bob Blake and others remain in close contact with the government, and we’re very focused on working with them on issues ranging from the economy to working conditions and how we can improve those.

QUESTION: Finally, could I --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Oh, I did? Uh-oh. Under Secretary Wendy Sherman. Thank you, Matt.

QUESTION: Could I have quick question on this TIP which President – I mean Secretary is going to have announcement on this trafficking in persons? Do you --

MS. PSAKI: I believe it’s not public yet, so we can talk about it --

QUESTION: General question.

MS. PSAKI: -- as long as you would like tomorrow.

QUESTION: General question.

MS. PSAKI: Do we have one more? Go ahead.

QUESTION: How about general question on this TIP? Do you agree that --

MS. PSAKI: Hold it for tomorrow. That means you’ll have to come back tomorrow, Goyal.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: It had been reported that the South Korean and Japanese foreign ministers were going to hold a bilateral meeting while in Brunei for the ASEAN – at the ASEAN Forum. Does the U.S. have a position on this? Do you welcome this development?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any updates on even our bilateral schedule, so I certainly couldn’t independently confirm that for you. As is evidenced by our own meetings today and the trilateral meeting we’re having today, of course we support close cooperation.

Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:24 p.m.)

DPB # 102

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• SYRIA
  • Decisions Made, Moving Forward / Upcoming Conference / Meetings with Russian Counterparts / G8 / Ambassador Ford / Secretary Kerry / Syria's Political Transition
  • A Few Issues Outlined in Communique / Issue of Assad / Conference Preparation Ongoing / Issue of Chemical Weapons Investigation / Improving Ground Situation for the Opposition
• JORDAN
  • Query on Syrian Airspace
• SYRIA
  • U.S. Aid Update / Agreement in Communiqué to Pursue a Transitional Governing Body in Syria / U.S. Continues to Consider All Options
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Taliban / U.S. Support / Afghan-led, Afghan-owned Peace and Reconciliation Process / Release of Taliban Statement / Qatari Statement / al-Qaida / Afghan Constitution / End Goal of the Process / Ambassador James Dobbins Travel
  • Taliban Talks / Taliban Detainees / Sergeant Bergdahl / Negotiations
• PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN
  • Secretary Kerry's Phone Call with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif / Taliban Talks / Secretary Kerry's Involvement
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Middle East Peace Process / Secretary Kerry Deeply Engaged with Both Sides
• DEPARTMENT
  • Passenger Disturbance on International Flight / Former Employee for Department of State
• LEBANON
  • U.S. Concerned About Overflow of Violence into Lebanon
• DEPARTMENT
  • Ongoing DS (Diplomatic Security) Case / Department Aware of Investigations
• IRAN
  • Iranian Election is a Hopeful Sign / U.S. Congratulates the Iranian People
• DEPARTMENT
  • DS Case / DS Acting Director Starr / OIG Office Looking into Process / Issue Discrimination on Sexual Orientation
• RUSSIA
  • Query on the Duma's Adoption Ban / U.S. Reaction
• BRAZIL
  • U.S. Monitoring Events in Brazil

12:18 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Well, I have nothing at the top; my boss took care of that for me. So Nicolas, what is on your mind?

QUESTION: Could we start with Syria?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly can.

QUESTION: I’m sure we have listened very carefully yesterday to the President interview on PBS.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that he was quite skeptical on any U.S. major military action in Syria. So could you tell us five days after the White House announcement what you are going to do in Syria in terms of military support to the opposition?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have any new announcements to make, and I certainly don’t want to parse the President’s words, but what I heard him say was that we’ve made some decisions – he has made some decisions after consulting with his national security team on the best choices moving forward. Those were announced last week. And moving forward, he is keeping all options on the table. These decisions aren’t easy.

I heard him say – or I read in the transcript that he said that there wasn’t a silver bullet, and I think that’s a really important point to make here. If the decisions were easy, we would have already made them. He would have already made them. But he is carefully weighing what is in the interests of the future of Syria, what is in the interests of the future of the U.S. role there, and that’s what he’s focused on now and is clearly consulting with his G-8 partners on the ground.

Jill.

QUESTION: A new subject?

MS. PSAKI: Well, do we – let’s finish Syria first.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Any other on Syria? Go.

QUESTION: Yeah, the international conference, if there’s any readout about it. Any expectation that it will be held soon in a couple weeks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe I said last week that we’re targeting July. But again, this is a case where we are – we have a series of meetings. There was one just a few weeks ago. Just next week, Under Secretary Sherman and Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones will meet with counterparts from Russia and from the UN to discuss everything from the agenda to the issues that still need to be discussed, invites, et cetera. So that will be happening just next week.

And we’re looking for an opportunity to do this at the right time when we’re not having a conference just to have a conference. We’re having it to bring both sides together and provide an opportunity for both sides to talk.

And I will also note that coming out of the G-8, this is something that the Russians have been clear that they also support. There are areas where we disagree, as we all know, on Syria and other issues, but we do agree that a political transition, the process of pursuing that, is the proper path moving forward in Syria.

QUESTION: Has Ambassador Ford participated in the meetings on Syria or in the G-8 meetings?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe he’s at the G-8 meetings. He is, of course, in close contact with his counterparts on the ground, as he always is as our Ambassador to Syria.

QUESTION: Where is he?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know where he is at this particular moment, but he has a great deal of travel, he is often underway in all parts of the world, and is very engaged in close contact with his counterparts.

QUESTION: How come Secretary Kerry didn’t go to the G-8, the meetings on Syria at the G-8 since they were so important?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know the White House has done an extensive preview and readout of this, and there are a number of topics they have previewed and read out that were to come up at the G-8. Secretaries sometimes go and sometimes they don’t, and as you know, the Secretary is planning his own big trip. That’s coming up soon. So – but I can assure you he’s in close contact with the President and the national security team about all the discussions that were happening – are happening at the G-8. And as you know, because I talked about it a little bit on Monday, he’s also been in close touch with his counterparts around the world about Syria and our path moving forward.

QUESTION: Now, on the statement --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) his own big trip that’s coming up soon, can you give us any kind of inkling about what exactly that is going to entail?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, we are still finalizing the details. I know I’ve said that a few times. But I promise as soon as they’re finalized, we will send them out broadly.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that that might – is there a chance that that could happen today?

MS. PSAKI: I’m very hopeful of that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Now which details were that? Which details --

MS. PSAKI: He’s talking about the Secretary’s next travel plans.

QUESTION: Okay. Now on the Syria issue, on the statement out of the G-8, could you – you know the statement came out, correct?

MS. PSAKI: The communique?

QUESTION: The communique.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. Now the communique does not mention the need for the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, but it does mention that al-Qaida types should be forced out of Syria or should leave Syria, correct? Could you comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t had an opportunity to review the entire communique. It’s lengthy.

QUESTION: Right, right.

MS. PSAKI: But I can give you some highlights of it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: It endorses a Geneva process --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- including the step of pursuing agreement on a transitional governing body in Syria with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent. It calls on all parties to the conflict to allow access to the UN investigation team so that it can investigate reports of use of chemical weapons, and it confirms 1.5 billion in additional contributions to meet the humanitarian needs in Syria and neighboring countries, building on the U.S. announcement just yesterday of over 300 million in additional commitments.

Our position is the same. It has not changed. There’s no role for Bashar al-Assad in Syria. However, there is a future for those in the regime who are willing to accept the end of Assad’s reign and are willing to work for a better future for Syria. That’s been consistently our position publicly, every private conversation as well.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, the President was also very clear yesterday during his conversation with Charlie Rose on this issue, but why the communique does not include that? If you – it is something that you should agree with with the Russians – obviously, you are the two major players in this thing – why wouldn’t the communique include removing Assad from power?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there is broad agreement about a number of issues I just outlined in the communique. That may not be an issue we agree with our Russian counterparts on. There are a number of Western countries that do agree on that point.

But there is agreement with the Russians and with a number of our partners around the world that there needs to be a path to a political transition, that the status quo is unacceptable, and that what we need to be focused on is stability for the country of Syria and for the Syrian people.

QUESTION: Now, on the issue of the conference, are we likely to – let’s say on the meeting on the 25^th of June, which is next Monday, are we likely to know after that meeting time and place and who’s invited? I mean, at least we know Geneva.

MS. PSAKI: We’ll see. I’m sure we’ll read out for you what is decided in that meeting, but I don’t want to prejudge the discussions. But certainly, all of those items will be on the agenda.

QUESTION: I guess my question is that there were enough hurdles overcome where this – actually, this meeting can produce a timetable, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, this is part of the ongoing preparation for a conference. A political transition is the preferred outcome. This is a part of that process, and I don’t want to prejudge what will be decided out of this upcoming meeting.

QUESTION: I’m just curious about the line about the chemical weapons. Does the Administration think there’s still a need for a UN investigation into this, or – and if it does, why? You’ve already satisfied yourself that they have used them. Is this simply for the – are you still hoping to get the Russians on – angry enough at Assad that they’ll be more specific about what – that he needs to go?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’re absolutely still focused on that, of course. And as I mentioned, we have briefed the Russians. It’s been discussed in a number of cases. But also, if the UN team is able to get in and do their own investigation, that’s further validity for the findings of the U.S. and others who have come out and stated their own findings.

QUESTION: Jen, is it possible that the arming of the rebels by the U.S. and others will be withheld until some clarity is on this political process, since that’s the favored one?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I wouldn’t tie the two together. I believe the President, or the President and his team, as well as the Secretary, have all said that these decisions are going to be made about what is best for the Syrian people and the future of Syria, and taking into account our own national interest here for the U.S. But improving the ground situation for the opposition is – the purpose of that is all a part of getting to a point where we’re moving to a political transition given that it’s everybody’s bottom-line goal here.

QUESTION: Jen, are you aware that five American fighter jets penetrated Syrian airspace – or this morning, based in Jordan?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen that report, Said. I’ll have to look into it for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Jen, can you update us on the delivery of aid that was pledged in April, or anything since then (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I did this a little bit yesterday, but let me provide you an update. So just as a repeat, 127 has been delivered; 123 is in the process of congressional notification.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: That can take some time, and components of it are being notified at different times. And then Congress typically has some time to review what has been proposed, and the specifics of the breakdown of the 123 is all being discussed as part of that process. So that is underway right now.

QUESTION: And the new aid that was announced yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have – the $300 million in humanitarian aid?

QUESTION: The 300, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: That, of course, will go through a process of working with Congress, but also determining the best way to get it on the ground. So it doesn’t usually happen overnight, but we try to do it as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Jen, if you look at that statement, though, the communiqué, it is very weak. I mean, basically there’s nothing in there. There’s nothing – there’s no mention of Assad. Why did the United States sign onto it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our position has been the same. We do feel – still think it is significant that there was agreement in the communique about pursuing a transitional governing body in Syria with full executive powers formed by mutual consent. That is the basis, and the fundamental basis, of a political transition. So we felt that was a significant agreement. There is still a disagreement, as we all know, that we have with the Russians on some issues. But having an international body like the G-8 signify that they agree on the path forward we felt was significant.

QUESTION: Jen, just to clarify, if there will be any hope about this UN investigation which will be going on on the ground, shall we assume that you will be waiting for the result of this investigation before taking any other action, like arming the rebels?

MS. PSAKI: I would not draw that conclusion. We’re continuing to consider, the President is continuing to consider all options. But of course, having the UN go and investigate and being allowed into Syria would certainly be a significant step.

QUESTION: Change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think someone else – Jill, go ahead.

QUESTION: The Taliban.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Secretary in fact just said, “Good news, very pleased with what’s taken place.” So what’s the good news? I mean, what realistically does the U.S. expect, hope from these talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just start by saying we’ve long said that this conflict will likely – excuse me – not be won on the battlefield, and that is why we support this office. But neither do we plan to let up on our fight against international terrorism in Afghanistan, or our support to Afghan forces who will very soon be in the lead for operations throughout the country. Our military and diplomatic efforts continue to be mutually reinforcing. Just wanted to say that at the topic.

But this is something that – as President Obama reaffirmed with President Karzai in Januaray, an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and the region. And as you know, the Secretary, on his second trip as Secretary of State, also went to Afghanistan and also reaffirmed the belief that this was an important step. These statements represent an important first step toward reconciliation, the outcome of which must be that the Taliban and other insurgent groups break ties with al-Qaida and violence and accept Afghanistan’s constitution, including its protections for women and minorities.

But it’s important because it is a first step that hasn’t happened until today. And so, of course, that’s why it’s a significant announcement. Let me just review – because I know people are following this closely, but – what has happened today. So today the Taliban has released a statement that said two things: that they oppose the use of Afghan soil to threaten other countries, and they support an Afghan peace process. The U.S., of course, acknowledges, as is evidenced by our briefings and the Secretary’s comments, these statements for which we have long called and which fulfill the requirements for the Taliban to open an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations with the Afghan Government.

The Qataris have also issued a statement announcing the opening of an office with the name Political Office of the Afghan Taliban. The statement also laid out the narrow purpose of this office. And finally, we would note that Qatar recognizes the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the legitimate Government of Afghanistan, and they enjoy full diplomatic relations.

QUESTION: What does it mean, a “narrow purpose of this office”?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it’s going to what I was stating, that this is a part of a step, this is an important first step. But again, there are – we’ve always said Afghan-led, Afghans talking to Afghans is an important part of our transition. But it doesn’t – it’s not the end of our transition, so this is starting the process.

QUESTION: And when you look at their statement, there is that line, “will not allow anyone to use the Afghan land to threaten anyone.” So that’s the line that you’re talking about.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: That’s not talking directly about the – about al-Qaida, but ultimately the U.S. wants them to very directly cut their links publicly with al-Qaida, correct?

MS. PSAKI: That is the end goal, yes.

QUESTION: So this is enough?

MS. PSAKI: This is an important statement. This allows us to get the process started. And as you know, there are some end goals in this process.

QUESTION: So just to be clear on Jill’s point, the Taliban are not required to disown, disavow, or disassociate themselves publicly with al-Qaida to have --

MS. PSAKI: That is a part of the end goal of the process.

QUESTION: Right. But to begin the process, to talk with them, they don’t have to do that? This is not a precondition for them participating?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Where in their statement does it talk about respecting the rights of women in the Afghan constitution?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that is respecting the constitution, which is an end goal of the process, is – has that included in it.

QUESTION: So that’s up for negotiation?

MS. PSAKI: No, it certainly is not. That’s something that we feel is vital.

QUESTION: Well, then, if that – but if it’s not – I don’t get it. If they haven’t agreed to respect the constitution, then it must mean that it’s up for negotiation.

MS. PSAKI: It’s not up for negotiation. That is the end goal of the process. This is just a beginning. The opening of the office is just a beginning of the process.

QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, they have to come to that conclusion.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Well, then I don’t get why you’re so happy because they – I mean, they’re --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – don’t indicate my --

QUESTION: Well, the Secretary said – I mean, “It’s good news, we’re very pleased at what’s taken place,” and I’m not sure I get – if they haven’t agreed to do the things that you want them to do, except for these – this one statement with the two parts of it – and – but that those are still the end goal of the – I’m not – it must mean that these are things that are up for negotiation. Otherwise --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe – they’re not up for negotiation. Those are – those were defined as the end goal of the process.

QUESTION: All right. So you’re hoping that the Afghans will convince the Taliban, their brethren, to respect the constitution and the rights of minorities and women in their conversations, which means that that is up for negotiation?

MS. PSAKI: It’s not up for negotiation. That is the end goal of the process of reconciliation. This is a first step in the process. I’m not overestimating or overstating what it means, but certainly, a first step is one farther step than we had just a few days ago.

QUESTION: But do they say in the statement that they renounce terrorism?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have the statement in front of me. We’re happy to get that around to everybody. But they – as Jill stated, the statement did state that they oppose the use of Afghan soil to threaten other countries, and they support an Afghan-led peace process.

QUESTION: And then there was – there’s some – I think some official said on background that there would be a meeting – a U.S.-Taliban meeting in the coming days.

MS. PSAKI: Let me give you --

QUESTION: Do you have any --

MS. PSAKI: It’s not yet scheduled. We’re in the process of scheduling it, but --

QUESTION: Is that – would that be Jim Dobbins?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. Let me give you an update on his travel schedule as well to help you along those lines.

Ambassador James Dobbins, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be departing today for travel to Ankara, Turkey; to Doha, Qatar, and with onward travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan currently planned. The trip is primarily focused on reconciliation efforts. He will have meetings with a number of officials at each stop, and we’ll be reading those out, of course, after they conclude.

QUESTION: Do you know who from the Taliban is (1) going to be staffing this office, and (2) who he – Mr. Dobbins, Ambassador Dobbins – will see?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the meetings are still being scheduled, so I don’t have any update on who he’ll meet with and I don’t have the names yet of who will be participating at it.

QUESTION: All right. And presumably, just – and I just want to make sure of this, that this meeting, when – it will be in Doha, right? I mean, that’s why he’s going to Doha? Or will it be someplace else?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s where the office is, but again, he’ll have meetings throughout his travel, and he has onward travel planned to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

QUESTION: No, no, but – so he might meet with the Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any --

QUESTION: -- or Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: -- specifics on his planned meetings. I just didn’t want to understate who he’ll be meeting with and where.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

MS. PSAKI: Jill.

QUESTION: And again, these are the first formal talks, right?

MS. PSAKI: With the --

QUESTION: With the Taliban.

MS. PSAKI: Afghan-Afghan, yes.

QUESTION: Right. Between the United States formally --

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, there was a time ago where we did talk with them.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: But this is, of course, a different step forward.

QUESTION: Were those considered formal talks, though, before? I mean, how historic is this? Is this the first formal talks for this --

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to look back and see how we defined them at the time, but this is certainly part of a process which is being led by Afghans speaking to Afghans as part of their efforts to move forward on a reconciliation process. The U.S., of course, has a stake here, and we believe it is important for the Taliban to begin, of course, meaningful discussions as soon as possible, both with the Afghans and with us. And the main dialogue we want to support is among Afghans, but there are some issues we, the U.S., want to discuss with the Taliban directly, most notably our concerns about Taliban connections to international terrorism.

And we are in Afghanistan, as you all know, because the attack against the United States on 9/11 was planned there by al-Qaida under shelter offered by the Taliban. An important focus for our meetings moving forward with the Taliban will be the need for them to completely and verifiably break with terrorism. So that is, of course, a priority of the U.S. as we look to proceed with our negotiations.

QUESTION: Jen?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: When were with Secretary Kerry in Kabul back in March, he stood next to President Karzai, and President Karzai said that they had already started talking informally with the Taliban members. He laid out some of the end goals that you’ve enumerated here. Again, what has changed in the diplomacy between March and now in this press release?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several components. Obviously, this is an Afghan-led process, so I would point you to them on why these talks and why – are proceeding now, or the Taliban of course --

QUESTION: Well, you have the confidence now to do something we weren’t confident enough to do in March, so is there something on the way?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, this is something that the President, President Obama, that Secretary Kerry have all said is an important step forward. We wanted to have the appropriate conditions to do just that. Again, there are several players in this, most importantly the Afghans themselves. And so they have decided to move forward with this. Obviously, the U.S. has a stake and has a role here, but again, it’s led by the Afghans.

QUESTION: But there wasn’t a specific gesture of goodwill or anything other than this Taliban announcement?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything further to read out for you on that point.

QUESTION: Jen, it is Afghan-led, but then it is correct that the United States will be the first people who will meet --

MS. PSAKI: Correct, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But why is that? Why wouldn’t the first meeting be between the Afghans?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mentioned a bit of the U.S. stake here and the issues we feel are vitally important to discuss. That will certainly be a part of that process. This is an Afghan process moving forward, and certainly will be Afghan-led and Afghan-focused moving forward. But as I mentioned, the U.S. has a stake. Obviously, the State Department, the White House, and others have been engaged in this process, the Secretary has been, and so that may be the order of meetings.

QUESTION: On the issue of Afghan-led, is that – does that mean that if Karzai, for whatever reason, decides not to go to these talks, that he can veto these talks between the United States and the Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I would speculate on that. Obviously, everybody is engaged --

QUESTION: No. I mean, explain to us what --

MS. PSAKI: -- in moving this forward, Said. That’s where our focus is. As I mentioned, Ambassador Dobbins has some travel. We’ve seen some statements across the region, and we’re hopeful that these talks will move forward.

QUESTION: Is there any specific reason that – why Qatar has been chosen as a venue for these negotiations?

QUESTION: They’re always a venue for --

MS. PSAKI: Why the office is in Doha?

QUESTION: Yeah. Because of pick of Taliban or you were involved with the decision process?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not actually certain of the history there. I’m happy to look into that for you.

QUESTION: Because there were two different states who were competing to be venue. One was Istanbul.

QUESTION: Let her guess what the other country was. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to the government of – that is funny, I don't know how to figure it out – I would point you to the Government of Qatar on this, but I’m happy to check if there’s any more – anything I can enumerate for all of you.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you, does this mean that the U.S. now regards the Taliban as a legitimate fighting group, a legitimate enemy, unlike enemy – before, it was – they were kind of – they were classified enemy combatants, or as non – they were non-state actors, obviously, but that they – but they weren’t regarded as legal enemies. Does this mean that that is now over? And then as a corollary to that, does the Administration believe that the Taliban have legitimate concerns about the way things are in Afghanistan right now, in terms of governance? Or do you think that President Karzai’s government – or regardless of who the president is – that the government that exists there right now is best for the Afghan people?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me answer the first question first, as makes sense in order. This is the beginning of the process. There are steps that need to be taken. Obviously, I’ve outlined the U.S. stake here and what needs to happen. But we’re not going to judge the outcome.

As you know, we are – still have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We still – our goal in Afghanistan continues to be to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida to ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists. We’re doing both at the same time, talking and winding down our fighting in the country.

On the second question – and just repeat your second question for me again.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious to know if the Administration thinks that the Taliban have legitimate concerns about the way that Afghanistan is being run.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I mean, the Taliban are obviously a key component here, and that’s why we believe that they should be – begin their negotiations and why this is an important step in that process.

QUESTION: Okay. But according to you, these are negotiations, but what is not negotiable in these negotiations is respect for the current constitution.

MS. PSAKI: Well, that is the end goal, the end plan, what we would like to see at the end of these negotiations. And that has been --

QUESTION: So then --

MS. PSAKI: -- that has been outlined and been clear for some time.

QUESTION: Okay. But then you don’t believe that the Taliban have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in negotiations, or you do believe that they have legitimate concerns that can be – that should be addressed in negotiations? And if they do, what are those legitimate concerns in the view of the Administration?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ll let them outline their own concerns, Matt. But I mean, moving toward a reconciliation – our end goal here --

QUESTION: I understand that. But either you think that their concerns have merit or you don’t.

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously we feel that a reconciliation process between all parties is important. I’m not going to validate one set of concerns over another. But in order to move toward a more stable Afghanistan, we feel this is an important part of the process.

QUESTION: I’m going to carry on with what Matt’s question is about – negotiating, the legality of it. I mean, in the eyes of the U.S., is Taliban a terrorist group?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure how they’re defined at this particular moment.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: But the important thing here is that we’ve long said that moving toward a reconciliation process, of which they are a key part – the President has said this, the Secretary has said this – is an important part of moving towards a more stable Afghanistan. That’s why we support these efforts. That’s why we’ve been so engaged, why the Secretary has been so engaged, at every level of the government.

QUESTION: And how will the negotiations – I mean, surely the release of Bergdahl will be part of that, as well as surely the Taliban are going to be demanding the release of the Guantanamo Bay Taliban commanders. What is the response going to be on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say the United States – and you asked me this question sort of but – has not made the decision at this point to transfer any Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, though, of course, we expect the Taliban to raise this issue. As we’ve long said, we’ll make any such decisions in consultation with Congress and according to U.S. law. And as we talked about yesterday, we, of course, very committed to closing Guantanamo.

On the question of other issues we will raise, I talked about a number of them, but absolutely we will want to talk with the Taliban about the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl. He has been gone far too long, and we continue to call for and work towards his safe and immediate release.

QUESTION: Do these talks have the backing of members of Congress, considering they want to block the transfer of those – the release of those Taliban commanders? I mean, is – would Congress not see it – I guess I could ask them, but would they not see this as negotiating with the enemy in a way?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several steps in this process we anticipate, of course. We’re at the beginning of the journey here, so to speak. And of course, consulting with Congress on every step will be a big part of this process, and we will venture to do that in the weeks ahead. And any decision and any part of the negotiation we will be in consultation with them.

QUESTION: I guess I’m just not clear on this whole negotiation, but you have a set endpoint. This is not a surrender, clearly. You don’t believe that there’s a – clearly a military victory here, so it’s not like Germany or Japan after the Second World War. So there is, in fact, a negotiation that has to go on.

But if you’ve already decided on what the end goal, the terms – obviously the end – the overreaching end goal is to have Afghanistan at peace and not a threat to anybody around it. But you – up and to that point there has to be negotiation to make it worthwhile for the Taliban. And if you don’t – if you say that – if you’ve already set out what the end goal is in terms of them having to respect the existing constitution exactly the way it’s written with the protections for minorities and women, then I don’t get how it’s a negotiation. Either you think that these are points that can be negotiated, that the Taliban have legitimate concerns that have merit and can be addressed in a negotiation, or you don’t.

MS. PSAKI: Well, our outcome and what we would like to see here, as you mentioned, has not been secret. We’ve laid this out very clearly, publicly and privately.

QUESTION: Well, I’m not saying that it is secret. I just don’t understand what they’re negotiating.

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’re negotiating how to reconcile their efforts on both sides.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the Taliban come in and the Afghans say you have to respect the constitution and every single thing that it means, and the Taliban say well, we don’t like this part or we don’t like this part. And that – but you’re saying that can’t be negotiated. So I --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, clearly there are stakes from both sides that are prompting them to move back to the process here. I’m sure they will all have lots to say about that.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: But we feel it’s an important step forward.

QUESTION: Can I just go back to who exactly is going to be negotiating? Is it Ambassador Dobbins?

MS. PSAKI: He will be a part of that process, of course, as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He, of course, has a team, but that is the purpose of his travel, is to focus on reconciliation efforts.

QUESTION: Sorry. He’s going to be part of the Afghan-to-Afghan talks?

MS. PSAKI: No, no. He is a part of the U.S. having meetings with the Taliban, being a part of this process, of which we obviously have a stake.

QUESTION: Right. I understand.

MS. PSAKI: He is the primary person leading that effort.

QUESTION: But do you have anything to negotiate with the Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: No. That would be up to the Afghans to – if they wanted the U.S. to have a role in that. But it is Afghans talking to Afghans. As I said, the U.S. has our own stakes and our own issues that we want to discuss here moving forward.

QUESTION: And that would be mainly the release of Bergdahl and --

MS. PSAKI: Certainly he would be a part of that, as well as some of the issues I outlined earlier about the need for them to completely and verifiably break with terrorism.

QUESTION: But those issues are negotiable?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we’re going to sit down with the Taliban and discuss them. That’s part of what the – what Ambassador Dobbins will be doing.

QUESTION: But I don’t understand – okay, I don’t understand how you negotiate that. If you tell them they have to renounce terrorism, what’s the negotiation there?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Matt --

QUESTION: There’s not any – there’s no room for – you have to release our guy and you have to renounce terrorism, and that’s it. That doesn’t seem to me – there’s no negotiation. That’s ultimatum.

MS. PSAKI: All sides are coming to this with their own stakes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I’m sure they will have plenty to say. Those are what the U.S. is hoping to accomplish through the process.

QUESTION: Okay. And just to make it clear, Dobbins is not going to be in the Afghan-to-Afghan talks? Or is he?

MS. PSAKI: No. It would be up to the Afghans if they --

QUESTION: If they want him there.

MS. PSAKI: -- want us to participate. But he’s having meetings primarily focused on the reconciliation efforts.

QUESTION: Gotcha. And at part of his trip right now, does that currently entail attending or observing an Afghan-Taliban --

MS. PSAKI: This is so new, the meetings are still being scheduled. But I will – as we have updates, we’re happy to provide them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah, Jen, some of the wires are already reporting it’s happening on Thursday, that meeting. Can you tell us – if you can’t confirm that date, maybe you can – can you tell us at least what the access will be?

MS. PSAKI: The media access? I’d have --

QUESTION: Yeah. Will there be debriefs? Will there be any information shared from them?

MS. PSAKI: We will be reading out meetings as they complete. And I actually didn’t have – the meetings were still being scheduled as I came down here, so maybe they happened rapidly. But I’m happy to check if Thursday is accurate, and we can confirm that for all of you, if so, following the briefing.

QUESTION: Can we change topic?

QUESTION: Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: When Secretary spoke with the Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, was this an issue of discussion? Did he discuss with him this Taliban statement?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. That wasn’t the focus of the call. It was the issues that I outlined in terms of Pakistan participation, which I’m betting is where you’re getting at here. This is really a question, of course, for the Afghan Government. We’ve long said that we appreciate Pakistan’s public statements in support of Afghan-led reconciliation. We’ll continue to closely coordinate with Pakistan in support of these efforts.

QUESTION: And on – since the Taliban will be having talks with both the U.S. and Afghan Government, would U.S. be open to the idea of Taliban having talks with other neighboring countries like India or Iran? Because India had never had any talks or relations with the Taliban. Iran did had some.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think we’re going to get ahead of the announcement today. And as – if there are updates to provide, we’re happy to provide them.

QUESTION: And several Taliban leaders are on a most-wanted list. Is the U.S. moving ahead in delisting them? That has been one of the conditions for the Taliban.

MS. PSAKI: Again, this is just the first step in the process. There is a journey to go here. So it’s significant because we are taking a step in the process, but there need to be negotiations, there need to be discussions. The U.S. will have some, Afghans will have some, but I’m not going to get ahead of what the end results will be.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate Secretary Kerry taking a direct role at any point in this process, or will it mostly be led on the ground by Ambassador Dobbins?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Secretary Kerry is deeply – has been deeply engaged in this effort and has – cares deeply about the outcome. In terms of what his involvement will be moving forward beyond this next trip, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are in the process.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Yesterday there were statements made by – or the day before yesterday – the Minister of Housing, Naftali Bennet, saying that there is no chance whatsoever for a Palestinian state. And then the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, came out and said this is actually official Israeli declaration of the death of the two-state solution. Could you comment on both comments?

MS. PSAKI: I’ll have to have you repeat the second one. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The second one – the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said that statement was an official Israeli Government statement, and it announces the death of the peace process and the two-state solution.

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say on the first statement that we’ve always known that people would have opposing points of views, whether they’re in the government or outside the government. That is not a surprise. The Secretary himself has spoken of that. That doesn’t represent the belief and the positions of the majority of the Israeli people, who of course support moving towards a peace process. And in terms of both sides talking back and forth, there are discussions that are happening. The Secretary has been deeply engaged with both sides. As you know, he speaks with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and Minister Livni on a regular basis. Those have been private for a reason, but I would caution you against reading into public comments back and forth that don’t reflect what’s happening behind the scenes.

QUESTION: So, are there any plans for the Secretary to travel to the region?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that yet; I hope to have an update. As you know, he is hoping to and planning to return to the region, where he hopes to hold a series of productive meetings with Israeli, Palestinians, and Jordanian leaders. But these – the specifics of that I hope to have soon for you, believe me.

QUESTION: Jen. Sorry. So you don’t believe that the comments that the Housing Minister made to reflect the opinion of the – I think you said the majority of the Israeli people?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Where exactly did you get your information about what the majority of the Israeli people want? This is a – I mean, they may want peace, but the majority of the Israeli are at least enough to elect a government, to twice put in place a Prime Minister who has been one of the most hostile to a peace process in many, many years. So --

MS. PSAKI: What I was referring to, Matt, was the fact that most people would like peace in Israel. And that is simply what I was stating. And so that one official’s comments don’t reflect the will of all people in the country.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t think that what – the official didn’t say that they didn’t want peace. He just said that there shouldn’t be a Palestinian state, or the Palestinian state was impossible. I’m – you think – is it your – is it the Administration’s opinion the majority of the Israeli people want to see a Palestinian state?

MS. PSAKI: I think the people know what needs to happen in order for there to be a peaceful outcome here. I wasn’t intending to get into every aspect of the negotiation, just to convey that the majority of the Israeli people do want peace.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Still on Middle East peace?

QUESTION: No, no, another subject.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you – what can you tell us about this unruly passenger on that international flight (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I can confirm for you that he is a former employee for the Department of State, and he ended his time at the Department of State in 2006.

QUESTION: Is there any further detail about him, that he was acting very strangely?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. And it’s unlikely that would be any update, coming, of course, from the State Department, since he is no longer an employee.

QUESTION: And I’m sorry, what did he do? What was his job?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any details on that specifically. He was an employee of the Department of State up until 2006.

QUESTION: Jen. On Lebanon, there were clashes today in south Lebanon between Hezbollah and a Sunni group. Do you have anything on this?

MS. PSAKI: We, of course, have seen those reports, as we have unfortunately many times in this briefing room. We are very concerned about the overflow. I would express our concern about the overflow of violence into Lebanon, the increase in sectarian – of sectarian violence around this conflict, and this is certainly an example of that.

QUESTION: As you know, a long-serving DS agent has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton in her official capacity as the Secretary of State. And discovery evidence in that case that was obtained by Fox News suggests that two high-ranking DS officials gave sworn testimony that was evasive, at best, or maybe even knowingly false, at worst. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me give everybody a bit more of the context here. One, this is an ongoing case, which of course we wouldn’t speak to, but you’re also referring to a few lines, as I understand it, from a multi-hour, closed-door deposition, which I have – is likely taken out of context. And of course, given its ongoing litigation, we wouldn’t speak to it further, but clearly we are aware of investigations that have gone on, that are going on. As I’ve stated many times from here, we are fully supportive of those and take every accusation seriously.

Let me just say one more thing on the larger context of the last two weeks. We deeply regret the inappropriate release of Department employee names, especially given the privacy, due process, and fundamental fairness rights and interests of all employees. Public trial by innuendo is hardly appropriate or helpful to ensuring a fair and partial adjudication, and we hope that those reacting to sensationalized reporting, many of whom should know well the rights afforded to those accused of mixed conduct from personal and professional interactions with law enforcement, will not trample those rights in a rush to judge.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Iran, please?

MS. PSAKI: Iran? Sure.

QUESTION: The newly elected President Rouhani spoke yesterday I think about the need to heal old and deep wounds with the United States. Do you have any comment?

MS. PSAKI: Can you – I’m sorry – can you say that one more time? I couldn’t hear you over --

QUESTION: He spoke about the need to heal the old and deep wounds with the United States. Do you have any comment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I spoke to this a bit yesterday and said that, of course, his election is a potentially hopefully sign. We congratulate the Iranian people for demonstrating the courage to make their voices heard in this election, but we’ll see what happens moving forward, and time will tell.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the previous thing – your statement on the deeply regretting the release of the names?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is there any action that you can or are taking about the fact that this – that these documents came to light or were publicized or were given out?

MS. PSAKI: I’ll have to check with our legal team on that.

QUESTION: Yeah. So it’s two parts.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: One is, is there anything you can do. And two, if there is, are you doing it?

MS. PSAKI: Okay. I’m happy to check on that for you, Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Does Secretary Kerry still have full faith and confidence in DS Director Starr and Executive Director Mahaffey?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, these individuals – I don’t – I think – but Mr. Starr has been – is Acting Director. He works closely with him, knows him well. He takes every issue and every allegation of misconduct seriously. But let me just remind you of something I said a few – I guess 10 days ago. There are thousands – I guess almost 2,000 – DS agents serving in some of the most difficult places around the world. They go through a rigorous process to get into their positions, and leadership in Diplomatic Security overseas, all of these individuals who are proudly serving around the world. If there is an allegation of misconduct, of which I’m not aware of for those two individuals, we would certainly take a look at that, as we would in any case. But again, bringing up names and litigating people’s reputations in the press is something that has been concerning to us to date.

QUESTION: Sorry. Litigating people’s reputations?

MS. PSAKI: Discussing, Matt. Litigating, I don’t mean in a legal court room. I mean, in the public forum.

QUESTION: Well, you could make the argument that if these allegations are false and were proven to be false, then it’s doing – it’s more than litigating. It’s – it may border on libel. But I – is it – can you – are we still where we were before, that some of the cases – some of the cases that were in that memo are still being investigated? Or have they all been closed?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that. But the larger point and why I can’t speak to the specific cases is that, as we mentioned, the OIG office, and as they have said, are looking broadly into the process related to these cases. We welcome that and we look forward to their report.

QUESTION: But are there any of those allegations that are in that memo that you can say were – are false?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to specific cases, given there’s an ongoing --

QUESTION: I’m not asking for a specific --

MS. PSAKI: -- investigation looking into. There are certainly a range of inaccuracies that were in that initial memo, as I’ve spoken to from here before.

QUESTION: Okay. And is there any update on when that outside investigation or --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t. I would point you to the IG’s office for that, because they are conducting their review.

Okay. Thanks. Oops, sorry, go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: I’ve got two very brief ones. One, does the Administration take any position or have any feelings about this move by the Duma to ban adoption by gay couples?

MS. PSAKI: I believe – let me see – this happened about a week ago, is that right?

QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s – I think it’s moving ahead. Did you already answer it? If you already have, then --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe I have. Let me see if I have something for you. Of course, we remain – the United States, of course, opposes any legislation that discriminates against people due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. We place great importance on the protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender persons around the world.

QUESTION: All right. So that – and that applies – that statement applies domestically, as well, right?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly, Matt, you’re familiar with what our federal situation – what our state laws are here.

QUESTION: I’m familiar with the Defense of Marriage Act, yes. So anyway.

Okay. And then the second brief one was Brazil.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment, concern about the growing protests in Brazil?

MS. PSAKI: I do, just give me one moment here. Well, we of course are monitoring the events in Brazil, as would be expected. Peaceful demonstrations, as are going on there, are part of what democracy is all about. Citizens expressing their views and engaging government leaders about the issues that matter to them is what is, of course, taking place in this case.

Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)

DPB # 101

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• DEPARTMENT
  • Cliff Sloan Named Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure
  • Transfer of Detainees / Moratorium on Yemen
  • Number of Detainees Remaining
• IRAN / SYRIA
  • Aid to Assad Regime / Foreign Fighters / Path Forward in Syria
• IRAN
  • Iranian Leadership / Election / New President / Role of Supreme Leader
  • P5+1 Proposal / Nuclear Portfolio / Sanctions
• D.P.R.K.
  • Denuclearization / Negotiations / Six-Party Talks
  • Meeting between United States, Japan, and South Korea
• CUBA
  • Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 / Direct Mail Service / Technical Discussions with U.S. Postal Service
• TURKEY
  • Protests / Calls for Calm and Restraint / Reports of Excessive Force
  • Contact with Foreign Minister Davutoglu
• SYRIA
  • Russia / G8 Discussions on Syria
  • Political Transition / Expansion of Size and Scope of Support / Chemical Weapons
  • Humanitarian Aid
  • International Humanitarian Law / Extremist Elements
• CHINA
  • Chen Guangcheng / NYU
• PAKISTAN
  • Secretary Kerry Call with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif

1:33 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. We have some great colors in the second row. I love it. (Laughter.)

Okay. Before we get started, I just have one item at the top. As many of you have seen and written about, the Secretary has appointed Cliff Sloan[1] to the position of Special Envoy for Guantanamo closure. This decision or this announcement reflects the Administration’s commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. As the President recently stated during his speech at NDU, the continued operation of Guantanamo is not efficient, effective, or in the interests of our national security. Special Envoy Sloan brings a wealth of experience as an accomplished litigator and pragmatic problem-solver, a skillset that will prove valuable as he serves as the lead negotiator for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees abroad and manages the multitude of diplomatic issues related to the President’s directives to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, implement transfer determinations, and conduct a periodic review of those detainees who are not approved for transfer.

With that, let’s get to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Well, I will defer to my colleague whose last briefing is today.

MS. PSAKI: It is. It’s Brad Klapper’s last briefing today.

QUESTION: I’ll miss you.

MS. PSAKI: We’ll miss you. (Laughter.) We’ll miss the ascot.

QUESTION: Just on Guantanamo, beyond being inefficient and ineffective, what is the current feeling about the legality of holding people years and years without bringing them to a military commission or finding a new home for them?

MS. PSAKI: Well, clearly given the President’s recent statements on how important it is to close Guantanamo, to move detainees, to take steps, this is something the Administration feels strongly about. This is one step of that process, of course. As you know, there will be other officials that Mr. Sloan will be working with across the government to accomplish this goal. But this just shows a renewed focus on this effort and renewed commitment to delivering on the President’s directive.

QUESTION: And just – I think when the first time the President said he hoped to close it was by January 23^rd, 2010, I think. Is there any timeline for when you hope to accomplish this now?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a timeline for you, but I can tell you that, clearly, when the President of the United States talks about something in his speech, when we’ve taken follow-up steps like appointing this official to work here at the State Department, this is something we are committed to and we will be driving moving forward.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: On the same issue --

QUESTION: The President listed – the President lifted the moratorium on transfers to Yemen. Can you talk about what conversations either Mr. Sloan or other people in this building have had with the Yemenis about them accepting their people?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he’s just starting, so I don’t want to get too ahead of what he can already accomplish within just a few – I guess he started today, I believe – I’ll check on that for all of you. You know that the reason that we made the decision we did on Yemen was that, of course, its circumstances had changed on the ground from when we had put the moratorium in place to begin with. But I don’t have any updates on forward-looking action. Of course, that will be a part of his interesting portfolio moving forward.

QUESTION: Could you tell us how many or who among your Western allies actually practices administrative detention endlessly?

MS. PSAKI: I will defer to you, one of the historians in the room on that.

QUESTION: Okay, I – no, I’m not. I’m just like – England, Germany, in Europe and so on. We know Israel practices that. For years and years people are under – but any of your other Western allies do that?

MS. PSAKI: Said, I can speak to what our position is and what our approach is, but I encourage you to speak to other through the course of the afternoon.

QUESTION: All right. Just a quick follow-up. If and when Guantanamo is closed down, do you believe that the practice of administrative detention will end, will cease because everything will be done on U.S. soil?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, this is obviously a key step, something the President, the Administration is committed to, the Secretary is committed to, and Mr. Sloan and the work he’ll do, we’re very hopeful about his success in the months ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Still on Guantanamo?

QUESTION: Yes. Jen, why was it necessary to appoint Mr. Sloan? I mean, wasn’t the process underway? Weren’t there attempts going full-bore to do this? Or did it get bogged down?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you – a little bit of the history here, which I know many of you are familiar with. But Dan Fried, who was overseeing this process up until about January, and he was moved over to oversee sanctions, and kind of be the coordinator on that, which is significant and a very important role, and we had high-level professional staff, of course, working on this in the interim. But given Mr. Sloan’s background as somebody who has been a successful litigator, has been a negotiator, he’s argued before the Supreme Court, he’s worked closely with Congress and a number of the key players here, we felt, the Secretary felt, and the President certainly supported our efforts to name a high-level official like this to lead the charge moving forward.

QUESTION: So on the appointment, does that mean that the State Department will be the sole entity that will see this thing through?

MS. PSAKI: No, there will also be an official at the Department of Defense --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- and that had been previously announced – not the individual, but the fact that there will be one – and of course they’ll be working closely with the President and the White House to deliver on his promise.

QUESTION: Jen, could you confirm or give us the figures of how many people are still left in Guantanamo --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- how many of them are Yemenis approved for transfer, and how many of them are detainees not approved for transfer?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I – what I can give you is that today, 166 detainees remain at Guantanamo, down from 242 when President Obama took office. As a reminder, prior to that during the Bush Administration, several hundred detainees were transferred. So obviously this is a process over the course of several years. I don’t have anything – let’s see – I don’t think I have anything else specific for you on Yemen and how many they have approved. I can check on that for you, or you may want to connect with them as well.

QUESTION: And how many of the 166 are not approved for transfer at all?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any other specific breakdowns for you. I know there have been various reports about that.

QUESTION: And are there any particular countries that you’re in touch with? I mean, many of the countries – many countries have already taken in detainees: Palau, Albania, all those big countries on the international scene. (Laughter.) Which other countries are you trying to persuade now to take in, say, maybe around a hundred of these detainees who are approved for release, other than Yemen?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to update you on. Obviously he’s just taking his role there. Our team has been working on this, of course, as you know, over the course of years, but I expect once he’s underway we’ll have more of an update for all of you.

QUESTION: And what’s the new plan for the remaining detainees who are not approved for transfer?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think that’s something that will be discussed and worked through our Administration’s process. I mentioned that the President and, of course, an official from DOD will be working with Cliff Sloan on this effort, and they will encumber to do that in the short term.

QUESTION: And do you know how many are there from Afghanistan? Besides Yemen? Do you have --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any specific breakdown of numbers for all of you, no.

QUESTION: Does Mr. Sloan have a timeline to get the job done?

MS. PSAKI: I have – I don’t have any timeline for you either.

QUESTION: Does he intend to go to Guantanamo to see the hunger strike?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think he is just starting his position, so we’ll let him get his badge and figure out where everything is before we start giving an update on all of his progress.

QUESTION: The Iranian election?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I know you issued the statement on the weekend, but since then, the new President, Mr. Rohani, said that President Assad should stay in power until 2014. Were you disappointed by his statement or does it fall into kind of expected kind of rhetoric from Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I wouldn’t say it’s a surprise. We have a number of differences with Iran and the leadership there over Syria and the path forward. We have expressed on a number of occasions our concerns about their recent aid to the regime and the influx of foreign fighters, specifically Hezbollah. So there remain a number of differences of opinion on the path forward in Syria.

QUESTION: Are you aware of anywhere where you and Iran see eye to eye on Syria?

MS. PSAKI: I am not. I should say --

QUESTION: Okay. So it’s more than just a number of differences; you basically are diametrically opposed.

MS. PSAKI: We have some – I should say, Matt, thank you for – I’ll add an adjective just for you – significant disagreements on the path forward in Syria.

QUESTION: Jen, though, on other subjects – that aside – this might be a good sign overall. Is the U.S. going to push for some type of diplomatic – or have a new diplomatic push? Do you – are you more optimistic that you can get something done?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you saw this weekend the White House Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, say that this is a potentially hopeful sign. That’s something, of course, the Secretary agrees with. However, there are a number of steps that the leadership in Iran needs to take in order to abide by their international obligations. The P5+1 is ready to meet with Iran when Iran is ready to respond substantively to the balanced proposal put forward by the P5+1 in Almaty. We haven’t seen a substantive response yet, so – but again, I’ll just – the reason there were a number of promises that were made during this election. The question is: What happens moving forward? And we will see, but as you know, the Supreme Leader holds the nuclear portfolio and the leadership – we have not had expectations leading up to this election that that would change.

QUESTION: And on your statement – you issued a statement saying that if Iran or Mr. Rohani adheres to his international obligations then they will find a willing partner with the United States and so on. What issues will you tackle first? Is it the sanctions? Is it the nuclear file? What will you tackle first?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to negotiate here, as fun as that would be. There is a team; as you know, the P5+1 have met on three occasions. There were technical talks as part of that. Where it has left is that – oh, sorry, twice. I added one by accident – twice – they’ve met with the Iranians in recent months. That’s what I was referring to, the meetings in Almaty.

Where it is is what I just stated, which is that the – Iran, the ball is in their court to respond with a substantively balanced proposal on how to move forward. These negotiations have been private. Again, they’ll – we’re waiting for that and we’ll see what they present, and if they present something.

QUESTION: I remember I asked you about the possibility for Mr. Rohani last week, before – a day or two before the elections --

MS. PSAKI: When you wanted me to endorse a candidate. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, no, I didn’t want you to endorse, but I wanted to see – to gauge your reaction if, in fact, Mr. Rohani gets elected, and your response was that actually there would be no change; they are basically all cut of the same cloth. I mean, those were not your words, but basically. So is there now, like, a backtrack and perhaps looking at it from a broader prism?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he doesn’t take office until August.

QUESTION: She’s not allowed to use the word prism. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That’s what I – I take that from a different perspective. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: He does not take office until August, so it’s too early to say what his policies will be. We look forward to him and are hopeful that he will fulfill the campaign promises he made to the Iranian people, such as expanding personal freedoms, releasing political prisoners and improving Iran’s relations with the international community. But time will tell.

QUESTION: But you do see this as really a surprise. I mean, a great number of Iranians went out to the polls and voted for him, basically in a show of defiance. Do you see it that way?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly congratulate – and I know we said this in – the Secretary said this in his statement this weekend – the Iranian people for demonstrating the courage to make their voices heard in this election. And reports from Iran indicate that the voting was calm and orderly, and the indications of fraud that marked previous Iranian presidential elections were not immediately evident. But again, time will tell, and we have a couple of months before the new President takes office. And as you know, and as I mentioned, there are a number of dynamics at play here, including the role of the Supreme Leader, and we’ll see what happens moving forward.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you -- a logistic?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We said – well, many officials said before the elections that it would be difficult to really get a process going with Iran on the nuclear issue. Now the elections have happened and we have another delay of maybe six, eight weeks, until the president – the new president takes office. Would you like to have talks immediately when he and his leadership team is installed, because this time – this is a lot of months we’re losing here in the process. How fast do you want to do this?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve been open for months, even before the election, to continuing the discussions as a part of the P5+1 process if they were to respond with a balanced proposal, substantively with a balanced proposal to the proposal that was put forward. So we’ll see if that is something that happens. But in terms of the timeline, I don’t have any – if that happens in a couple of weeks, great. If – but again, they know what they need to do, the ball’s in their court, and we’re waiting for that.

QUESTION: But if the ball’s in their court and nothing is happening, that’s essentially to their advantage, correct? They’re not stopping with their nuclear program in the meantime, so the longer they drag this interregnum out and then this period where you’re waiting for a response, they get closer and closer to their goal.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are some stakes, as we all know, for the Iranians as well, including the impact of sanctions on the economy. You’ve seen the comments that Mr. Rouhani has made about that. You’ve seen him talk about his focus on the economy. All these are tests, and we’ll see what their response is.

QUESTION: But you’re not going to be offering any amended offer to the new Iranian leadership; your old offer stands and now when he gets in, he can respond to it and hopefully in a better way; is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. Nothing new on that front that I can report.

QUESTION: So do you have, or will you have maybe in August, any parting comments for your friend President Ahmadinejad?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know. You’ll have to talk to us in August, Matt.

QUESTION: You’ll wait until August? Okay. So nothing today?

MS. PSAKI: We’ll wait till August. It’ll be something to get excited about in the hot summer month here in Washington.

QUESTION: Excellent.

QUESTION: Jen, what do you say about the reports today in The Wall Street Journal that the negotiations could resume by August?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure if that was hooked to the fact that he’s taking office in August. Our conditions, or what we’re waiting for, remain the same and what I just outlined. So the ball is in their court, we’re waiting for a substantive response to the balanced proposal put forward in Almaty, and we’ll see what happens.

QUESTION: But Jen, if you believe that the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, calls the shot, what makes you hopeful that any change or any progress is going to happen on the nuclear file?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, it’s a new president. It is a new – he has made – talked about a number of aspirations. We’ll see if he delivers on those when he takes office. But you’re right, the Supreme Leader does have control over the nuclear portfolio, and beyond that we’ll just see if this is an opportunity for a reset there.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. --

MS. PSAKI: Internally I mean, not with us.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. intend to write to him and/or extend a invitation, formal invitation saying we’re keen to talk about this?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. As you know, our policy has been very consistent on this. We’ve been open to talks, open to negotiations in coordination with our P5+1 partners. But there have been a number of meetings in recent months, and we’re in the same place where we were, which is we’re waiting for a substantive response to our proposal.

QUESTION: Other subject?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Iran? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. From what Mr. Rouhani was saying today in his press conference, it doesn’t seem like much has changed in the stance. He was saying – he was asked whether he would be willing to suspend uranium enrichment. He said the time for that has passed, referring to the – the question was related to the 2005, when he was involved in that. And he also basically set out some conditions for talks, which is the same as before – respect for Iran’s rights and that the West has to recognize Iran’s rights openly – and a lot of the same. So do you see this – do you think we’re going to get anywhere, and how much of a time are you going to give this new president?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, our position remains the same: The ball is in Iran’s court; they know what they need to do, which I’ve outlined a little bit here. So I can’t predict whether they’re going to do that or not. I can just point to the fact that Mr. Rouhani has talked about his own aspirations for Iran. You’re right, he has talked about – his position has been very similar and consistent on the nuclear program. But again, we’re waiting for a substantive response, our position hasn’t changed, and certainly we’re not responding to new conditions.

Still Iran? Another subject. Okay.

QUESTION: Yes. As far as the statement – as the State Department knows, did Vladimir Putin steal the Super Bowl ring? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I think this is an issue between him and the team or the – I guess it is the president of the team or the owner of the team.

QUESTION: The owner.

MS. PSAKI: Not something I’m going to wade into. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But it is the team from the Secretary’s home state and city.

MS. PSAKI: It is. It is. Well, he --

QUESTION: Does he have an opinion on it?

MS. PSAKI: I can confirm he was rooting for them when they won. But beyond that --

QUESTION: Really? Hmm.

MS. PSAKI: Hmm. Surprising, I know. It’s a breaking news alert on the wire.

QUESTION: Uh, no. Yeah, it’s just that the Patriots aren’t exactly the most loved team. Can we go to --

MS. PSAKI: Not if you’re in Boston.

QUESTION: Right. But if you’re from Buffalo, it’s --

MS. PSAKI: Fair enough, fair enough.

QUESTION: Listen, can I ask you about this North Korea --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you see anything different about this than the other – the hundreds of other times that they have said, hey, let’s get together for high-level talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been a number of times, as you reference, so – but you’re right, our position --

QUESTION: Dozens if not hundreds.

MS. PSAKI: And the – dozens if not hundreds. So if – depending on how far you go back. So the international community has been very consistent and clear that North Korea must verifiably end its nuclear problem, and to achieve the goal of denuclearization North Korea must engage in authentic and credible negotiations that produce concrete denuclearization actions. So is it different than that? No, we haven’t seen evidence of that. And that is what we’re waiting for.

QUESTION: And is it still the U.S. position that you’re open to bilateral talks with the North Koreans but only as part of the Six-Party process?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. But the key piece here is that they need to take credible steps to move towards concrete denuclearization.

QUESTION: But – so you’re saying you’re willing to meet them --

MS. PSAKI: We’re working in --

QUESTION: You’re willing to meet them --

MS. PSAKI: We’ve always said --

QUESTION: You’re willing to see them outside the Six-Party process?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve always said, Matt, that in coordination --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- with our partners of the Six-Party Talks we would be open to that, but they need to take those steps first. And as you know, and I mentioned this on Friday but now there’s a different context, that the United States, Japan and South Korea are, of course, meeting later this week in talks led by Glyn Davies and will – this will, of course, be a big topic of conversation.

QUESTION: All right. And then if there’s nothing else on North Korea, I just want to nail down the postal talks with Cuba.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you expect anything out of this round or is this really not – is this just – in other words, if these two days of talks are a success, there won’t be direct mail service immediately, I presume, but maybe I’m wrong, so could you --

MS. PSAKI: That’s a good question on the timeline. Just to give you a little bit of history here, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 states that, quote, “The United States Postal Service shall take such actions as are necessary to provide direct mail service to and from Cuba.” So this is – as you mentioned, on June 18^th and 19^th – well, you didn’t mention the dates, but so everybody knows, representatives from the Department of State and the United States Postal Service will meet with representatives from the Government of Cuba for a technical discussion on reestablishing direct transportation of mail. The reason we’re doing this is because it’s, of course, good for the Cuban people. This is something we feel is good for us. But it’s not meant to be a signal of anything or indicate a change in policy.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Are those talks here or in --

MS. PSAKI: In terms of the exact location, I’m not sure if they’re at the Department of State or if they’re just somewhere else in the --

QUESTION: Could we go to Syria?

QUESTION: Well, can we --

MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s finish Cuba.

QUESTION: Are those talks exclusively on the mail service?

MS. PSAKI: That is with the United States Postal Service. That’s their purview.

QUESTION: But I’m saying is it mainly about the – is there anything going to come up about Mr. Gross?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to predict. There are issues that are, of course, raised on both sides. As you know, this is an issue that has been raised at the highest levels from the United States, but given these are talks with the Postal Service, I would expect that will be the focus.

QUESTION: You don’t consider that the highest level?

MS. PSAKI: Well – Brad, having fun on your last day? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just one more. I mean, is the U.S. Postal Service in any kind of position to make any kind of deals or agreements with Cuba? I mean, this is an organization that is essentially going broke, and I’m just curious. Is --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think that’s combining two different things, in my opinion. This has been – we have had – I read off the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So they’re simply allowing mail to travel, which is – I would assume provides them with more revenue, with more stamps used.

QUESTION: Considering that – well, all right, exactly. So in other words, this could actually help the Postal Union’s budget if they are able to --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to go too far on it, but – I don’t want to go too far, Matt, but it’s more people using their services.

Jill.

QUESTION: Jen, a clarification on that too. What is the genesis of this? I mean, how did these talks actually come about? Who asked for them?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is something that the U.S. has felt would be a positive step for the Cuban people. We felt it was in our interests. In terms of who specifically asked for it, I don’t have that level of detail, but it’s just something that we felt it was – it would be positive moving forward.

QUESTION: But basically, the U.S. asked for it?

MS. PSAKI: I would have to check on that for you, but it’s something, again, that we are very supportive of and we are, of course, helping direct here.

QUESTION: Isn’t it a continuation of the talks from 2009 that were on the same subject?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t know if I’d call it a continuation because it’s been a number of years, but yes, it’s on the same subject, and we’re hopeful that we’ll be able to move things forward.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Can we just do Turkey very quickly before we go to Syria? Because I think Syria’s going to take a lot --

MS. PSAKI: Yeah, absolutely.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary been in touch with Davutoglu or anyone else? Can you just sort of update us on what the Department’s been saying, who they’ve been talking to about --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Gezi Park? And more specifically, how concerned are you, is the Secretary, about Turkey’s ability to be helpful in Syria given their own internal problems at the moment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, first, let me say that the Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Davutoglu on Saturday. As you all know, they speak regularly. Often the thrust of their conversations is about Syria and their close cooperation, our close coordination on that issue. That was the same with this call as well.

In terms of where we are, we remain focused on calling on all parties to ease tensions and to resolve the situation through dialogue, taking into account views from across the political spectrum. We also continue to urge all sides to exercise restraint and avoid violence. On the ground, of course, our Ambassador and high-level Embassy officials are in very regular contact with Turkish officials about this issue and our concerns, but also how we can move forward.

In terms of how it will impact, the Secretary speaks with Foreign Minister Davutoglu regularly, as you know, because I think there’s at least one or more calls a week I end up mentioning in here. And that’s an issue that they are a close partner on, they’re a close ally on. The Secretary and the Foreign Minister have actually also become close friends. And we remain confident that they can continue to work with us on that issue, and they have indicated that they have every desire to do that.

QUESTION: Jen, on Turkey --

QUESTION: The Deputy Prime Minister today said that they might bring in the army to bring calm back. Are you aware of that?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports, but I should – I would be remiss if I didn’t add that of course, we remain concerned about any reports of activity including police brutality, including violence. There were some reports over the weekend about the prosecution of medical professionals who were treating injured people. All of these are great – all of these reports are greatly concerning and we’re very focused on monitoring closely.

QUESTION: Do you – you said that the conversation was largely about Syria, but did the protest come up and did he – did the Secretary speak about your calls for restraint?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he’s spoken about them publicly and privately in the past. I’d have to look closer at the content of the call, but it was really focused on Syria, and specifically calling him to give him an overview of the announcement we made last week.

QUESTION: Okay. But I – well, I am curious because it would seem that immediately or in the hours after this phone call happened, the Turks launched another huge crackdown and arrested a couple hundred other people with more violence. So if it did come up, it would seem that it didn’t really have any impact on how the government is responding to this.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a number of officials, including the Foreign Minister, who have called for calm in this case, which we’ve continued to encourage. He has provided in the past his overview or his view of what’s going on on the ground. The Secretary has shared his opinion in response. But of course, we’ve seen the reports this weekend. I referenced some of the reports of medical professionals being arrested. I talked a little bit last week about media professionals being detained. All of this is very concerning. And we, of course, deplore the use of excessive force in any of these cases.

QUESTION: How this perception of U.S. Administration on Turkey has been because of this – all this mass demonstration?

MS. PSAKI: How has our perception of --

QUESTION: Yes, about – in terms of both government and the society.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t know if I can speak to all of society. I can say that we, of course, as we’ve said many times here over the past couple of weeks, have been concerned about the reports of excessive force. It’s unfortunate that in the past couple of days, or over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen reports, as I mentioned, of medical professionals, of media officials being detained, and that’s something that we’re greatly concerned about.

But there are – Turkey is a NATO ally. We work with them on a number of issues. We’re in close contact at the highest levels, as I mentioned the call from this weekend. And we’re hopeful that we can – this can be resolved with calm and by an encouragement of restraint in Turkey.

QUESTION: I want to give a statistic about the incident, Jen.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: During – over the last 18 days since the clashes has began in Turkey, you made 17 different statements on the incident: three written statement from White House, NSS spokesperson; three major remarks, one, I mean, Vice President Biden, the other one by the Secretary Kerry; and 12 Q&As in the daily briefs in White House and State.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’re one of the people who’s asked me questions that I’ve answered.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed with the reaction of Turkish Government?

MS. PSAKI: Of the government? I’m not going to speak to that. Look, we are focused on calling for calm, on calling for restraint. We remain a close ally of Turkey, of course. I’ve outlined and spoken in a number of those occasions, when you and others have asked, about concerns we have had. And we haven’t held back in that regard in any way.

QUESTION: Are you a close partner --

QUESTION: One more, please. And also, these statements are actually – are – I mean, the Turkish (inaudible) are troubled with these statements, and they are accusing, especially European Union and other foreigners, to interfering the domestic policy. What are the limits of a U.S. Ambassador, for example, who is working abroad, in terms of this interference within the domestic policy of other country?

MS. PSAKI: What are the limits?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Ambassador is calling for the same things publicly and privately that we and the Vice President and the Secretary and others up and down the government have been calling for. Now, being on the ground is something entirely different. Working closely with counterparts he’s known for a number of years is certainly different. But one individual can’t change what’s happening on the ground. He can just continue to add to the chorus of people who are calling for restraint and calling for calm in handling this moving forward.

QUESTION: His argument was that calling for – that his suggestion was that Turks feel that calling for restraint is an interference in their domestic affairs. Do you see it that way or not?

MS. PSAKI: We do not. We would reject – and I’ve seen some of these reports – the accusations that U.S. groups or individuals are responsible for the protests or responsible for elevating them in Turkey in any way. We are consistent about calling for freedom of speech and freedom of expression and acceptance of that, as well as expressing concern when there is – there are reports of excessive force used, and the need to look into that and to encourage common restraint in anywhere – anywhere, whether it’s Turkey or whether it’s another country.

So this is an issue, you’re right, that has been ongoing. But we remain in close contact with Turkey at several levels. We remain focused on working on issues with them that we can, including Syria. But again, we would like to see an ease of tensions and a resolution of what’s happening on the ground.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

QUESTION: The Secretary has talked about Turkey being an admirable example of both a democracy and a Muslim-majority nation, kind of that that’s the future he would like to see for other nations. Does he believe that Turkey is acting in an exemplary fashion?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen – he doesn’t group everybody into one grouping here. We’ve seen a number of officials come out and call for calm and call for restraint. He’s still hopeful that this can be resolved through a dialogue, which the Prime Minister and others have called for and have met with people, and we’ll see what happens moving forward. Of course, we have been concerned; the Secretary’s been concerned about reports on the ground. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are a close ally. We work closely with them, and we will continue to moving forward.

QUESTION: So based on your last couple of answers, I’m going to – I presume, and please tell me if I am presuming correctly or incorrectly, that you do not share the Prime Minister’s view that this is the result of some outside conspiracy of terrorists and people trying to overthrow the government. And I would also – tell me if that’s right – and I would also presume that you would not share his view that international news organizations are giving his country a bad rap or ruining the country’s image abroad. Would you agree with that, or do you think the government itself is doing a pretty good job of giving itself a bad image abroad?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, let me specifically take the second one; I’ll speak to all of it. But I’ve said in here a couple times, but let me just reiterate: We’re very troubled by any pressure being placed on journalists or media organizations, public statements that are made criticizing the freedom of the press. That’s something that – and as well as journalists being detained. We’ve seen reports of that as well in Turkey.

We believe and still believe – and we said this, I think, on the first day – that the vast majority of people here are peacefully protesting, expressing their rights to freedom of speech. We are not on the ground. There will be investigations into what happened on the ground. So we don’t know all of the entities of it, but that’s how it started, and we still feel the vast majority of people are doing just that.

QUESTION: Okay. And you’re confident that the Turkish authorities have the political will to do a thorough and complete investigation? And I ask this fully cognizant of the fact that the – their – Turks’ investigation into the flotilla, Gaza flotilla incident, was not met with joy and rapture from this building or anywhere else in Washington.

MS. PSAKI: We do.

QUESTION: You do?

MS. PSAKI: And we’ll have them look into it. And if we need to speak to anything, I’m sure we will.

Still on Turkey?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: A follow-up. A pro-government newspaper suggested that this whole thing was planned in American Enterprise Institute with the help of Jewish lobby and the Armenians, of course. Would you care to comment on that? Do you believe that this is possible at all?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I’ve already commented on it, maybe not that specific. I did see the report, and we absolutely reject the accusations that U.S. groups or individuals are responsible for or have elevated – or escalated, I should actually say, the protests in Turkey.

QUESTION: You keep urging calm to both sides. Is your official position – do you think that both sides are using equal amount of violence?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I’ve said to all sides. I think I’ve said we urge calm moving forward. There’s clearly cases where – when journalists are detained or doctors are detained or there are reports of brutality. That’s not coming from the side of the people who are peacefully protesting. We have seen some incidents or some reports of violence or escalation from all sides. So certainly we would encourage that from all sides, but I’m not equating them.

QUESTION: President Putin said today that he rejected the option of no-fly zone for in Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, we’re on Syria now. I said, oh, he’s speaking to Turkey.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s relevant, all in the region. Is this something that falls into your options? Because you still now did not articulate the vision actually of no-fly zone. Is this something that you agree or disagree with him on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, nothing has changed since Friday when I said that all options remain on the table, aside from no boots on the ground. I’m not going to outline what that means, but I’ll just repeat – because it’s still accurate – that reports that the President has decided on a no-fly zone or there’s an imminent announcement would be inaccurate.

QUESTION: But the fact he rejected it, that means he shooted down already one option of yours. I mean, you don’t have room for maneuvering if he already rejected --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have some disagreements with the Russians about how to handle things moving forward. We also have some agreements with the Russians. But the President, as you know, is at the G-8 in Northern Ireland. Part of the agenda there is – and part of the discussion – it will be certainly about Syria. And he’ll be discussing with his counterparts at the highest levels, so I don’t want to get ahead of that and the White House reading out of those discussions.

QUESTION: And one last thing on Syria. President Assad gave an interview to a German newspaper, and he said that Europe will pay the price for arming the rebels, and I guess by implication that will go to United States. Do you take his threat seriously, or is this part of the ongoing rhetoric that the President has been giving?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just say first that there is one area that I believe we continue to agree with President Putin on, which is that a political solution, a political transition, is the preferred outcome here. So there is – and I believe he also made comments this weekend around that issue. So that remains our focus. We’re still working with the Russians on that. And obviously Foreign Minister Lavrov is the main point person on that.

In terms of the other component of this, which is of course the ground game, as you know, we made the decision to – or the President made the decision, of course supported by the Secretary, to expand the size and scope of support for the opposition and, of course, consider additional options moving forward, in part because of the incident of CW use, but also what has happened on the ground in recent days. And we know we need to strengthen the opposition. We need to make sure that they are in a place where they are able to defend themselves on the ground and also to stand up for the Syrian people. So that’s the reason why those decisions were made. We’re also working with them on the political path, as you know. And I would defer to the Europeans, but I believe they’ve spoken to it in the same regard.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, my question is do you take his threat seriously, when he said they will pay the price for that. I guess by implication he’s saying that they funded some terrorist organizations that will go back and --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure what he meant by it. I would – I don’t want to speculate on what he meant and respond to that, so I would suggest you ask them what he meant by that. But that’s just our decision-making process here.

QUESTION: On the no-fly zone, did you find out for us whether it requires a United Nations Security Council resolution?

MS. PSAKI: I didn’t get an update on that.

QUESTION: I – more than likely it would require a UN Security Council resolution, which the Russians are certain to veto.

On the aid to Mr. Salim Idris --

QUESTION: You didn’t answer --

MS. PSAKI: I know. He’s answering his own questions. It’s a Q&A. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, I mean, because I asked you – you would like to know --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) invading Iraq doesn’t require a UN Security Council resolution, but that --

QUESTION: That’s true. I take it back. Okay. So on the military aid – now that General Salim Idris is the focal point for dispensing the military aid, will he also be the focus point for dispensing all types of aid, including financial and humanitarian and all that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get ahead of future aid we’ll provide, but just so you understand, aid is provided to a range of resources in Syria. A lot of it is done through the coordinating body that worked underneath the SOC. That’s where it’s gone. Now, the next tranche of aid, the 123 million that’s been in the process of being notified to Congress, part of that will go to the SMC directly. The size of how much will go to the SMC directly is part of what is being discussed with Congress.

QUESTION: Could you comment on a report in the Washington Post that there are already two secret bases, one in Turkey and one in Jordan, to train and to funnel through the military aid as quickly as possible, perhaps in a matter of like six weeks or so?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: On the SMC – part that 123 going to the SMC, will that – some of that now go towards direct military – or to --

MS. PSAKI: It always had. So I would separate that. You should separate that from the announcement last week. That was announced in Istanbul, when the Secretary announced we were doubling our aid, so to 250. The 123 is the second half. 127 is already in train on the ground. So the 123 is being notified. I think some people – Matt and others – asked last week how long it takes. It really varies, but Congress has a certain amount of time to respond and review, typically a couple of weeks once they’ve been through the notification process. There are different components of this that are being notified progressively over time.

QUESTION: Were you able to find out what the break – kind of the breakdown was of the 123 and what – in terms of what is actually being notified? Like is it 60 and X and 30 and Y and --

MS. PSAKI: It’s being discussed and the exact breakdown with Congress right now, so it’s not as if they’re saying here’s exactly how it will be broken down. It’s being discussed, and there are different components of it that are being notified at different times. So as soon as that’s through that process, we’ll be able to – and it’s decided – we’ll be able to announce that.

QUESTION: And you think that will take still a couple weeks?

MS. PSAKI: The process typically is that once they’re notified of each component they typically have a couple of weeks to review it.

QUESTION: All right. Can we move on?

QUESTION: I have one.

MS. PSAKI: Syria.

QUESTION: President Putin made a very strong comment about the opposition. And it’s different hearing from Lavrov and hearing from Putin. You’re hearing from the man himself, and he’s talking about the flesh-eating opposition. It would appear that he has a completely different view of the opposition than the United States does. Isn’t that the case?

MS. PSAKI: That is true, but let me just lay out for you here what he’s talking about. We expressed our strong condemnation at the time of that appalling behavior he referred to and have been very clear that all sides in this conflict must abide by international humanitarian law. In fact, we also have raised this – had raised this, of course, with the opposition, and in fact, an SMC unit had previously ejected this individual that he was referring to because of his history of brutality even before that video came out.

So that’s an important context about his comments. And we remain – we do feel, as we’ve spoken about many times, there are extremist elements of the opposition, which is why we’ve decided to direct military aid through the SMC and why we’re so focused on working with the moderate components.

QUESTION: Right. But in your talks with the Russians, I mean, do they see that division that there are, let’s say, good opposition and bad opposition? Because it would appear that they think the opposition are pretty bad.

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’re referring to some extremist components of this. I am not aware of a conversation about this specific case we’ve had, but it was well publicized and well talked about at the time.

QUESTION: I thought he was a moderate.

MS. PSAKI: So it seems he was referring back to – hmm?

QUESTION: I thought he was a moderate, this – the flesh-eater?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the individual may have been, but he was ejected --

QUESTION: I mean, he’s not in – he’s not al-Nusrah.

MS. PSAKI: He was – but he was ejected from the SMC prior to the video even being released.

QUESTION: Right. Are you aware that eating human flesh or human organs from a dead body is a violation of international humanitarian law? Is it? I don’t know, but you seemed to say – you suggest that it was. And there were – there are cases where a cannibal has not been prosecuted. I know that. If you look at "Alive in the Andes" and that kind of thing, sometimes --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, you are testing my international law knowledge, but I think anybody who saw --

QUESTION: I’m sure the Legal Adviser’s Office would love to weigh in.

MS. PSAKI: -- anybody who saw that video --

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting it wasn’t disgusting. I’m just wondering if it was an act – if that is actually a violation of humanitarian law.

QUESTION: Whatever it is, is very disgusting. But I want to ask you about the weapons. So the 123 is all nonlethal?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that’s what the Secretary announced in Istanbul – communications equipment, trucks, things along those lines. And a portion of it will go the SMC.

QUESTION: And then going forward on the weapons, does that all have to get congressional approval every time something gets sent?

MS. PSAKI: I still have nothing more to add for you on that, but I can tell you that we work closely with Congress in every aspect of aid we would provide. I have to go very shortly here, so --

QUESTION: All right, I’ve got two really brief ones.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: One on China and Chen Guangcheng.

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any pressure the Chinese put on NYU or even on the – or if there was a – there were conversations between this government, this Administration, and the Chinese about his NYU stint?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know NYU has spoken to this. Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: I’m asking if there was any government or --

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of, Matt. I mean, as you know – and Matt’s referring, I think, as we all have seen, to Chen Guangcheng, who it was announced would no longer be at NYU. He was on a one-year fellowship there. Just as a reminder, NYU provided generous temporary support, including housing and a host of other support, to him. But I know NYU has spoken to this, and I would otherwise refer to them on conversations or other specifics.

You said you had one other?

QUESTION: Yeah, one other one briefly.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There were reports in the Pakistani media yesterday or maybe today about a phone call between the Secretary and Prime Minister Sharif or Prime Minister-elect Sharif.

MS. PSAKI: Yep.

QUESTION: Can you tell us about that?

MS. PSAKI: Yep, I can. Secretary Kerry called Prime Minister Sharif yesterday to congratulate him on his party’s success and his election as prime minister. They’ve, of course, spoken about that before. The Secretary noted that he looks forward to working with the Prime Minister and his government as we continue our cooperation in support of a more stable, secure, and prosperous future for Pakistan and the region. And they discussed how they share a strong commitment to further consolidate and strengthen relations between our two countries on the basis of mutual trust and respect.

QUESTION: Did they talk about any upcoming visits?

QUESTION: Or non-visits?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that for you. But the Secretary has said, and I’ve said on his behalf, he’s very much looking forward to traveling to Pakistan, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he mentioned that to the Prime Minister as well.

QUESTION: And did they talk about energy issues, anyone --

MS. PSAKI: That’s the range of topics I have. They certainly may have. I know that’s a big issue, of course, for the Pakistanis. If there’s anything else to update you on, I’m happy to provide that.

Let me just do the one in the back here.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, I just wanted to go back to North Korea very, very quickly. I’m wondering if they had reached out to the United States about meeting before they had made their public announcement and if you had already made a formal response to them.

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. They made a very public statement and a public announcement, so not that I’m aware of beyond that.

I have one thing before we go. So since this is Brad’s last briefing, we got him a little something here just to embarrass him. This is a two-parter, so hold, please. Brad’s already embarrassed and he’s, like, trying to think about how to escape. So just so he doesn’t forget his roots, we want him – (laughter) – it doesn’t have to be us, it can be any of you, too. (Laughter.) So this is --

QUESTION: The cameras are off, right? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Oh, I don’t know. This is for you, Brad.

QUESTION: No, they’re still rolling.

MS. PSAKI: And then I have one other piece. So when I checked with your colleague on this – but as you may or may not know, Brad’s going to be a dad soon and so we got a little something for the baby, too. (Applause.) This is not partisan or biased; it’s super – (laughter). So thanks, everyone. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:24 p.m.)

DPB # 100

[1] Mr. Sloan will begin work at the State Department on July 1.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• SYRIA
  • Chemical Weapons / Red Line Has Been Crossed / Broad Goal to Strengthen the Opposition / Continuing to Look at Additional Options
  • President Obama will Discuss at G-8
  • Secretary Kerry Discussing with Counterparts / Calls
  • Congressional Notification of $123 Million in Nonlethal Aid / Assistance Updates
  • Foreign Fighters
  • Continuing to Work with Russia
  • Reports of Syrian Military Defectors
  • Information-Sharing with Syrian Opposition
  • Geneva 2
• DEPARTMENT
  • Process for Reviewing DS Agent Applicants
  • Ambassadors' Security Details / Travel
• ISRAEL/PALESTENIANS
  • Middle East Peace Process / Arab Peace Initiative
• D.P.R.K./JAPAN/R.O.K.
  • Glyn Davies Meetings with Japan and South Korea to Consult on D.P.R.K. June 18-19
• TURKEY
  • Secretary Kerry Call with Turkish FM this Afternoon

1:32 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. How are you? Sorry for the delay. You’ve now had not one, but two briefings from my good friend Ben Rhodes over at the White House, but I bet I know what’s on all of your minds.

QUESTION: Indeed.

MS. PSAKI: So let’s kick this off on a Friday.

QUESTION: So, Syria – Friday.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And yes, two briefings from Ben Rhodes, and I have to say – I hope I’m not alone in this – there is still quite a lot of confusion. So the United States has agreed to increase its support and aid to Syria, including direct military assistance. Are you able to help us in any way explain exactly what is meant by that?

MS. PSAKI: I cannot. Let me give you just an overview. This is not going to answer that exact question, but just so everybody here understands: We have assessed that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. The President has assessed, and the Secretary of State, of course, agrees that the red line has been crossed. We do not believe the opposition has acquired or used chemical weapons. This assessment was made through multiple independent streams of information. The POTUS took – the President, excuse me – took deliberative, decisive action in response to crossing of the red line. He said it would change his calculus, and it did. He has authorized the expansion of our assistance to the SMC, the Supreme Military Council.

I’m not able to provide details of what we will provide. That is consistent with, of course, what my colleagues over in the White House have said. But it is a different scale and scope of what we have provided in the past. We have a range of additional options available, so this is where we go from here. And we’ll continue to look at what advances our goals of a transition to post-Assad Syria, and is in line with the national interest.

QUESTION: Why the reluctance to spell out in – not in absolute detail, but in greater detail what this expanded assistance is going to consist of?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have additional details I can provide.

QUESTION: Did you have an opening? And can I make a plea that the announcement about the briefing starting be louder? Because this is the second day in a row I have heard absolutely nothing.

MS. PSAKI: We will make sure it’s louder, with a louder voice.

QUESTION: Was there no – there was no opening? You didn’t have anything at the top?

MS. PSAKI: I just gave – Jo asked just --

QUESTION: No, no, no. You didn’t have anything at the top?

MS. PSAKI: I did not have an opening at the top.

QUESTION: All right. Okay.

QUESTION: Does --

QUESTION: When you say – hold on – I’m just curious, though – this is what you – when you say, “This is where we go from here,” where is the “where”?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Because that seems to be the question you’re not answering.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m happy to answer it. I’m glad you asked. The President has made clear – the White House has made clear --

QUESTION: Well, don’t – what you just told her, because that didn’t answer the question. I want to know when you say, “This is where we go from here,” what are the American people supposed to understand as where “where” is?

MS. PSAKI: Well, give me an opportunity --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- to answer, and then you can follow up as always, as I’m certain you will.

QUESTION: Maybe.

MS. PSAKI: So I gave an overview of what happened over the last 12 – 24 hours, I suppose. That’s how I started in response to Jo’s question, and said I was not able to provide more details, of course, than the White House has provided. Where we go from here is that there has been a decision to consider additional options. The President has decided – the Secretary of State supports that, of course – to continue to consider additional options. The President, as you know, is headed to the G8 next week and will be meeting with a number of his counterparts, where this will be a part of the discussion, along with a number of issues, of course. And that’s where we’re going. The same options remain on the table that we have discussed – not boots on the ground, but all of the other options that we have been discussing, and I can assure you they will be considered in the time ahead. But we’re not on – we’re on our own timeline here. So we’re – we’ll continue to discuss it, and we’ll go from there.

QUESTION: All right. Well, I understand what you’re saying, but when you say you consider – you continue to consider additional options, wasn’t the announcement yesterday that there has been a decision to expand what – from where --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, and this --

QUESTION: -- where you had been before --

MS. PSAKI: Exactly.

QUESTION: -- and where you had been before was direct --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: -- what I – direct – no – direct military assistance to the SMC, which could include night vision goggles, body armor, in other words, defensive supplies. There has been a decision – is it correct there has been a decision to expand from that?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: As you’ve all written.

QUESTION: All right, well, then --

MS. PSAKI: And I said that at the beginning.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: So I was just --

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: -- what I was trying to get at is that we’re continuing, beyond that, to consider additional options.

QUESTION: Beyond the – yesterday’s expansion --

MS. PSAKI: Beyond – exactly.

QUESTION: -- the announcement of expansion yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Exactly.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. So when you --

QUESTION: There’s an ongoing discussion between the White House and the Congress on – I mean, regarding the Syria crisis. Would be a no-fly zone an option on the table?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, all options remain on the table aside from boots on the ground. There has been reports that a no-fly zone has been decided on. Those are incorrect. But certainly in the range of options, that is included in the range of options.

QUESTION: But that decision was made before the proof of using the chemical weapons by the regime.

MS. PSAKI: Which decision?

QUESTION: Now, the President said --

MS. PSAKI: Just to clarify.

QUESTION: -- the President said that when we will have these proofs, this would be a game-changer.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: So what are the options right now? That was before.

MS. PSAKI: That is correct. All options remain on the table aside from boots on the ground. So there’s a range that have been out there, discussed; I’m not going to outline them from here, but those remain under consideration. The President will be at the G-8 next week. The White House has made clear he’ll be discussing this.

Let me tell you, too, that the Secretary has also been in consultation since yesterday with a number of his counterparts as well. So he’s spent a great deal of time on the phone. This morning alone, he’s spoken with U.K. British Foreign Secretary Hague, French Foreign Minister Fabius, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and EU High Representative Ashton to update them and discuss with them the latest findings. We have been briefing a number of these countries, of course, throughout the week. And later this afternoon he’ll speak with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu.

QUESTION: Jennifer, could you --

QUESTION: And do you know what – Ban Ki-moon has said that no military solution to this conflict – he doesn’t seem to support this, and saying that it could lead to further disintegration of the country. Would any kind of action by the U.S. and its allies need Security Council clearance?

MS. PSAKI: No, but let me be clear. A political solution is the preferred solution. A political transition is what we are all focused on moving toward. That is where the Secretary is, that is where the President is; that’s what we’re focused on. And there are a number of factors that led to the announcement yesterday and the ongoing consideration of additional options, including what’s happened on the ground that we’ve talked about quite a bit in here the past couple of weeks with the influx of foreign fighters, the impact of Iran and Hezbollah, as well as, of course, crossing the redline on chemical weapons.

But in terms of decisions made by each government, each government will make decisions. Of course, traditionally, broadly speaking, actions by the UN Security Council which we’ve supported, as you know, many times on Syria, are always helpful in making the case.

QUESTION: And Jen, just one more thing. What is the goalpost after the G-8? What kinds of questions is Secretary Kerry trying to – asking his allies, and what kinds of issues do you need to come out with to be able to clear the way either to a peace conference or to further military action?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the broad goal here we all have is to strengthen the opposition on the ground, but also their political organization, increase their effectiveness and their cohesion, connect with and coordinate with other partners around the world. So that’s part of what the Secretary will be doing during his discussions. As you know, he’s done quite a bit of travel and had quite a few phone calls with many of these same individuals in a coordinating effort.

We are still working towards planning a conference, and there still will be a meeting planned for next week to move forward in discussing all of the outstanding issues with that.

QUESTION: Jen, you said that the Secretary spent a great deal of time on – excuse me, spent a great deal of time on the phone with these foreign ministers. The conversations were all about Syria? Or there were other issues as well?

MS. PSAKI: There – I – this was the main purpose of the conversations. Of course, there are always other issues that may come up, but that was the main purpose of the calls.

QUESTION: And can you give us roughly an idea of how long these calls were?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that in front of me. I’m happy to get that to you. The point I was making, Matt, was not necessarily these four specific calls, but just in general that he has spent a lot of time talking with his counterparts about Syria.

QUESTION: Right. No, I understand, but these are pretty – these are four pretty key people, or five --

MS. PSAKI: They are, absolutely.

QUESTION: -- including – five if you include Davutoglu. So I’m just wondering if you could characterize what the conversation was about with Hague and Fabius and Ashton and Lavrov --

MS. PSAKI: It --

QUESTION: -- and what he’ll – did he tell them what the President had decided? Is that the idea?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve been providing information and in touch with many of these allies throughout the week. So this was a conversation following the official announcement.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. But – so did he tell them more than what was discussed – than what the White House said yesterday, or right now what the White House is saying?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there are many private conversations that happen --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- that are more in-depth than what is shared publicly for obvious reasons.

QUESTION: And I’m curious to know about the conversation specifically with Foreign Minister Lavrov because, as you are aware, the Russians have reacted rather negatively to this whole thing, and it sets a – it sets the stage for a rather contentious meeting between the President and President Putin when they do meet. Did they – did either – well, did the two men, Lavrov and the Secretary, did they talk about the upcoming meeting between the President, and did they express hope that it would be --

MS. PSAKI: That call was happening just as I was coming down, so I don’t have any update on their conversation. This was the purpose of it, but I’m happy to see if there’s more detail to provide to you.

QUESTION: Do you --

MS. PSAKI: And certainly – and just to – let me just make this last point. They have discussed the meeting between President Putin and President Obama in the past and I would be surprised if that wasn’t a part of the conversation today.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: You said that it was determined through multiple independent streams of sources that they used chemical weapons. Are those independent streams that the United States of America obtained directly?

MS. PSAKI: Again, there’s part – our focus and our efforts, as well as working with our allies. I’m not going to get into more of a level of detail than that.

QUESTION: But could you tell us that – whether the United States was able to obtain this evidence independently, which means independent of everybody else? Or was it dependent on, let’s say, what the French provided?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into that level of detail. There are obviously a number of factors that go into any intel assessment.

QUESTION: Okay. And also it says that the use was over a period of two years, so to speak, or over the past two years. Were there, like, periods of time when these uses were, let’s say, more than other times and with people killed – apparently between 100 and 150, all in one attack, all in several attacks; two in each attack. Could you give us --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve talked about four specific dates. I don’t have more information than that to provide to you at this time, and if I do, I’m happy to. But that’s what I have available at this time.

QUESTION: Okay. On providing weapons, it is said that it is mainly small arms and so on. Now, I want to go back to some of the aid that you guys have already promised back in April, which include trucks, goggles and, like, night vision and so on, which have not been delivered thus far, two months later. So if you decide to give weapons now, do you have any idea how long that will take – weeks or months?

MS. PSAKI: Well, in any process we would be closely coordinating with Congress. I don’t have any update for you on the timing of how long. I do have an update on Margaret’s question from yesterday in that the next step on the $123 million, which was the other part – what was announced in Istanbul – we’ve started the congressional notification process this week. So that is ongoing.

QUESTION: And on the no-fly zone, do you have to have a Security Council resolution or not for a no-fly zone?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have the details on that, but it’s a hypothetical because --

QUESTION: And do you – right. And do you expect that the Russians and the Chinese would actually veto a no-fly zone?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to anticipate the actions of others, but --

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Jen --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Because you said Secretary Kerry spoke with several of his counterparts --

MS. PSAKI: He did.

QUESTION: -- this morning. Is he planning to speak with any of his Arab counterparts?

MS. PSAKI: Any of his --

QUESTION: Arab counterparts?

MS. PSAKI: He has regular conversations, and I should have said --

QUESTION: No, today?

MS. PSAKI: He may. Those were the calls that have happened and were scheduled, but I expect he’ll be making calls through the course of the weekend.

QUESTION: Who? With whom?

MS. PSAKI: So as we have updates, I’m sure we can provide those.

QUESTION: Do you have an idea with whom?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have other scheduled calls right now, but those are being scheduled as we speak.

QUESTION: I just want to – on the – you said the notification to Congress on the $123 million has begun?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: So on all of it?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And that is – can you remind me? My memory isn’t as good as it used to be.

MS. PSAKI: That is the --

QUESTION: What is the hundred and twenty – is that the armor and the – or is that --

MS. PSAKI: That is the piece, exactly, that includes direct aid to the SMC in the form of forms of equipment that we have consulted with them on they would need.

QUESTION: Beyond the food and the medical --

MS. PSAKI: Correct. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Jennifer?

QUESTION: All right. So that hardware, military hardware, although nonlethal, is being notified now?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Do you – can you be more specific about what, since it has begun, what exactly it is that’s going? Like, is it goggles, body armor and armored vehicles? Or is it something else?

MS. PSAKI: There were a range of options, including trucks and communications equipment. I don’t have any greater level of specificity than that at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. But it’s not classified, right, though?

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. Well, since Congress is being notified, could you endeavor to --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: -- since they won’t be upset?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly not.

QUESTION: If they’ve already been notified, they won’t be upset if we know about it too. Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Jen?

QUESTION: Is it --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Margaret?

QUESTION: Jen, can you explain whether it’s a priority in this building or within the U.S. Government that there be perhaps more balance in the field in Syria headed into the Geneva conference? I know you can’t speak about timing, but at least that premise that the parties who we hope come to the table in Geneva, that they be more on an even level, the opposition and the Assad government.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I just wouldn’t tie the two together. They are parallel paths. So clearly the conditions on the ground and the fact that they have been worsening for the Syrian people and for the opposition has been one of the factors – as I mentioned, the influx of Hezbollah, influx of foreign fighters – as has the use of chemical weapons been a big part of our decision-making process.

Geneva, we still want to happen when the time is ripe and when it is the best opportunity to bring both sides to the table. There are a number of factors that go into that. Certainly what’s happening on the ground is a part of that, as you’ve seen the opposition talk about, but also the opposition needs to elect leadership; that’s a step they need to take. We need to make determinations about everything from the agenda to the participation. And all those pieces are still being worked through.

QUESTION: And on that point about getting the opposition to be more cohesive, what are some of the legal restrictions on arming rebels in a country whose government we still officially recognize diplomatically?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have any legal rundown here. If there’s something we can get from our team or from our friends across the street, I’m happy to provide that to all of you.

QUESTION: Because it would help, clarity-wise, if there is the need, per se, for that opposition cohesiveness to be then a government inside the country that we could help out a bit more.

MS. PSAKI: If there is a clear legal document, I’m happy to provide that to all of you.

QUESTION: On the issue of --

QUESTION: And also can I ask how confident this Administration is that the chemical weapon stocks, which we’ve now known have been used, are actually secure? Or are they in danger of being – of floating around the country being used by extremist groups?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have anything new on that. Obviously, as you know, the movement – the transfer was also a redline, but what we have discussed here is the use as being the crossing of the redline. That’s always something we’re focused on and we are concerned about given what could happen if they were moved and were made into – or made it into bad hands. But I don’t have anything new or kind of any new analysis on that.

QUESTION: So you’re not sure if they are secure?

MS. PSAKI: No, what I was saying is we’ve long said that we believe they are. The crossing, the transfer of them would be of concern. I don’t have anything new or anything I can announce or say about whether that is a concern at this point.

QUESTION: But I thought the point was they already were in the bad hands.

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Otherwise this whole exercise is completely pointless. (Laughter.) Why would you be opposing Assad and wanting him to go if you didn’t think he was bad?

MS. PSAKI: The use of, the transfer of --

QUESTION: You’re talking about the terrorist groups?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Jen.

QUESTION: So you believe they’re secure, but you’re not in a position to say whether they’ve been transferred to other groups?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any information to believe that. But again, I just don’t have a new update on that.

QUESTION: Jen, on the aid --

QUESTION: When the U.S. draws a redline and when a country crosses the redline, what the consequences would be?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the White House has made very clear that the consequences are that it has changed the President’s calculation; that’s long what they have said, that it would change his calculation. They talked about their decision to expand assistance to the SMC – military assistance. And beyond that, I just can’t discuss the scale and scope of what that means.

And of course, beyond that, as I mentioned at the top, we’re considering additional options. There are a number of factors that lead into that decision-making process. Of course the use of chemical weapons is part of that, as is the situation on the ground. And the reasons why we are where we are, which is, as I’ve mentioned a few times, Iran’s impact and the influx of foreign fighters. And that’s all part of the decision-making process as we look forward.

QUESTION: Do you have an example from the past that the United States drew a redline and a country crossed and what the consequences --

MS. PSAKI: I would leave that to you, all the historians in the room.

QUESTION: On the --

QUESTION: To remember or to see what will happen maybe in Syria, to see what the consequences would be?

MS. PSAKI: Take a look. We can discuss it again on Monday.

QUESTION: Jen, on the issue of foreign fighters. Today or yesterday, the President of Egypt, President Morsy, who is your ally, said that he cannot stop Egyptian volunteers from going to fight alongside the opposition. And this also comes at a time when there are many calls from many mosques for volunteers to go and fight alongside the opposition. You do consider that to be foreign fighters, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: So would you discourage Mr. Morsy, your ally, from making such calls?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly would.

QUESTION: Jennifer, what are the certain outcomes or geopolitical implications that the U.S. Government is waiting for to happen before jumping and interfering in Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re already very involved in Syria. And I know I outlined what exactly we’ve done.

QUESTION: I mean in a different way, like more military way. That’s the way that I’m talking about.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think over the course of the last 24 hours it’s been clear that we’ve made a decision to authorize the expansion of assistance to the SMC in a different way. And I can’t, again, talk about the scale and scope of that, but let me just point that out.

Beyond that, there are a number of factors; we’ve talked about them today quite a bit. The President is going to continue to consult with his counterparts when he’s at the G-8 next week. The Secretary is in ongoing conversations with foreign ministers representing a number of the key nations who have had a – significant stakes in Syria. But I can’t give you a timeline or give you a prediction of what will happen next. Just to assure you that this is a major focus and it will be a major topic of discussion in the Administration.

QUESTION: So no further steps before the G-8 summit?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you before the G-8 summit. I think the White House --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: -- let me just finish – White House made very clear that the President will be consulting with his allies and his counterparts at the G-8 summit, and the Secretary will be having these ongoing discussions, and I’m sure they will be discussing Syria with other members of the national security teams – team on countless occasions in the weeks and months ahead.

QUESTION: Just some housekeeping, Secretary Kerry’s not traveling with --

MS. PSAKI: He is not.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Did he invite other non-members of G-8 summit, like Ashton or Davutoglu, to discuss this issue?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mean, the Secretary spoke with Lady Ashton this morning. I don’t – I’m not – I don’t know all the participants in terms of additional participants with the G-8.

QUESTION: What is the timeline of the Congress notification that you mentioned? I mean, how long it takes?

MS. PSAKI: It started this week. It’s ongoing. I don’t have an update on when it will be completed.

QUESTION: Ninety days, or I mean what --

MS. PSAKI: But it usually doesn’t take that long. So I don’t have an update on when it will be completed, though.

QUESTION: You had delivered, first tranche, an amount of $8 million without a notification. And the Syrian support group was a facilitator. This is the difference that why you are making such a notification for this time?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we consult closely with Congress on all of our aid. I’d have to check on that point that you just made to make sure it’s accurate. But we have delivered – 127 is in train. This is the next stage in the process for the 123, and we’re working and focused on it.

QUESTION: But the first tranche also was including some goggles, some food for the soldiers. I mean the content is not too different, I think. And that – but the last time – and it happened at the end of April. But the facilitator, as I said, was Syrian support group. This time maybe you will deliver this aid directly to the SMC. That’s why you need a notification?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this aid, in addition to part of the aid that was in the 127 is going directly to the – a lot of it is going directly to the ACU, the coordinating body of the SOC – that’s a lot of acronyms – and the 123, a portion of that will go to the SMC. And part of that is being in – discussed right now with Congress.

QUESTION: Can you give us an idea of just in general how long it takes from notification to stuff actually arriving?

MS. PSAKI: I can. I’m not sure there’s a standard or an average --

QUESTION: I know. I know. It depends.

MS. PSAKI: -- but I can talk to our Congressional team --

QUESTION: But can you find out?

MS. PSAKI: -- and see if I can give you a better sense of that.

QUESTION: Because – is it correct or incorrect that all of the 127 million is actually – the original 127 million is already there, right? It’s not all there; it’s still – some of it’s still in transit?

MS. PSAKI: It’s in transit, but the way that works is sometimes it’s in an account and hasn’t been spent on the ground.

QUESTION: No, I understand, but it’s – but that was notified to Congress weeks and weeks ago.

MS. PSAKI: It was.

QUESTION: So it can take a significant amount of time --

MS. PSAKI: It can.

QUESTION: -- for stuff to get --

MS. PSAKI: It can.

QUESTION: -- actually show up on the ground.

MS. PSAKI: It can.

QUESTION: So if there’s an – if there’s any way to, just in a general sense --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- find out how long it will take now that it’s been notified on the 127 --

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to talk to our --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: -- Congressional folks and see if I can get you a better sense.

QUESTION: Could I --

QUESTION: Is there (inaudible) so far, I mean, from the Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of, but again, these are just ongoing consultations.

QUESTION: Could I ask you on the feeling in this building or by analysts, was that – the use of chemical weapons, was that experimental, considering that it was sporadic and the low – the relatively low number of casualties and so on when compared against the enormity of 92,000 killed, 100 to 150? Did they use it experimentally, or did they use it for strategic military gain?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can’t get into their minds, but I think we’ve been pretty clear about their use.

QUESTION: Right. But do you feel it was used for – to gain strategic advantage?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I can’t get into analyzing why they did. Obviously, we’re concerned that they did, and that’s why we’re taking action.

QUESTION: Given Russia’s reaction --

QUESTION: Can I – just one – sorry, just – do you think – is the feeling, as you look forward and explore these additional options, that you would first try – that the U.S. would first try looking at a diplomatic solution to try to be fleshed out at the G-8 before it moves on to the military solution?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get into that level of detail. I mean, I think at the same time, we’re pursuing parallel paths here, and that’s been ongoing for months unrelated to the G-8, right? So we’ve been considering additional options for some time. It wasn’t that this decision was made in the matter of the last 24 hours. This has been something that the national security team and the President have been discussing for weeks, and I know the White House has said the President decided before this week, long before this week.

So – but my point is that we’re still pursuing both a political option, a diplomatic option, while also taking steps – additional steps, obviously, and considering additional steps – to aid on the ground. The preferred solution here is still a political transition and a political solution. But we know that the ground – events on the ground have worsened in the past couple of weeks, and there have been a number of factors that have led to the decision that we discussed last night and today.

QUESTION: And how much was the assault on Aleppo, part of the President advised by the Secretary – how much was that part of the play going into his decision to take this next step?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to get into, of course, discussing internal deliberations or read out high-level discussions. There were a number of factors that led into this. There were four incidents of chemical weapons use discussed as part of this report and part of this statement that was released last night. But again, there are changing conditions on the ground. I think there’s no question there has been a rise in sectarian violence, a rise in violence impacting neighboring countries. And all of this, of course, leads into the thinking and the decision-making process.

QUESTION: So one thing: We have a source – a Gulf source saying that the Saudi Foreign Minister had met with the French, and – this week to discuss setting up a no-fly zone, but – that the measure is expected to go ahead, but the timing’s not set. Are those discussions being had with the U.S. as well? I mean, is the possibility of a no-fly zone part of those additional measures?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we discuss a range of options, and we’re considering a range of options. And what I was saying earlier was just there had been some reports that the President had decided on, or was – there was an impending announcement on, and that is incorrect.

QUESTION: Jen --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Correct.

QUESTION: Do you think that the U.S. Government deserves credit for pursuing diplomatic solutions and sanctions, or it didn’t do enough to balance the crisis between what – the crisis in Syria between the regime and rebels?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re not looking for credit. We’re looking for a resolution that will help the Syrian people and bring an end to the suffering. We have taken a number of steps. As you know, we are the largest provider of humanitarian aid. We made an announcement just two days ago about sanctions and efforts we’re trying to make to help return some basic --

QUESTION: Is it enough?

MS. PSAKI: Is it enough? Well, look, we’re continuing to consider other options, and we’re focused on bringing an end to the brutality that’s happening in the country. We’re focused on both a political solution mainly – that’s where we want to go – but we’re also focused on providing assistance and helping on the ground, and we – the Secretary wakes up every day focused on this and wanting to continue to discuss it.

QUESTION: Given Russia’s reaction to this latest development, what are you doing in your interactions with them to prevent this whole situation from escalating into basically what amounts to a proxy war between the two nations?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mentioned this a little earlier, but we have briefed the Russians regarding our chemical weapons information and assessment. The Secretary --

QUESTION: But they flatly rejected that.

MS. PSAKI: Let me just finish. The Secretary is speaking with, or was speaking with, the Foreign Minister as I was coming down. And of course, we all know the President has a meeting with President Putin next week. And part of the case that will be made is about all of the evidence and the reasons why we are so confident in the assessment that was released by the White House on chemical weapons use yesterday, but also why it is so important and why it is in the interest of the Russians to continue to move towards a political solution. And that’s what the focus will be.

So, we will continue pressing. We know they are an important partner now. They have been. That’s why the Secretary’s been working with the Foreign Minister. And we’re going to continue to apply the necessary pressure to hopefully move towards a productive result.

QUESTION: You are aware that Mr. Rhodes’s Russian counterpart called the evidence completely fabricated?

MS. PSAKI: I am. That’s why I said we’re – brief them, we’re continuing to discuss with them, and the President will be meeting with President Putin next week.

QUESTION: And he also said that don’t make the same mistake as happened with Iraq. I mean, you are saying that – you said you’re confident in the assessment that was made yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. The President is, the Secretary is. And let me just remind you the Secretary and the President, in a different role, of course, were there for the debates around Iraq. And as you all have asked about why this is taking so long and why we don’t know more, part of the reason is because they both felt, as did members of the national security team, it was so important to nail down the facts and feel confident in them before making a further assessment. So that’s why we reached where we were yesterday.

QUESTION: Sorry, the President was around for the debate over the --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I said in a different role. He wasn’t the President then. He was speaking out against the Iraq War. But he was paying attention to it, and the Secretary was in the Senate.

QUESTION: But he wasn’t even – yeah, but the current President was not in the national government in any branch of it.

MS. PSAKI: He was not; in a different role.

QUESTION: So as a state senator in Illinois, he really got into the weeds on this?

MS. PSAKI: He did. He was vocal on it. But I was making the point that the Secretary --

QUESTION: Here’s the --

MS. PSAKI: -- and the President both watched the debate.

QUESTION: You’re confident that the presentation that you made yesterday won’t go down in history in the same way that former Secretary Powell’s presentation to the UN General Assembly did?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. That’s why we did our due diligence to nail down the facts before --

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: -- making any further assessment.

QUESTION: Are there any plans – it’s very new and now, but are there any plans at some point to make some of that assessment or all of that assessment publicly available?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. I mean, this is an intel assessment. If that changes, we’ll let you know. AFP will be the first to receive the information.

QUESTION: Doubt that highly. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Turkish media have reported today that 73 Syrian military officers, including seven generals and 20 colonels, have crossed the border with their families, seeking refuge in Turkey. Do you have any idea about these reports? Are there --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any independent confirmation of that. I know there are a number of people – tens of thousands of people – who are moving across borders in different directions from Syria. Obviously that’s something we’re very concerned about, why we’ve provided aid to a number of those countries to help with that burden. And we’ve been in touch, of course, with the UN about it as well. But I don’t have any independent confirmation of that specific report.

QUESTION: And do you think that the White House statement yesterday had an effect on the defection of these colonels and generals?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t want to analyze it in that way. There have been, as you know, a number of military officials and others who have defected over the course of the last year-plus because of what’s happening with the regime. But I wouldn’t want to speak on their behalf about why they made the decisions they made.

QUESTION: Have you shared your assessment --

QUESTION: Can I ask --

QUESTION: -- excuse me. Sorry. Have you shared the assessment with General Idris and your interlocutors in the Syrian opposition?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an update on that. I know we’re in close contact, but I’m not sure who has been in touch, so I’ll venture to get that for you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) there was a meeting in Istanbul (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: There was. But that meeting was something that was pulled together – it was part of our regular engagement with the opposition. And we consult with them very regularly, as you know. We did have two staff members from Embassy Ankara attending, but the purpose wasn’t to brief on the assessment that was announced yesterday.

QUESTION: There’s a meeting tomorrow with the French and British and General Idris in Istanbul as well, and you weren’t sure whether there was any U.S. involvement.

MS. PSAKI: That’s the same meeting, I believe, I was talking about.

QUESTION: Oh, it’s the same one?

MS. PSAKI: I believe it was yesterday. It may be continuing. That certainly is possible. But we did have two staff members from Ankara who attended that.

QUESTION: Is Ambassador Ford in town? Is he doing anything?

MS. PSAKI: Is he in Washington?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure of his whereabouts. He’s a very busy guy. But I’m happy to check on that for you. He’s not at this particular meeting that Jo was referencing.

QUESTION: How much longer will he stay in his post, Ambassador Ford?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that for you.

QUESTION: So, but he will be there for the Geneva 2 thing?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any update for that on – on that for you.

QUESTION: Should we assume that the General Idris and SMC will be the representative of the opposition military in – on the military side? I mean, because we are only talking about General Idris. There are several groups on the ground.

MS. PSAKI: Well, he’s the head of the SMC, so that’s why we talk about him. But again, the opposition is – the goal is for them to expand. They’ve taken some steps to do that. They need to elect leadership. That’s a part of their next step. So we continue to encourage them to do just that.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Were you able to get answers to Margaret’s questions yesterday about DS?

MS. PSAKI: I was.

QUESTION: And also my question on the criminal records, criminal backgrounds?

MS. PSAKI: I was.

QUESTION: Excellent. Can you enlighten us to as to what those answers --

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to enlighten you. So on the question of the process for the DS, while a past criminal violation would be a strong indicator against employment, it does not automatically disqualify a person for service. Such history would be scrutinized intently, considering the nature of the offense, the age when it occurred, and any extenuating circumstances. So the reality is here, just to put it in pure plain English, is that what we’re looking at is likely a juvenile conviction or minor brushes with the law. Of course, that’s considered and discussed as part of the rigorous and extensive process I talked about yesterday.

QUESTION: But a juvenile infraction or a minor brush with the law – that would impair them from doing their job?

MS. PSAKI: It would not, no. Sorry. I was answering the question as to what our process is or approach. It would not impair them from doing their job. It would not preclude them from getting a job with DS. That’s – that was what I meant in answering.

QUESTION: Right. I understand that. But the concern that was mentioned in that IG memo was not that they – not necessarily that they got a job, although that may be what some commentators are upset about, but that they were not – they were hindered in being able to do investigations, which is part of their job, because of this – these problems in their backgrounds. So my question is: Would a juvenile offense or a minor criminal violation do that? Would it impair their ability to conduct investigations?

MS. PSAKI: No. Let me just remind --

QUESTION: It doesn’t. Okay. So the --

MS. PSAKI: Let me just --

QUESTION: -- IG concern expressed in that memo is not grounded in --

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I haven’t even seen the full memo. I know – I’m sure some people here have. But the note – the claim that was made was that there was widespread – I mean, there was a larger issue at hand here. The reason I --

QUESTION: Well, that’s my second part of my question. But continue.

MS. PSAKI: The reason that I went through yesterday how rigorous this process is was to explain that in order to get a job as one of the just over 1,900 Diplomatic Security officers, it’s a very rigorous and challenging process with multiple steps. And so if you have, as I described, a minor offense or a juvenile conviction, that’s all factored in. It doesn’t preclude you or eliminate you as being an option.

QUESTION: Right. But that’s not the question. The question is --

MS. PSAKI: Some were asking that yesterday, so when you said Margaret’s question --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, it wasn’t my question. Well, actually, Margaret’s question was, I thought, different. But anyway – and had to do with – specifically with one ambassadorial post. But my question to you is: Do these minor criminal offenses or juvenile convictions hinder or impair an agent’s ability to do the job of investigating, as was stated in that IG memo?

MS. PSAKI: If there was a decision through the process that it would, they wouldn’t get the job.

QUESTION: So – okay. So in other words, the Department disagrees with this concern expressed by the IG.

MS. PSAKI: Correct. I just went through the --

QUESTION: Okay. All right. You – okay. And then the other thing was that – just on the – reports about this suggests that many of – or it didn’t suggest, it said many of the 1,900 have this problem. Can you – since you’re saying that none of them have this problem, because it’s not an issue, can you say how many of the 1,900 Diplomatic Security agents that are employed by the Department do have these small blemishes on their record?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure the report said that the majority of them had these blemishes.

QUESTION: It said many of them.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. No. This is – these are rare cases. I don’t have an exact number for you. But again, the important point here – and I’m sorry to go back to this – but that this is a factor that’s factored in in the process, which includes a background investigation, which includes a suitability review, which includes several steps to even get considered for the job.

QUESTION: Right. No, no, I understand. I just want to make sure it’s not the case that there are no – there’s no one who has an – it’s not the case that there are no agents who have blemishes on their record, however minor?

MS. PSAKI: Correct, but that’s all factored into the decision-making process.

QUESTION: But it’s certainly not many of 1,900?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: All right. And then, did you get a question – actually, I’ll let Margaret follow up on that.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead, Margaret.

QUESTION: If she wants to. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: It was answered by Jen, but if you want to read it out for other people, sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, there was a question yesterday about whether ambassadors can leave post without – or leave the country of their posting without notifying or without getting permission from Washington, or whether they are allowed – whether they are required to have diplomatic security or other security agents with them when they leave.

MS. PSAKI: So let me explain to all of you the process. I know a couple of people had this question. There are a very limited number of Ambassadors who have a U.S. security detail. Many other ambassadors have security details provided by the host government, so that would be local authorities. And those details would not travel outside the country as they have no legal authority outside of their home nation. So that wouldn’t be standard. If the ambassador has a security detail in a post that would require that, as in a DS security detail, the detail stays with an ambassador until departing the country. And then if they go to a post where there is high threat, then that’s – they may have an additional detail, but it’s case by case in each of these scenarios.

So long story short, it would be incorrect to assume that a detail, especially local authorities, would leave a country with any ambassador serving. Not every ambassador has security, and ambassadors have different kinds of security with different requirements. Some don’t even have it all around the clock. So it’s a case by case depending on the post.

QUESTION: All right. Well, recognizing that DS and the rest of the building would probably get – freak out if they – if you were asked which ambassador posts have this – have security 24 hours and which ones don’t, I --

MS. PSAKI: They wouldn’t freak out if I asked, only if I answer you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. Well, so I’m not going to ask that question because I know you won’t answer it, but can you give us a rough idea of how many – around the world, how many posts we’re talking about that – is it just like in war zones? I mean, I think we can all assume that Afghanistan or Iraq would be one of these ones, but an idea or a percentage of ambassadors who have – who are required to travel with security.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to define it because they’ll come down here and they’ll tackle me. But I will say it’s a small number. It’s a handful.

QUESTION: Small number? A handful. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: The Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Today, the Israeli Defense Minister, Mr. Moshe Ya’alon, placed the blame squarely on the Palestinians for the (inaudible) in the peace process, for not going into the direct negotiations unconditionally. Do you concur with this assessment?

MS. PSAKI: We, again, believe it’s on both sides to make the tough choices, to go back to the negotiating table, and that’s what our focus is on.

QUESTION: Okay. He also on the issue of the Arab Peace Initiative, which is a great success for the Secretary of State – he got the Arabs to sort of agree to swap land – to land swaps and so on. He actually dismissed that and he said that this is not really the issue that they are trying to impose upon us conditions that we reject.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I haven’t seen his specific comments, but let me just repeat why – or just tell you why the Arab Peace Initiative is significant or why the Secretary thinks it’s significant. And that is because it shows a unity among several Arab nations, that they support an effort to move towards a peace plan and that they would support that if it were to be completed. And that’s why it’s significant. So beyond that, I’m not going to respond to back-and-forth comments that I haven’t even seen.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, let me just sort of inform you. He also said, on the settlement issue, he dismissed this as being an issue because he said, quote-unquote, "The Palestinians consider all Israelis to be settlers and all of Israel to be settlement," and so on. Is that a feeling that you get from the Palestinians when you talk to them, when you talk to the Palestinian Authority, that they consider Israel to be a settlement and all Israelis are settlers?

MS. PSAKI: I am not going to characterize the broad feelings of all Palestinians. We have made clear what our feeling is, and I said that yesterday and I think I’ll leave it at that. Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. And finally, on the issue of incitement, he said that the Palestinians incite against Israel and he requested or appealed to the United States to connect the aid that it provides to the Palestinian Authority with their agreement not to incite and to change all the textbooks. Do you agree with him?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I haven’t seen his remarks. We have made very clear --

QUESTION: I recommend that you do look at it. Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- about no preconditions. There are a number of issues that need to be worked out through the process, and we’re hopeful they’ll remain – they’ll move back to the negotiating table.

Last one.

QUESTION: On North Korea, there are reports that Glyn Davies will be meeting with his Japanese and Korean counterparts here next week. Can you just confirm that meeting for us and tell us what you expect to happen there?

MS. PSAKI: I do have something for you on that. So the United States will host Japan and South Korea for bilateral consultations on the D.P.R.K. on June 18^th, and a trilateral dialogue on June 19^th. The bilateral and trilateral meetings will be hosted by, as you referenced, Special Representative for North Korea Policy Glyn Davies. The South Korean delegation will be headed by South Korea Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs – that is an amazing title – Cho. And the Japanese delegation will be headed by Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General Sugiyama. The United States, Japan, and South Korea have regular consultations, as you know, in which we exchange views on a wide range of regional and global issues, including on North Korea.

QUESTION: Jen, last one.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: The conversation that Secretary Kerry will have with his counterpart, Turkish counterpart this afternoon, will he discuss the protests in Turkey too?

MS. PSAKI: The focus of the conversation is on Syria and on the recent assessment that we announced last night. Beyond that, they often discuss a range of issues. They are good friends and good colleagues, but I don’t have a prediction for you on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)

DPB # 99

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• NEPAL
  • Election Preparations
• SYRIA
  • President Clinton's Remarks
  • Situation on the Ground / Revised UN Estimate of Casualties
  • Hezbollah and Iran's Fighters
  • U.S. Assistance to Opposition
  • Geneva Conference / Political Transition
• DEPARTMENT
  • Dialogue with Partners on Issues Including Counter-Terrorism, Cyber-Security and Privacy
• PAKISTAN
  • Bilateral Relationship
  • Detained Embassy Officials in Karachi
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Settlement Construction
  • Negotiations
• DEPARTMENT
  • Inspector General Memo
  • Diplomatic Security Hiring Process
• GREECE
  • Reforms
• BANGLADESH
  • Working Conditions
• IRAN
  • Elections
• DEPARTMENT
  • Hearing on International Religious Freedom Act
• EGYPT
  • Support for Democratic Future
• TURKEY
  • Efforts to Resolve Situation / Call for Restraint / Respect for Freedom of the Press

The video is also available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:20 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Everyone, happy Thursday. I have one item at the top.

We welcome the announcement by the Interim Election Council of Ministers in Nepal that Constituent Assembly elections will take place on November 19^th. Since the dissolution of the previous Constituent Assembly – Constituent Assembly, sorry about that – more than a year ago, we have encouraged the Government of Nepal to take this important step. We congratulate the people of Nepal as they prepare for free, fair, and inclusive elections, which are the hallmark of every democracy. The United States remains committed to supporting Nepal’s election preparations, including through voter registration and education and the organization of observer missions.

With that, ladies in the front, what is on your minds?

QUESTION: Syria.

MS. PSAKI: I would expect so. (Laughter.) How can I help you?

QUESTION: I wondered if you’d seen the comments today from – no, yesterday, I believe they were made, from former President Clinton, who is saying that staying out of Syria, I think, is a big mistake, and is – seems to be splitting with the President, with President Obama, whose ear he has. Could you comment on those, please?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first let me say for some who have or haven’t seen reports on this, these were remarks during, I believe, a closed-press meeting. And so I haven’t seen the full context of them and I suspect most of us have not seen the full context of them. But let me say that, as President Clinton knows, these decisions are very difficult, and they require careful weighing of the facts. The President’s focus, as we’ve talked about quite a bit in here over the last couple of days, is on making the best decision that will help bring an end to the suffering of the Syrian people while balancing with our own national security interests and those of the region.

We do share the view that the regime has been aided by the influx of foreign fighters, by Hezbollah. That has helped the regime on the ground. And conditions on the ground have worsened. And the dire situation on the ground is exactly why the President and his national security team have redoubled our efforts to explore what more we can do to help the opposition.

QUESTION: That was a really amazing recitation of what your colleague at the White House just said, almost word for word. I congratulate – kudos for getting – having the --

MS. PSAKI: We’re very in tune, Jay and I. We are.

QUESTION: -- having the message. Can I take a slightly different tack on this?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: You’ve seen – I’m pretty sure you’ve seen the new UN figures on the number of dead, 93,000 confirmed, probably many more. So given that, are you or is the Administration still comfortable with this policy on – policy of kind of what people might uncharitably say is strategic dithering on the idea of arming the rebels? Or have you actually – the decision, I suppose, is the – has the decision up until this point been – has a decision been made about arming the rebels? The answer is yes, I think, and the answer – and the decision is no. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: I have no update on a decision and no announcement. Let me say --

QUESTION: So there hasn’t been a decision either way?

MS. PSAKI: I have no announcement to make for --

QUESTION: Fair enough, but --

MS. PSAKI: -- on that today.

QUESTION: Well, then, to this point at whatever time it is, 1:20 on Thursday afternoon, the decision has been no. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have not announced that we are providing lethal assistance. That’s correct.

QUESTION: No, I know. But it is fair to say that the Administration up to this point where we’re talking to right now has decided no on the answer – on the question of arming the rebels?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, discussions are ongoing, but there is not a decision I’m aware of and no announcement to make.

QUESTION: Okay. And so then my question is that if no decision has been made, are you comfortable with the fact that you’ve been weighing this for two – almost two years now and you haven’t come to a – and you haven’t made a decision?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’ve made a decision about a number of increases in aid to the opposition. Let me first say, just so I don’t forget to say it, that we are, of course, saddened to see the UN’s revised estimate of the number killed in Syria, but we’re not shocked. Assad has used indiscriminate and disproportionate force against Syrian civilians, and inflicted unthinkable suffering upon his own people, which is why the United States has been at the forefront of the international community’s efforts to address this situation.

We have, as you know – and I talked about this about a week ago, but this does broadly answer your question. The President led the international call for Assad to step aside and allow a peaceful, democratic process to proceed. We’ve ratcheted up financial pressure on the regime and the worst human rights abuses through multiple rounds of sanctions, encouraging our international partners to do exactly the same. We have supported the cooperation and the expansion of the Syrian opposition, not an easy process, of course, after 40 years of stifled political debate. And we are contributing efforts – to their efforts to provide an alternative to the regime in liberated areas with 250 million in transition assistance.

So we have – I stated that, even though that was a long answer, to remind everyone of the decisions and the choices that we have made.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I did say at the top that we have redoubled our efforts and are focused on considering all options, barring boots on the ground. And the President and his national security team are focused on discussing just that.

QUESTION: But you’ve done all of that, that long recitation of stuff that you have done. Does it give you pause that all of that stuff that you have done doesn’t seem to have made a single bit of difference on the ground? Because you tend – almost 100,000 people are confirmed dead, and the situation is getting worse, not better. So does that give anybody pause?

MS. PSAKI: Of course.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

MS. PSAKI: We wake up every morning and the Secretary is focused on what more we can do to help the opposition. But let’s not forget that these numbers have not been increasing tragically in a vacuum. This is a case where, as we’ve talked about quite a bit in here over the last couple of weeks, Hezbollah, Iran have stepped up their assistance. This has been in part why we are refocusing on our efforts to help the opposition on the ground.

QUESTION: Can you just explain in more detail, because you’ve used the word “redoubled” today. Yesterday it was “refocused,” and you just said again you’ve refocused your efforts.

MS. PSAKI: I think they’re synonyms, wouldn’t you say?

QUESTION: Probably, although redoubling suggests slightly stronger efforts.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: But anyway, I just wanted to ask, in what way have you redoubled your efforts? Could you give us a concrete example of how you’ve redoubled your efforts in the last few days?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, as you know, there are – the President, and I believe my colleague Jay Carney spoke to this, is – continues to focus on, looking at all of the options that his national security team has presented to him. They have been discussing that, but beyond that, I don’t have an announcement for all of you.

QUESTION: So you are saying the efforts have been more intensive over the last couple of days than they were previously? Because you were already focused on this, it’s just you’ve made the decision --

MS. PSAKI: Of course. Every day we’ve been focused on it. There’s not an announcement or a decision to tell you about or to make or to announce here, but again, they’ve been discussing these options. Redoubling and refocus implies that we have been looking closely at everything that’s happening on the ground, all of the tragedies and massacres that have been happening. We have had conversations, of course, with General Idris and others who have given us even more of an update of what’s happening on the ground, so --

QUESTION: So, there was a report that’s out in The New York Times this morning about – who seemed to have got hold of some kind of U.S. intelligence documents in which they say that there are – last month in May alone, there were 500 air-to-ground attacks against rebels and civilians by the Syrian regime forces, 500 in May. I mean, I guess on an average that works out at 10, 12 a day.

Does that shock you? Does that – how does that play into your picture of what your redoubling – what the redoubling of your efforts consists of?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a number of factors that play into it. Certainly, conditions that are worsening on the ground – I don’t have any confirmation of those numbers independently, but we’ve seen, obviously, what has happened in Qusayr and various massacres and tragedies that have happened around the country, the influx of Hezbollah and foreign fighters and the impact that has had on boosting the regime. And we said at the time, even if we go back to chemical weapons, when we made our intel assessment, that of course has had an impact on our increased nonlethal aid and continuing to discuss and consider options.

So there are a number of factors that play into it, including discussions we have with the oppositions and with our – with the opposition and with our allies and partners around the world as well.

QUESTION: But there have been a number of suggestions that a no-fly zone, as Matt raised yesterday, which was imposed in Libya, could help the rebels on the ground as they seek shelter and as they’re trying to hit the balance back their way. Is there still discussions going on of any kind of a no-fly zone by --

MS. PSAKI: Well, all options remain on the table, barring boots on the ground, and we continue to take a hard look at every available practical and responsible means to ending the suffering of the Syrian people.

QUESTION: Jennifer, just at the --

QUESTION: This – can I just --

MS. PSAKI: Let’s let Leslie go and then we can go right to you.

QUESTION: Thank you. Is the Secretary involved in those meetings today and tomorrow on Syria?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to confirm or give any specifics on any meetings that are happening. Routine meetings, as you know, we’ve talked about quite a bit this week. If there’s a meeting of the national security team, certainly the Secretary would be a part of that.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: And you’re redoubling efforts with routine meetings? How do you explain that one?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, we’ve had discussions about what needs to happen and how we can help the opposition for some time.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: Those happen during meetings, those happen in a variety of ways, so – but I can assure you they’re being discussed.

QUESTION: Redoubling efforts is like when you give one dollar in aid and then you decide to give two dollars, you’ve doubled something.

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s doubling.

QUESTION: Right, and then you would give four. That would be redoubling, right? You’re having routine meetings, then you’re having more routine meetings.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know that math is any of our strength, so – (laughter) --

QUESTION: I’m pretty good. Well, 16 --

QUESTION: But I think the point he’s getting at, though, is that you – I think he’s getting at – is that you often say in talking about other governments, that action – that you’re looking for actions, not words.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And thus far, at least on the question of arming the rebels or making some significant difference, impact, on the situation on the ground, the balance of power as it stands, this Administration has been all talk and discussion and routine meetings, and not redoubling so far. How do you respond to that criticism?

MS. PSAKI: That – what I already went through in terms of what we’ve already done and the fact that we’re --

QUESTION: Yes, but as of --

MS. PSAKI: -- continuing to consider, Matt, all options, barring boots on the ground.

QUESTION: But continuing to consider can be seen by some as not doing anything, not taking action. In fact, it, by its very definition, “continuing to consider” is not taking action, it is considering. So you routinely fault other governments for not acting, for just saying – doing – just speaking, just issuing words. And I’m not – and I don’t see how you can consider yourself – not you personally, but the Administration can consider itself immune from such criticism in this case.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, if there was an easy choice to make here and if this wasn’t a difficult crisis happening in Syria with challenging decisions to make, I’m sure we would have already made them. But that’s the process we’re in right now.

QUESTION: Jennifer, right here?

MS. PSAKI: Let me just – Margaret, do you have one on Syria?

QUESTION: I do.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: On the 123 million that Secretary Kerry pledged to the opposition back at the end of April, has that yet been notified? I know you said that was in the works, but has Congress been told yet?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of an official notification. That was the next step. You’re correct. I’m happy to check if there’s any update on that.

QUESTION: But very quickly, on the point that you mentioned just a little while ago, the meetings that have just ended and the recommendations that were submitted, are you expecting that the President will actually say something before he meets with President Putin on Monday?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update for you on announcements or any timing of hypothetical announcements.

QUESTION: Okay. The other thing is that intelligence reports – in fact, U.S. intelligence reports suggest that the rebels are awash with weapons, weapons that have come from Libya. Some even suggest that they include MANPADS, which are surface-to-air missiles that conceivably could threaten commercial airlines and so on. Are you aware of that?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports you’re referring to. I would point you to many public comments that have been made by General Idris and other members of the opposition, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

QUESTION: Okay. Another thing is what Secretary of State Kerry said yesterday about the Geneva and how they interpret Geneva. He suggested that a major point in Geneva 1 last June 30^th was a transitional government with full authority. That was the suggestion. But the Russians contradict that, and they say that Assad having to leave is not part of that. Is there, like, a contention on this point that has not been resolved?

MS. PSAKI: I would refer you to the UN. They’ve spoken about this and spoken about what was agreed to during the discussions, and they’ll have some more next week.

QUESTION: Why the UN? I mean, we’re talking about your position versus the Russians.

MS. PSAKI: They --

QUESTION: That wasn’t a UN agreement.

MS. PSAKI: The UN was part of – I’m referring to --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I think he’s asking about what we said last week about what the UN and Russia and the U.S. had agreed to as part of the meetings that – or this is how I’m understanding your question.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me reframe the question.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Are you closer today than you were a week ago to the Russian position regarding holding Geneva?

MS. PSAKI: To which Russian position?

QUESTION: The Russian position that it does not include the clear call for Assad to step aside?

MS. PSAKI: No, we’re – our position has remained the same on that issue. We’ll continue to discuss --

QUESTION: So with this kind of difference, do you expect that the conference could actually take place?

MS. PSAKI: We do. We’re still planning it, but again, as I’ve said a couple times this week, our work with the opposition and on the crisis in Syria can’t happen in a political vacuum, which is why we’re also focused on what we can do more to help the opposition on the ground.

QUESTION: And lastly – I promise lastly --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: On the issue of foreign fighters, now, there are – we know that there are foreign fighters from Hezbollah fighting on the side of the regular forces, but there are also thousands upon thousands of other fighters that are involved here that come into Syria with the aid of regional governments. Are you also calling on them to withdraw?

MS. PSAKI: We are, and you’ve asked me that question before.

QUESTION: Right, but since you mentioned certain foreign fighters and did not mention the other, I thought that I’d bring it up.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m talking – I was referring to in the context of how the situation and the conditions have been boosted for the Assad regime on the ground.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Russian diplomat in Washington yesterday said that if the U.S. and Europe, Britain or France, will arm the rebels, they will step up their delivery of arms to the Syrian Government. Is this something of concern to you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re always concerned and have been concerned about reports and public statements by the Russians about their plans to support, whether it’s through financial or through military aid, the regime. But again, we’re getting several stages down the road here into a hypothetical question. So --

QUESTION: No, but don’t you consider that the Russian and probably the Iranian are already helping the government?

MS. PSAKI: We, of course, are well aware of that and well aware of the aid that is being given to the regime by Iran and other supporters of their efforts.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Syria? Okay.

QUESTION: I have a question. Do you know of any meeting – we’re reporting out of Beirut and Paris that there is a meeting with Idris tomorrow. Your – sorry, French, British and U.S. officials are meeting him tomorrow in Turkey. Do you have any confirmation?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of the U.S. participation, though I’m happy to check on it and see what the status is of that.

QUESTION: There’s been no change in the meeting scheduled for the 25^th of June between Sherman and --

MS. PSAKI: No, no change.

QUESTION: Okay. So that is still set? Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is there a goal for those talks, the ones that start on the 25^th?

MS. PSAKI: To continue the discussion, Brad.

QUESTION: Keeping you talking, yes. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Continue the discussion.

QUESTION: Yes, you’re really good at that.

QUESTION: They’re redoubling.

MS. PSAKI: To work through the agenda and work through participation and plan for how we can create the conditions to make the conference productive.

QUESTION: But do they have to have some sort of agreement on participants and agenda in order for this to happen in mid-July?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly that is a key part of what needs to happen before a conference would happen, as well as the opposition electing leadership and making sure on all sides this is the right time and the right conditions to move forward with the conference.

QUESTION: So if they meet and simply say, “We agree to meet again in two weeks in Geneva,” and book out a lot of hotel rooms and fly across the world again, that won’t be a success per se?

MS. PSAKI: We believe a success is continuing to work towards planning a conference to – that will have the conditions that can bring both sides to the table and move towards a political transition. At the same time --

QUESTION: Having the conference is the success, not continuing to talk about --

MS. PSAKI: No, a conference that will move both sides to a political transition. That’s why we're working with all sides in order to make sure the conditions are right for just that.

QUESTION: Jen, as they really look at different options right now, would you say that there is an agreement among officials, including Secretary Kerry, that the U.S. needs to intervene now, given the dire situation on the ground? I mean, I’ve been speaking to humanitarian groups who say – who are calling for urgency here. They can’t get their aid in. They can’t help. The humanitarian situation is worsening.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several different tracks of this, and I know I’ve talked a bit about this. But as you know, we have been working. We are the largest – if not one of the largest, I believe the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Syria and to the – to all people of Syria. I just mentioned our nonlethal assistance and what we’ve provided there. In terms of additional options and whether one will be undertaken, or what is being considered, I just don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Do you think that nonlethal aid has been effective?

MS. PSAKI: Well, look, nonlethal aid has served a variety of purposes. It’s been worked through the coordinating body under the SOC. We have provided assistance for everything from infrastructure to access to water, and this is something that is important. You mentioned the humanitarian issues on the ground. That is a great concern of ours and the impact this crisis has had on the people of Syria.

But we’ve continued to do more, and that has been an upward trajectory over the past couple of months. And if you watched the pattern, in Rome we decided to give directly to specific entities. In Istanbul, we decided the next group would be – the next tranche of money would go in part to the SMC. So you’ve seen adjustments we’ve made as we make – as we make evaluations about what’s needed on the ground.

QUESTION: So that lack of notification to Congress on that aid that was promised at the end of April, has that – will that stall the delivery of the next round of nonlethal aid to the rebels? It’s been more than four weeks now.

MS. PSAKI: Well, 127 has been – is in train.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I know you’re aware of that. A hundred and twenty-three is the next stage. There’s a natural process that is undertaken because we are very focused on, of course, getting this aid on the ground, but we also respect the process that we have here to moving it forward. So should it – an unwarranted delay? No. But it is something the Secretary is very focused on, and he will press to make it happen as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Can you explain what he needs to nail down before giving that notification, why --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything specific. That’s the next stage of the process.

QUESTION: Also, do you know if – whether the U.S., and how much the U.S. is going to contribute towards the $4 billion that the UN has made an appeal for?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: Wait, I just wanted to --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- check one thing before we go on. That is, there’s still no determination on chemical weapons?

MS. PSAKI: No update on that.

QUESTION: One more Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I would like to ask a general question. The U.S. was involved in Libya with putting the no-fly zone in Libya, but this time you haven’t done yet. So does the experience in Libya have some impact on the U.S. policy in Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt asked a similar question yesterday, and while the atrocities committed against civilians are abhorrent in both cases, Syria and Libya are different countries, as you know. They have different populations, different geography, and different challenges. So there was also widespread support at the time, international support and clear UN Security Council authorization for military intervention in Libya. So it’s different.

But whichever judgments we make for Syria must pass the test – the bar we’re looking at, I should say, of making the situation better for the Syrian people, and we also must take a look – into account the long-term human, financial, and political costs for us, Syria and the region. So that's the bar we’re looking at here.

QUESTION: Could I just point out, when you say they’re different countries with different populations and different geographies, yeah. The one different about the population is that there’s 93,000 fewer Syrians than there were two years ago, and the death toll in Libya didn’t come even close.

MS. PSAKI: That is true, Matt, but what I meant was the size of the population, where the countries are located, there are many details that are different about the populations in the countries.

QUESTION: Two questions on South Asia, please.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: One: Today, as far as this NSA and security – I mean the phone records – today, Mr. Jay Carney at the White House, on a question, he mentioned about the – David Headley, who is serving in Chicago, on the attacks in a Mumbai hotel. And also he mentioned about some terror plots were foiled in Pakistan, as far as these NSA phone.

My question is that since India, Pakistan, and I’m sure maybe Afghanistan region is involved, if the – those – leaders of those countries like people in India, I mean the leaders in India or the Pakistan, they knew or do they know about this? I know that U.S.-India, U.S.-Pakistan, U.S.-Afghanistan cooperation is going on as far as terrorism is concerned. My question is, do they – are they aware of these things going on?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Goyal, we are, of course, aware that recent disclosures in the press about classified U.S. intelligence activities have raised concern with some other governments. I would refer to all of them to speak for themselves. And we have ongoing dialogues with allies and partners around the world on a range of issues, including counterterrorism, cyber-security, and privacy concerns, and all of these programs. And so we’ll continue to discuss those issues and others raised through our diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: And also when the Secretary visits end of the month to India and other countries in the region, he will be discussing all these issues?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have any travel to announce for you today. But certainly he is open to discussing a range of issues with all of our friends and partners out there.

QUESTION: And finally, one more, Pakistan.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: If you can clarify or if you have the new government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, he – they had summoned some U.S. diplomats in Islamabad to explain and to protest about the ongoing drone attacks by the United States. And the Nawaz Sharif government is calling now already on the U.S. to stop these drone attacks because they are killing innocent peoples in Pakistan. My question is: What is the future of the U.S.-Pakistan relation under the new government?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I was going to add before that the Secretary is looking forward to visiting Pakistan and India at the appropriate time, though I have no – nothing to announce today. But we do have a strong, ongoing dialogue with Pakistan regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship and shared interests, including security and counterterrorism cooperation, and we’ll work together to address any of these concerns.

QUESTION: Same subject?

QUESTION: Well, you might not have anything to announce today, but the Pakistanis sure did. Do you have any reason to think that what the Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman said about Secretary Kerry visiting Islamabad in the last week of June is incorrect?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’re still working through our official process here, and when we have official travel notification or announcements to make, I’m sure we will make them.

QUESTION: Still on --

QUESTION: It is – it is already --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Prime Minister has also announced it as well.

MS. PSAKI: I did see that as well.

QUESTION: Still on Pakistan.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have any information about four embassy officials who were not allowed to go to the consulate in Karachi, I think, and then sent back to Islamabad?

MS. PSAKI: So I can confirm that the four U.S. embassy officials flew from Islamabad to Karachi yesterday, I believe it was, to meet with U.S. Consulate General Karachi officials at the consulate. When they arrived at the Karachi International Airport, they were detained by airport officials and have since returned to Islamabad. In terms of the reasoning, we’re still gathering information on what happened here.

QUESTION: Do you generally need special permission to travel within Pakistan between diplomatic posts?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of the requirements or the forms needed. Again, we’re still looking at what happened here, so we just don’t have a new update.

QUESTION: And did you find this becoming behavior of a close counterterrorist ally?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to judge without knowing the details, Brad.

QUESTION: Do you know, though, if there is – you have, presumably, if you’re still trying to find out what happened, you’re asking the Pakistan – you’ve inquired with the Pakistani authorities about what happened, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m sure we’re in touch with all the appropriate point people here in terms of determining what happened. And beyond that, I would refer you, of course, to the officials there.

QUESTION: This would seem a bit unusual. Is it something’s that’s happened in the past to your officials in Islamabad?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of the history here, but again, I don’t want to over read – and I would encourage none of you to over read – into it while we’re still looking into what the specifics of the events were.

QUESTION: Well, these four people were told something. They weren’t just rounded up in complete silence. Surely, you have some information about why they couldn’t proceed to the consulate general.

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything more for you on it, Brad.

QUESTION: Madam, as far as Secretary’s visit to India, it is – it has been already printed in the news media in India. The Secretary will be in Delhi on June 24^th.

MS. PSAKI: I have seen those reports, Goyal. And when I have something to share with all of you, I’m happy to share them.

QUESTION: We might join, you think.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Mid-East, to Israel-Palestine?

MS. PSAKI: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: So as part of whenever it is that you make this announcement – well, we do expect the Secretary to visit Israel soon – I don’t think that that’s any secret since you had basically announced that he had postponed his trip there – trip to the Middle East there. So I’m wondering, in light of that – in light of his upcoming travel, if you have particular concerns about the latest settlement announcement in the West Bank today from the Israeli military.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we, of course, have seen those media reports that the Government of Israel has advanced plans to approve the construction of additional settlement housing in the West Bank settlements, and our position is the same. The Secretary has expressed his concern in the past both publicly and in private conversations. We don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We remain hopeful that both sides will look at the important opportunity we have here to build trust and confidence and move back to the negotiating table, and that’s what our focus is on.

QUESTION: Have you seen anything so far to give you hope? You say you remain hopeful. Has there been anything to give you hope?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, as you know, to the frustration of all of you I’m certain, these conversations and the meetings have been very private, and we’ve kept them private for a reason.

QUESTION: No, let’s talk about public, just things that have appeared in public, things that are public knowledge. Has there been anything that would give you hope? I mean, there comes a point at which remaining hopeful is – becomes just naive and unworkable.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the Secretary himself made very clear the last couple of times he’s spoken about this that both sides need to make tough choices, and it’s on them to make the decision about whether they’re willing to move back to the table.

QUESTION: Okay. So have you seen either side make a tough choice?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to lay out --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, I just --

MS. PSAKI: -- what conversations that happen privately.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, have you seen --

MS. PSAKI: I’ll leave you to analyze what they’ve said publicly.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you – then I will do that. And what they have said publicly, or, at least in this case, what the Israelis have said publicly, is not conducive to any resumption in negotiations. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: There have been --

QUESTION: You say that continued settlement activity is bad and is not helpful to the process.

MS. PSAKI: That is true.

QUESTION: Okay. So have you seen anything public, that they have done publicly, that would be conducive to resumption, on either side – not just the Israelis, either side? Has either side done anything since the – since you have been in this job, or since the Secretary has been in – the current Secretary has been in his job, that would give you any reason to be hopeful that a resumption in negotiations is possible?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the Secretary --

QUESTION: Anything? Anything?

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary would not have returned as many times as he had if he didn’t think that there was an opportunity here. And given the stakes and how important this would be and how impactful it would be to the region and our interests around the world, that’s why he’s so focused on it. Obviously, there are a lot of conversations that happened privately. There have been a range of comments made, of course. We know that – we knew going into it, the Secretary knew there would be cynics, and we’ve seen that in the media, as he himself has said. But there have been meetings, a number of positive meetings they’ve had. There have been positive comments from both sides about the openness to continuing the discussions, and we’ll see if we get to the point where both sides make the tough decisions to move back to the table.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you suggesting that it is cynical to say – to see an Israeli – another Israeli announcement of continued settlement activity, something that you yourself say is bad – it’s cynical to see that as something that is not --

MS. PSAKI: No, I --

QUESTION: -- conducive to --

MS. PSAKI: -- I wasn’t --

QUESTION: -- negotiation?

MS. PSAKI: -- I wasn't attributing that to that specific question. I was attributing it to the fact that there have been comments, as we’ve all seen and as the Secretary himself has talked about, about how difficult this is, how he understands people are skeptical, things along those lines.

QUESTION: But here’s the thing: How – I don’t see how you can it’s cynical or – he understands why people are skeptical? I mean, it’s precisely because of things like this that people are skeptical. I would --

MS. PSAKI: And because --

QUESTION: -- argue that it’s not cynical. It’s realistic.

MS. PSAKI: This is because there have been efforts to move back to the table countless times, as you well know, because you’ve followed this closely --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- for a number of years. And it’s difficult. So – but he still remains focused on it, and if him going back to the region will help move it --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- the ball forward one step, he’ll do that.

QUESTION: Just on – this should be easier. Do you know, has this latest announcement been raised by U.S. officials with Israeli officials?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of a – because this was just this morning, so I don’t have any update on kind of a recent --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) an update since we talked the last time about this.

MS. PSAKI: All right. Said’s going to read out conversations.

QUESTION: Yes, exactly. There was – if I may. There was an increase of 670 units yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that’s what I was referring to.

QUESTION: And today there was an announcement for Gush Etzion, another addition of 1,000. So in the last --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, but he update --

MS. PSAKI: I think Matt was --

QUESTION: -- I was looking for was whether --

MS. PSAKI: Matt was asking about conversations between people at our Embassy or consulate, or presumably in the State Department.

QUESTION: Do you plan to raise it at a high level in the coming days?

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary has raised it at a high level before. I don’t have any planned calls, but I’m sure he will not hesitate to do so.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me just follow up, if I may, on this. Was this issue, the issue of expansion of settlement, discussed between Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hague yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: No, it was not.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you aware that Mr. Netanyahu in Warsaw refused to sign on a statement that calls for a two-state solution, he insisted that the two-state solution would be taken out?

MS. PSAKI: I would send you to the Government of Israel and Mr. Netanyahu.

QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, the Palestinians – the Palestinian Authority says that these settlement expansions is actually a way to sort of disrupt Secretary Kerry’s effort towards some sort of a peace settlement. Do you agree with them, or do you --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I may --

QUESTION: Perhaps you find that to be cynical?

MS. PSAKI: I made pretty clear that we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity, and we encourage both sides to act in a way that will provide for a path to peace. So --

QUESTION: Yeah. But, I mean, you always say the same thing, that you are unhappy, you find it unhelpful and so on. But the process is really accelerating at a breathless kind of speed. Are you not concerned that there may not be any land left for the Palestinians to build their state on?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s why I expressed a concern today.

QUESTION: What I don’t understand is – the Secretary said it several times, you’ve repeated it – that there’s reasons for skepticism, for cynicism, you understand.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But you don’t provide any counter evidence why people shouldn’t be skeptical or cynical in this case. You’re not providing any --

QUESTION: Is it secret?

QUESTION: -- evidence or anything to suggest that people should get rid of this skepticism and believe in the process.

MS. PSAKI: The strategy here is to keep these negotiations private, because his belief – and the belief of a number of these officials – is that that’s the best way to create an environment to bring both sides back to a negotiating table.

QUESTION: But you understand that on that notion, then, if you were skeptical, you should stay skeptical, correct?

MS. PSAKI: If the current path we’re on leads to a peace agreement, Brad, we will accept --

QUESTION: You will inform us of the decision.

MS. PSAKI: -- every ounce of skepticism there’s been.

QUESTION: Is it possible --

QUESTION: (Laughter.) What if it doesn’t?

MS. PSAKI: It’s worth the effort to try to bring both sides back to the table.

QUESTION: I mean, isn’t part of the problem here that despite the U.S. condemnation of settlement building, the Israelis have absolutely no incentive to stop it? I mean, they know that they’re going to have the U.S. support ad infinitum. And is it – shouldn’t there be consequences? Shouldn’t the U.S. be sort of saying, okay, we hold a lot of aid – we send a lot of aid to Israel; shouldn’t there be some kind of consequences for the Israelis going ahead and deliberately tarnishing the waters that the Secretary’s trying to build here?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our focus right now is not on consequences as much as working with both sides to try to move them back to the table. So I don’t have anything new or any new policy on that front. Certainly we find this unhelpful, as I just said. And he’s continuing to talk to both sides.

QUESTION: But diplomacy has always been about a carrot and stick thing. And I mean, working with the two sides isn’t actually getting you anywhere. We’re still stuck now where we were sort of 60 years ago. Despite the Secretary’s efforts, the Israelis are still moving forward with plans which you yourself concede are unhelpful.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t there be some kind of modification of the U.S. policy in that case to sort of say, “If you guys do this, we’re going to do that”? And maybe that would actually unblock this process somewhere.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – that’s not the current plan. But we are – he is continuing to work with both sides, to have discussions, express concerns where needed with both sides, and remains focused on moving them back to the table.

QUESTION: Do you have a comment on the increased attack by settlers against Palestinian farmers and villagers?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I’m not sure which report you’re referring to.

QUESTION: I mean, they are constant. They happen almost every day within – they double every month. Talk about doubling. I mean, it doubles every month. Are you concerned, or do you raise this issue with the Israelis? Do you demand that they bring these attackers to justice?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I’m not sure what report you’re referring to. We’re always concerned about attacks on innocent civilians, but beyond that I’m not sure I have much more to add.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you expect both sides to hold the aggressors from their side accountable to justice? Do you call on both sides that they do that, including the Israelis?

MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve probably done what we can here on this topic, Said.

QUESTION: I just want to check one thing that you said to Jo. You said, “That’s not the current plan,” when I think her question was why – is there any thought being given to making there --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- be consequences for unhelpful actions as it related to the settlements? And you said that’s not the current plan. Is it still the policy, though, that if the Palestinians try to get recognition at U.S. – at UN agencies or affiliates, that there will be consequences in terms of aid?

MS. PSAKI: You’re familiar with our policy. That hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: So in other words, that there are consequences for the Palestinians if they do things that are unhelpful, but there are not consequences – and there are no plans to have consequences – for the Israelis if they do things that are unhelpful to the process. Is that correct? Is that correct? That’s --

MS. PSAKI: Well, again --

QUESTION: I want to make sure that I understand that that’s the --

MS. PSAKI: There’s no change in our policy on either front.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

MS. PSAKI: That was what I was conferring to Jo, perhaps not clearly enough.

QUESTION: Okay. So if I could just make – so it is then correct that U.S. policy is to – for there to be consequences for the Palestinians if they do things that are unhelpful to the resumption of the peace process, but it is not the U.S. policy to have consequences for the Israelis when they do similar things?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think Jo was referring to funding that we provide for security purposes, which have a broad range of reasons, as you know.

QUESTION: I don’t think – she just said consequences.

QUESTION: No, no. Matt’s question is the right question, actually, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: There’s no change in our policy, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. So there are no consequences for the Israelis but plenty of consequences for the Palestinians?

MS. PSAKI: Again, we consider aid to all sides – as you know, because you know how the Congressional process works – on a very regular basis.

QUESTION: I just want to make sure that I understand it.

MS. PSAKI: We make points to both sides about actions they would take that would be unhelpful. And we – that is why moving both sides back to the table for a peace process is so important.

Margaret.

QUESTION: Another topic?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: The October 23^rd Inspector General memo that we’ve talked so much about – the surveillance detection agent in Brussels at the time, according to the memo, quote, “determined that the ambassador there routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors.” It then goes on to cite as other sources the ambassador’s protective detail and the embassy’s surveillance detective team, which they describe as staffed by host-country nationals. Do you have any reason to believe that those agents or the regional security officer at the time were mistaken?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve broadly covered this topic this week, so let me just restate we’re not going to talk about individual cases from the podium. I will say that, again, this memo was put together without the benefit of case files and includes a great deal of unsubstantiated information.

QUESTION: But specific to what those particular agents and the RSO said --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to – they did not review the case files. I’m not going to speak to individual cases. I’m just making a broad point here that I’ve made a couple of times in here about this specific memo.

QUESTION: But has anyone in the State Department talked to those members of the protective detail or the RSO since – in the past two years?

MS. PSAKI: For all of the cases that were in this memo, they were already under review or – they were all already under review, so that applies to all of them, and that means they were being looked into.

QUESTION: But that involves speaking to the protective detail members?

MS. PSAKI: It involves a number of efforts to get to the bottom of the facts and look into the details. I’m not going to get into specifically what that means.

QUESTION: Well, the regional security officer in Brussels at that time told CBS that one of his concerns was that the ambassador’s behavior left him vulnerable to counterintelligence. And he also said to CBS that the ambassador was leaving the country without his protective detail. So was Washington – was this building aware of the ambassador’s movements out of the country without protection?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to get into any specific cases.

QUESTION: But that’s unusual, right?

MS. PSAKI: The ambassador you’re referring to has issued a statement in his name about these allegations. I would point you to that. And I would also point you to what I’ve kind of ticked through this week about the fact that this document contains a number of unsubstantiated points in it. There have been several follow-ups to that. There was a memo in February. And the OIG is currently looking into our processes here and how things are reviewed, and we certainly welcome that.

QUESTION: Well, I ask you that because some of those principals involved, who had reported those incidents that were reflected in the memo, have told us that they have not been contacted in two years. They have not been contacted even since this latest review has been initiated with the persons brought on after the February report.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the review is underway. Also, all of these cases were being reviewed internally at the time. In terms of that process entails, I just can’t speak to that.

QUESTION: I got two things. One on that.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Just in general, recognizing you can’t talk about the specific cases, are ambassadors required to have security details accompany them when they leave their post, leave the country of their posting for personal reasons or for even --

MS. PSAKI: I believe they are, but I can get you a more specific --

QUESTION: They are. So --

MS. PSAKI: -- what our policy is on that.

QUESTION: Okay. And I would be particularly interested if there is a blanket requirement of that. And then even if there isn’t a blanket requirement, if there is one requirement for specific countries or specific regions. Western Europe isn’t exactly the most threatening place to be, but if there is such a requirement it would be interesting.

And then the second thing is there was a report this morning in the New York Post which seems to – which suggests – or it doesn’t suggest, it says that many of the 2,000 Diplomatic Security agents currently employed by the Department have criminal records or otherwise checkered backgrounds. Is that-- many of – can you be – one, is that true? And two, can you put a number on how many of the 2,000? And I would also note that there seems to be a report that taped off from the Post story that says that 2,000 – all 2,000 have criminal backgrounds. So can you answer those?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think this is referring to another memo with unsubstantiated information in it. Let me just tell you what our process is here. Diplomatic Security agents – as all foreign personnel are – are carefully screened and vetted during a vigorous selection – rigorous selection and hiring process. Successful candidates pass a series of highly competitive written and oral assessments. They must obtain a top secret clearance that is based on extensive background investigations that include past employment checks, criminal record checks, and interviews with neighbors, colleagues, coworkers, and employees.

In addition, because Foreign Service personnel are subject to unusual pressures, Department officials conduct a final suitability review to consider such matters as criminal history, financial responsibility, past drug or alcohol use, misconduct in prior engagement, and failure to exercise good judgment. Every evaluation is made case-by-case, but this is a rigorous and extensive process that any individual who goes through participates in.

QUESTION: Well, is it accurate to say that many of the 2,000 Diplomatic Security employees have criminal backgrounds or checkered – criminal records or checkered backgrounds that make them – that reduce their – or hinder their ability to perform their jobs? Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there are 1,900 – just over 1,900, so you know – DS agents around the world. Each is reviewed on a case-by-case. That’s a process that is an HR process. I would caution you not to believe things that you read based on internal memos, as we’ve learned this week.

QUESTION: That’s why I’m – I’m not believing anything, but I’m just looking for a straight answer. Is it correct that many of those 1,900 have criminal backgrounds or – sorry – criminal records or checkered backgrounds that inhibit their ability to perform their jobs?

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: It is not correct?

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you give a – are there any?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any numbers for you on things like that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, is it a handful? I mean, I presume – this is a big building, there are a lot of people that work here. It would be --

MS. PSAKI: You’re right, Matt, but what --

QUESTION: It would be ridiculous to assume that nobody in this building doesn’t – that --

MS. PSAKI: We’re never going to get into personnel issues along those lines.

QUESTION: This is far – I mean, yes, this is a personnel issue in its most broad sense, and I’m willing to give the Department or any bureaucracy that’s got tens of thousands of employees the benefit of the doubt because it’s impossible to have --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: -- a workforce that large and have no one have a criminal record.

MS. PSAKI: And what I was trying to convey with my outline of what we do is that --

QUESTION: So, what I’m trying to figure out – these people are law enforcement agents, right? They are federal law enforcement agents. Diplomatic Security takes great pride in the fact that it is considered a federal law enforcement agency.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And if it is correct that many of the 1,900 of them are unable to do their jobs or are not able to do their jobs effectively because they have criminal backgrounds or checkered backgrounds --

MS. PSAKI: No, that is incorrect.

QUESTION: That is incorrect?

MS. PSAKI: The reason that I went --

QUESTION: But are there – then can you say, if it’s not many, is it some?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: But Jen, surely having a criminal record would bar you from working in Diplomatic Security, wouldn’t it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Jo, I’m not going to get into all the specifics of this, but obviously there is a rigorous and extensive process that every individual goes through. So every factor is considered. I mentioned their suitability, their financial background, certainly their criminal background. All of these are factors that are considered through this process.

QUESTION: But again, wouldn’t a criminal record bar – just bar people from having any kind of role in a security agency, in a law enforcement agency?

MS. PSAKI: I can assure you that every aspect of anyone’s records are looked into closely and considered as a part of any approval process for any position, and certainly in Diplomatic Security.

QUESTION: So – but you would not dispute the veracity of the memo where it says that this is an issue for at least some, or would you?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I can’t rule out for you every individual’s background. So I was just being careful about not doing that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, this is what the OIG says – right, this is what the OIG says in its report. You’re not saying that that’s wrong, are you?

MS. PSAKI: I would – I am not ruling out anything in anyone’s background. I’m just assuring for you – reassuring for you how rigorous the process is.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that. But I mean, is the – does the Department believe that it is an issue that needs to be addressed, as apparently the OIG believes?

MS. PSAKI: We welcome any review that is going to happen or take place, looking at any of our processes. I’m not aware of one that is happening in this case given how rigorous our process is.

QUESTION: Okay. So is it fair to say that you disagree, the building disagrees with the OIG concern?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t – it’s not – it’s an internal memo.

QUESTION: I understand.

MS. PSAKI: So I’m not going to analyze an internal memo. It’s not something that we would have even necessarily seen.

QUESTION: You haven’t seen it?

QUESTION: Not necessarily.

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- Matt, they’re OIG documents.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I mean, I would point you to them for specifics on each of these.

QUESTION: No, I understand, but maybe – but the Department often – the Department – the OIG, when it does a report or review on something like this, asks, as you went through the last time --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, they do.

QUESTION: -- with the other memo that she’s talking about, and they – and you respond, the Department responds to the OIG. Do you know if there was a response in this case, and if there was, was it that, “Well, this is interesting but we don’t think it’s a problem?”

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on a response. You are correct on the process.

QUESTION: Jen, can you – just on a point of clarification, and Matt touched on it at the top. Putting the memo aside, but not only for an ambassador to leave a post without notifying Washington, but to leave the country in an area that the regional security officer and his detail have outlined is at high risk of counter-surveillance because of NATO, because of all the other interests there, can you just tell us what the rule of thumb is in terms of notifying Washington and being able to overrule your regional security officer who has told you they would prefer that you stop doing this? Like, what’s the rule of thumb for ambassadors?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly if an ambassador has Diplomatic Security, which I believe most if not all of them have, that moving away from or traveling without them with you would certainly be frowned upon and would not be within what our policy is here. But every scenario is different and every case is different.

QUESTION: Could you clarify that for us, if you can take that question of specific to this post, whether that would be different than any other where you could leave your detail and leave the country?

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to look into it and see what we can provide, and I’m sure we have an outline, and I have an outline of what the requirements and what the standards are that we can provide to all of you.

QUESTION: Because this was reported two years ago, so it would – since you can’t, from the podium, say – and clear the ambassador’s name since this review separate from this is going on – if you can outline for us that, at least, whether this would be with Washington’s knowledge that he was allowed to leave the country without detail, whether it was unusual or not. Because certainly, according to his agents and some of those detail members, it was, and it was reported to Washington as being quite unusual.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ll certainly look into what the protocol process is here. Again, I would caution you about --

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MS. PSAKI: -- believing everything you read or everything in an internal memo. So I would take that all with a grain of salt.

QUESTION: But this is not based – well, that’s what I’m saying, it’s not just based on the memo; it’s based on separate interviews, which is why I was citing those. Because I know you’ve talked extensively about your questions regarding memos and hearsay, but this is based on what agents have shared and reported, so it’s separate from that.

MS. PSAKI: So to break through all of your questions here, I believe what you’re asking for is what our process or protocol is for ambassadors and whether, if they have security detail, they should stick with their security detail. Certainly, yes, they should.

QUESTION: But when they’re leaving the country and the agent has said to cease that activity, in this case, particularly to this post, whether there would be any reason for this to not be unusual behavior that would warrant concern and would warrant reporting, and whether these agents could be mistaken in the reports that they shared two years ago that were then reported to Under Secretary Kerry – excuse me, Kennedy in May 2011?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly, we’ll look into it. If there’s more to share, I’m happy to share it.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

QUESTION: I have a question on Greece.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Two days ago, the Greek Government shut down the Greek public television. 2,500 of our colleagues are out of a job. In Europe, they believe that it is a violation of the freedom of the press. Do you have any comment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have seen, of course, those reports. I don’t have anything for you on this specifically. We recognize these are, of course, difficult times, economic times, and support Greece and have empathy with Greeks during this economic crisis. We understand the need for reforms that will make Greece more competitive and prosperous in the future.

QUESTION: But to fire 2,500 people is a reform, you think?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything specific for you. It, again, is a tough economic time and we support Greece in the tough choices that need to be made.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Let’s go to Scott just because he hasn’t asked.

QUESTION: May I ask you a question about Bangladesh, please?

QUESTION: No. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Several of the large European retailers have signed on to a binding fire and building safety code; U.S. retailers, not so much. Does the U.S. Government have a position about whether American retailers doing business in Bangladesh should sign this binding Fire and Building Safety Accord?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Scott, I am familiar with that issue. We believe that companies need to make their own decisions. We do have an ongoing dialogue with Bangladesh and internally in the interagency about the need to help Bangladesh and work with companies and work with the government on the working conditions and the situation there. So that is a focus that we have here.

QUESTION: So if it’s up to them to make their own decisions, it is not the recommendation of the U.S. Government that --

MS. PSAKI: It is up to them to make their own decisions.

QUESTION: Can we change topics? The

QUESTION: (Inaudible) make sure that U.S. companies obey – which are working in Bangladesh – make sure that basic human rights and pay, other facilities provided to the Bangladeshis workers, are assured?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. That’s a separate question about the specific – specifically what he’s asking about U.S. companies signing on to. Certainly, we think companies should hold to the highest standards their working conditions, human rights conditions, absolutely. And that’s something we have an ongoing dialogue with Bangladesh about.

QUESTION: But if the U.S. companies are not signing on to those provisions, aren’t they not trying to do the same thing with other – which you would like to – expect them to do?

MS. PSAKI: Again, it’s a separate – whether they sign on to this specific agreement, we do hold them to the highest standards and expect that they will hold human rights and working conditions to the highest standards.

QUESTION: I wonder if you would comment on the Iranian elections tomorrow. They have one moderate candidate, Hassan Rouhani, but they also have – these are the leading candidates. They have five other really conservative – led by Saeed Jalili and Qalibaf and Ali Velayati. I wonder if you – would you like to see Mr. Hassan Rouhani win the election? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Not going to speak to specific candidates, and you’re laughing because you know I won’t. The decision on who will become Iran’s next president is up to the Iranian people. However, as the Secretary said, by international standards this election is not free, fair, or transparent. The candidates were chosen, as you know, by the Guardian Council, which is unelected and unaccountable to – an unaccountable body. And nonetheless, the Iranian people will make some choice among the small choices that they have.

QUESTION: And now, what was the reason that it is – it’s declared not to be up to international standards.

MS. PSAKI: The elections?

QUESTION: Why is it not up to international standards, in your opinion?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s quite a history in Iran that I’m sure you’re familiar with.

QUESTION: Right. Yes, I am.

MS. PSAKI: And as you know, the Supreme Leader, the ultimate authority --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- on not only issues but a lot of these cases lies with the Supreme Leader. So we have concerns about the history and concerns about how free, fair, and transparent it will be moving forward.

QUESTION: Okay. But that brings into question the whole system in Iran, not only the election. But as far as the elections are concerned, is there – as we have seen in the past, they were actually held with some – quite transparently. Don’t you agree?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Guardian Council selected candidates without support --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- or a vote from the Iranian people. That, I think, is a clear sign of not making this a democratic process in the true nature of the term. So that’s a flag right there. But certainly the history here and what happened just four years ago gives all of us pause.

QUESTION: But considering that Mr. Rouhani said statements that are quite conciliatory towards the United States and the West, wouldn’t you like him to see – to see him win in this --

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to speculate on individual candidates.

Iran?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Yeah. Turkey.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have a general message to the people of Iran who are facing, as you call them, these small choices, given that the last elections in 2009, in which – which were won by Mr. Ahmadinejad, ended with quite a lot of violence on the streets of Tehran?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our message to the Iranian people is what our message would be in any of these cases where we know that – and we have – we are not – we don’t believe, given the history, as I’ve just outlined, that we are on track for free, fair, and transparent elections. That doesn’t mean we discourage people from participating; we certainly do encourage them to. And we know the challenges that the Iranian people are facing. We’ve taken efforts and taken steps in recent weeks. It doesn’t solve this specific problem, but – to provide greater access to tools to communicate because we feel that’s so important for the people in the country. But until things change, we understand the challenges that the people in the country will be going through.

QUESTION: When you say that you encourage people to participate, that means you’re encouraging Iranians to participate and vote in what – an exercise that you think is completely pointless? Why would you --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I said, we’re not discouraging participation. We would – but we remain skeptical about what is going to transpire here.

QUESTION: I understand. I understand you’re not discouraging. But you actually said you are encouraging people to participate. Why would the United States Government encourage people to participate in an exercise that it, the United States Government, thinks is a complete waste of time and a sham?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are skeptical about how this will be handled and managed, Matt.

QUESTION: I know, so why would you encourage people to participate in something like that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we always encourage participation in any processes like voting along these lines. I don’t want you to read too much into the message I was sending there.

QUESTION: I’m not – I just – I’m not trying to read too much in – I’m not reading anything into it, other than the fact that you’re basically telling people to go waste their time, which I find a little bit surprising. But anyway, I have one.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: It’s on a purely domestic issue.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: So this morning, the House – a subcommittee of the House Oversight committee had a hearing about the International Religious Freedom Act. And the chairman of that committee, Congressman Chaffetz, was most peeved that the witness from the State Department who had been invited to attend, the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Suzan Johnson Cook, did not attend. Can you explain why she did not?

MS. PSAKI: I can.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom gladly agreed to testify today at the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee hearing that you’re referring to. It is standard operating procedure that the U.S. Government witnesses that are – Department witnesses, I should say – testify on a separate panel from private witnesses. And there was a change in the procedure and the process that they – as they planned the subcommittee hearing. But the Ambassador and the Department would very much look forward to participating in a future hearing that follows standard procedures for Department witnesses.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you aware of there being any exceptions to that rule or that practice or policy? Because Congressman Chaffetz found at least one where he said and named former Assistant Secretary Shapiro as appearing on a panel with a representative from Lloyd’s, the insurance concern?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not familiar with that case. This is our standard operating procedure here.

QUESTION: I understand, but this seems like it’s a middle school fight, and it’s a little embarrassing, I think, that it even has to be raised here. Couldn’t there be some kind of compromise reached with committee about allowing her to testify? Both the chairman of the committee and the Department think that it is – it would be good --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and that her testimony would be important to understanding the situation.

MS. PSAKI: Well, she agreed to testify and she’s --

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MS. PSAKI: -- open to testifying, so I’m sure they’ll discuss that.

QUESTION: Yeah, but testifying – yeah, but saying, “I’ll testify, but I’m only going to testify in my room,” or “at my own table,” seems a bit petty, as it does the other side as well, saying that, “No, we’re not going to ask – you can’t sit at your own table; you have to sit with these other people.”

So I just want to know why – I mean, this is the federal government we’re talking about here, and both sides are acting like a bunch of three-year-olds. Why can’t a compromise be reached? I mean, I could come up with any number of possible solutions.

MS. PSAKI: Maybe we should get you involved here.

QUESTION: Well, no. Yeah, I don’t get paid enough to do that. (Laughter.) But I just don’t understand, if you want to cooperate, why don’t you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, in this case, they had a process that – or a procedure that they were planning. She agreed to testify. They changed that. She’s happy to testify again. I’m sure there’ll be a range of discussions from both sides about that.

QUESTION: Congressman Leach, who is the ranking member of that subcommittee, said that he had a similar experience with – when he was actually the chairman of the subcommittee during the Bush Administration, had a similar experience with the refusal to testify with private witnesses. And he said that while it – he suggested that Congressman Chaffetz’s colleague might have been trying to set something up to have some kind of an argument between witnesses, and the way he suggested this was by saying that he understood that it might be entertaining for the committee members and perhaps the public, the few people who would watch this kind of a hearing – it might be entertaining for them, but it would be uncomfortable for the Administration.

Can you assure us that it is not because it would have – might have been uncomfortable for either the Administration or the witness in question? That’s not the reason why --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, they were following standard policy and process here. That’s what the Department was doing. I’m sure they will discuss how to make the hearing happen in the future. You’re right that they do want to have this hearing. It is to talk about religious freedom, something the Secretary and the Department cares deeply about, and we’ll see --

QUESTION: Well, if you care so deeply about it, why couldn’t you have come up – why couldn’t you come up with some way that she could appear, when it has, in fact, happened before?

MS. PSAKI: Well, she agreed to appear, they’re going to discuss appearing, and we’ll keep you updated on what happens next.

QUESTION: But what is the standard policy again?

MS. PSAKI: That government – that Department witnesses testify in a separate panel from private witnesses.

QUESTION: And the point of that?

MS. PSAKI: It’s a longstanding Department policy. I’m not sure I have much of an analysis for you on it.

QUESTION: There’s no point?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not saying that at all. I just don’t have an analysis on it for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Egypt? One last one on Egypt?

MS. PSAKI: Let’s do one last one – two last ones and then we’ll --

QUESTION: A year, almost a year on Mr. Morsy being President of Egypt, how do you see the evolution of the relationship between the U.S. and Egypt during that year?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t want to give an analysis of the relationship. Obviously, there are issues that we work together on. We continue to strongly support the Egyptian people’s desire to build a prosperous, democratic future. There are issues that we disagree on. We – the Secretary has been very vocal about the need for the Egyptians to do more on their economic reforms, to do more on human rights. We’ve expressed concerns about the recent NGO ruling, of course. But Egypt has been an important partner. We know they’re continuing to build on their democracy, and we’ll continue to work with them and encourage them to do just that.

QUESTION: Jen, just on that point, today, Senator Rubio and 12 other senators submitted a letter to President Morsy. It was a very terse letter demanding that they reverse the sentences of a couple weeks ago, or 10 weeks ago. One, are you aware of the letter? And second, did you coordinate with the Senate on this issue?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t seen the letter, so I’m not aware if we knew about it in advance.

Let’s do the last one.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. In Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: Turkey?

QUESTION: Yeah. Prime Minister issued final warning, and then he’s saying that he clean up the square. Can I have your comment about that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we do, of course, as we’ve said a couple of times, continue to follow the events in Turkey very closely. We welcome efforts to ease tensions and encourage attempts, including the proposed referendum, which was also a part of what happened overnight, to resolve this situation through dialogue, taking into account views from across the political spectrum. We also call on all sides to exercise restraint and avoid violence. And we’ve seen incidents – I’ve talked about a couple of times over the last two weeks of – that have raised concern, so we’re continuing to follow that. And let me just add, too, that we’re troubled by any pressure against media outlets as a result of them performing the normal functions of a free press. And we’ve also seen that happening in recent days as well.

QUESTION: Did you raise this issue with the Turkish Government (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of a – aside from the Foreign Minister conversation that happened a couple of days ago, I’m not aware of another one since then.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Turkish Government is complaining about the perception of Turkey in international media, and they are blaming some outlets in international media for this, CNN and other American media outlets (inaudible) actually. How your perception about Turkey has been affected because of this coverage?

MS. PSAKI: I think the most important thing here is for Turkey to respect the freedom of the media and the freedom of the press and not take actions that would contradict that, and that’s why I was referencing that.

Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:27 p.m.)

DPB # 98

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• LEBANON/SYRIA
  • Condemn Helicopter Attack by Syrian Regime on Lebanese Town of Arsal
• SYRIA
  • Continue to Consider all Possible Options to Support the Syrian Opposition
  • Car Bombs in Damascus
• LEBANON/SYRIA
  • Importance of All Parties Respecting Lebanon's Disassociation Policy / Concern about Overflow of Attacks into Lebanon
• ISRAEL/SYRIA
  • Impact on Golan Heights
• SYRIA
  • Chemical Weapons / Taking Every Step to Fully Investigate / Coordination and Information Sharing with Allies
  • Geneva 2 Conference
  • Clashes Continue Around Aleppo
  • Syrian Refugees / U.S. Support
• CHINA
  • Eric Snowden / Cyber Security Discussions
• DEPARTMENT
  • General Extradition Process
  • NSA Surveillance / Government-to-Government Contact
• TURKEY
  • Protests / Reports of Arrests and Violence / Welcome Calls for Calm and Support Attempts to Resolve through Dialogue
• DEPARTMENT
  • OIG Investigations / Role of Outside Law Enforcement Experts / Need for Permanent OIG
• D.P.R.K.
  • U.S. Humanitarian Assistance to North Korea

The video is also available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:14 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.

QUESTION: Hi.

MS. PSAKI: I just have one item at the top.

QUESTION: I’m sure it’s very exciting.

MS. PSAKI: It always is, Matt. It’s just for you.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m going to be personally offended if it (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: Okay. We’ll do a judgment after I read it.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s helicopter attack by the Syrian regime on the Lebanese town of Arsal. We fully condemn all attacks originating from Syria against Lebanese territory, particularly the targeting of civilians, and call for all parties to respect the stability, sovereignty, and independence of Lebanon. The Syrian regime’s aggression is an unacceptable provocation and risks dragging Lebanon into the Syrian conflict. We join the international community in reiterating our call for all parties in Lebanon to respect Lebanon’s disassociation policy.

We equally condemn the brutal, unprovoked gunfire by Hezbollah supporters on peaceful protestors outside the Iranian Embassy on Sunday that led to the death of a student leader, which underscores the need for all parties in the region to avoid any actions that would undermine Lebanon’s security and stability, exacerbate the crisis in Syria, increase the propensity for spillover violence, and negatively impact civilian populations.

QUESTION: That wasn’t bad.

MS. PSAKI: Great.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: Matt, on this?

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, on this. So, all of this bad, nasty stuff is going down. What are you going to do about it? When are you going to – are there any decisions forthcoming on changing strategy or adding – giving the opposition additional support or taking any kind of action which might make the Syrian regime less likely or less inclined to send helicopters over Lebanese territory to bomb them or tell Hezbollah to stand down? Anything?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, as you know, at the President’s direction, his national security team continues to consider all possible options, barring boots on the ground, that would accomplish our objectives of helping the Syrian opposition serve the essential needs of the Syrian people and hasten a political transition to a tolerant and diverse post-Assad Syria. I don’t have any new announcements or updates to provide with you – for you today. But this is, of course, on the minds and the focus of not only the Secretary, but the President and our entire team every day.

QUESTION: Do you also condemn the apparent terrorist attacks in Damascus, the booby-trapped cars that killed innocent civilians?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have – I mean, we would condemn all acts of violence, of course, that condemn – that injure or kill innocent civilians, naturally. I will – let me just add that we’re also appalled by reports that rebels have killed 60 Shia in Hatla village. The motivations and circumstances surrounding this massacre remain unclear, but the United States strongly condemns any and all attacks against civilians.

QUESTION: Okay. That was my next question. So if the victims were civilians, why would that remain unclear?

MS. PSAKI: That’s not unclear. The --

QUESTION: No. I mean, you just said that the circumstances are not – unclear.

MS. PSAKI: Those circumstances in terms of who is behind it are unclear, not the fact that we condemn the attack on innocent civilians.

QUESTION: Okay. And lastly on this point, how would you determine who is behind it in this very case?

MS. PSAKI: Again, that’s something that I don’t have anything specific to lay out for you. It’s always a focus of ours, and we work with people on the ground.

QUESTION: Jen, just --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- coming after what Matt was saying, I mean, given this increase in incidents that you are alarmed by, I’ve noticed over the last few days that you’re coming out with a lot more concerns over specific things, which seems to heighten that you’re concerned.

Is there anything that – I mean, can you expect a decision this week on what the President is thinking going forward or on how he plans to take this to the G-8 and what he wants to see from the G-8 on this?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know my colleague Jay Carney was asked about this today as well, and I’d point you to his comments. And I don’t – I would, of course, point you to the White House and to him for any questions about the President’s decision-making. But I can just reiterate that the President is focused on this, the Secretary is focused on this.

Clearly, as I’ve stated a couple of times over the last couple of days, the recent events in Qusayr, the influx of foreign fighters and of Hezbollah has – we have refocused our efforts on figuring out what to do to help the opposition on the ground while still remaining focused on a political transition and still remaining in touch with the opposition on how we can best assist them.

QUESTION: Jen, on the Syrian attack on Lebanon, the Lebanese army has said today that it would immediately respond to any further cross-border attacks by the Syrian military. Do you support such a reaction?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t seen their specific comments. We’ve been very clear, and I stated in my opening comments here the importance of all parties respecting Lebanon’s disassociation policy. We’ve been very concerned, and have been concerned for a couple of weeks now, about the overflow of these attacks and these issues into Lebanon and the impact it’s had there. But beyond that, I haven’t seen those specific comments this morning by the government.

QUESTION: But do you think that the Lebanese army have the right to respond in any – or to react in the future?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I haven’t seen the context of it, so I’m not sure I have much more to add for you on that.

QUESTION: But you know you have supported, armed, helped train the Lebanese army, have always spoken of the sovereignty of Lebanon. You would think that you would support Lebanon’s right to respond, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Of course. I just haven’t seen the context of the comments. We do, of course, broadly support that, and we also have been calling very firmly for, and encouraging our international partners to call for, this fight to move out of Lebanon. We’re very concerned about the overflow into Lebanon.

QUESTION: And the Lebanese President has issued a statement on this event too.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Jen, on something connected to this is the escalating violence, and Ban Ki-moon this morning made a report to the UN Security Council on the escalating violence in the Golan Heights, which is jeopardizing the peace, the ceasefire between Israel and Syria. How concerned are you on that, and any comment?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t seen his recent comments. We have expressed concern, of course, in the past and in recent weeks about this and about specifically the impact on the Golan Heights and any overflow into areas that would destabilize or impact civilian populations and bring this fight into a larger regional – expand it regionally, which is one of our greatest concerns.

QUESTION: Is there any update on – from what you understand – on replacing the Austrian troops or --

MS. PSAKI: Not an update. We of course, as we did a couple of days ago, continue to encourage international allies and partners to make available our resources here, if possible, and for the UN to continue to coordinate with the Austrians. I know there’s been new reports about their withdrawal of troops today.

QUESTION: Yesterday, French Foreign Minister Fabius again stated that Bashar, which is the Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons in an outrageous manner. So this is just another statement coming from the French Foreign Minister in an absolute and – term that the Assad regime used chemical weapons. What’s your response or --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have any new updates for you. I can say that it is because we take chemical weapons and their potential use so seriously that we need to fully investigate, and why we’re taking every step to do just that. You’re familiar with the steps we’re taking, of course --

QUESTION: I’m not familiar. What’s exactly you are doing right now? It has been two months that you have been using this exact same line when you are asked about the chemical weapons.

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s never been about a deadline self-imposed by you or by anyone else. This is about – been about finding the facts and getting to the bottom of the facts, and that’s exactly what the President and the Administration is focused on. So we are working with our allies, we’re gathering information from them, we’re sharing information with them, we’re in touch with the opposition on the ground, we’re in touch with the UN and continuing to encourage our international partners to provide information to the UN for their investigation.

We’re taking all of those steps, but we are focused on finalizing the facts and confirming the facts before anything else.

QUESTION: So it’s been a week now since you got the French evidence and you’re saying that you’re still not done, you’re still not satisfied?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re not --

QUESTION: You still have not convinced yourselves that, in fact, there is an airtight, 100 percent case to be made on the chemical weapons use?

MS. PSAKI: We’re not going to evaluate it in public, but if there was a change in our policy --

QUESTION: No, no, I’m not asking you to evaluate. I’m not asking you to evaluate. I’m just saying you still haven’t made that determination?

MS. PSAKI: There has not been a change in our policy.

QUESTION: Okay. So then logically, we should infer that you guys looked at the French stuff and said, “Eh, not -- ”

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t – I would caution you against inferring anything.

QUESTION: Well, then you want to tell us where you stand? It would seem to me that since – well, first of all, the Secretary is meeting with Foreign Secretary Hague --

MS. PSAKI: He is.

QUESTION: -- today.

MS. PSAKI: Just in a few hours.

QUESTION: Right. And you will recall that it wasn’t just the French that came out and said they had incontrovertible evidence.

MS. PSAKI: That’s true.

QUESTION: It was also the Brits.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So if you guys have taken a look at the evidence which you have – you’ve had now for a week, and I would hope that the U.S. Government is able to do some kind of a decent analysis of that over the course of seven days – and you still haven’t made – come to the conclusion that you can assess with 100 percent certainty that chemical weapons were used, then I think that the observer is left to conclude that you have decided that the evidence that you got from the French wasn’t – didn’t hit the mark.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, you’re making a lot of conclusions. There’s no change in our policy. I’m not going to read out what we think of the information we received from the French or the British or any other country. This is being analyzed, of course, and looked at seriously by a team internally, but I have no change in policy or approach to announce.

QUESTION: Okay. But the approach still is – and correct me if I’m wrong – the approach still is that if chemical weapons use can be – is proved to a certainty or to a degree with which you’re confident that it is – that is accurate, that that is a game-changer --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: -- and that a game-changing means a policy shift, correct?

MS. PSAKI: That is – the President said it is a redline, it is a game-changer. What that means in terms of the options, as you know, I will leave that to them to discuss.

QUESTION: Well, does changing the game mean – I mean, to me, that means that – that would signal – it would be a harbinger of a policy shift. Am I incorrect?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get ahead of where we are, which is we’re not at that point.

QUESTION: So a game-changer doesn’t necessarily change the game. Is that what you’re saying?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the President himself --

QUESTION: Because I don’t get it then.

MS. PSAKI: The President himself, and the Secretary has repeated, have said – let me just finish – that this is a redline, that if it’s crossed there are a number of options for them to consider. But we’re not at that point yet, so I don’t want to get ahead of what it means when we’re not at that point yet. We haven’t crossed --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, fair enough. Now it seems to – you seem to be implying that one of the options is to do nothing, is to change nothing. Is that an option?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to analyze the President’s options. They’re expansive. They’re – he’s asked his national security team to look into them.

QUESTION: All right. I understand. But it seems to me the Administration has been about as clear as mud on this, on what it means. And I just want it --

MS. PSAKI: Some mud is clear.

QUESTION: Is it? Okay. Well, not the clear mud kind. And --

MS. PSAKI: Okay. The non-clear mud.

QUESTION: Yeah. So I just want to make sure that when the Administration, when the President, when the Secretary, says the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer, that that, in fact, means changing the game, means that there will be a shift.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to predict a shift about something that hasn’t happened yet, about a decision that has not been made yet. So there are, of course, the redline that would be crossed. And as we’ve consistently said, our action --

QUESTION: Okay. All right. Obviously, there’s nothing to add on this, so I won’t beat --

MS. PSAKI: There’s nothing to add.

QUESTION: I will not continue to beat the dead horse. But let me just --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Well, hold on. I just want to ask about Hague. Are – do you expect the issue of chemical weapons to come up in the meeting? I presume you do. Is that correct, yes?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly --

QUESTION: Syria writ broad, but --

MS. PSAKI: We certainly do expect Syria as well as Middle East peace and preparations for the G-8 in Northern Ireland to all be topics of discussion.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you know if there has been a request similar to the one that was made to France, that the Secretary talked about in his phone call with Foreign Minister Fabius a week ago Sunday? Was there a similar request to the Brits for their – for any additional information that they might have on top of what the French were sending already? Do you know if there was --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of a specific request, but broadly we have been sharing with our allies information. That’s been part of our multilateral approach here. So I don’t have an update on new information. I don’t even think I would be able to share that with you if I did. But certainly, broadly --

QUESTION: You’d have to get – you’d have to ask him about it? He would have to spill the beans on that?

MS. PSAKI: Broadly speaking, Matt, we are sharing with our allies, which of course includes the French and the British and many others.

QUESTION: Can I just clarify the sequence?

QUESTION: Could you clarify something for us that you just said?

QUESTION: Can I just clarify the sequence here?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: So it was a week ago that the evidence was produced or given to you, or shared with, by France. Can you – are you saying that you have not yet completed your own analysis?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into that level of internal processes.

QUESTION: Why not?

QUESTION: But you would issue a statement, right?

MS. PSAKI: Because --

QUESTION: I mean, you told us – you told us that you’d gotten it.

MS. PSAKI: We did receive it.

QUESTION: Why won’t you tell us whether you’ve evaluated it?

MS. PSAKI: Because there’s – we’re not going to get into how we analyze and we’re not going to evaluate in public. So I’m not going to have additional details on when we analyze or what our analysis is. These are all factors that go into our decision making. And if there’s a change in policy or anything to announce, we will announce it.

QUESTION: But surely this is --

QUESTION: Okay. So you would announce --

QUESTION: This is --

MS. PSAKI: Let Jo just finish and we’ll go right to you, I promise.

QUESTION: This is perhaps one of the primordial issues in this conflict --

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: -- that we’ve seen in the last three years. We know there is evidence, we know you have it.

MS. PSAKI: We’ve said that we have that are intel assessments. We said that a couple of weeks ago.

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: And the French have provided you with evidence. It would seem correct, not just to the American public but also to the global public, that at some point when you tell us whether you’ve made that assessment, and then when you feel you’re able to, that you actually tell us what the assessment is. Otherwise, you’re just hiding something. Or have you backed yourself into such a corner now because this has been dubbed or being seen as a redline that you actually don’t want to be telling the public whether there’s been chemical weapons use or not because, as Matt correctly has said, that would assume some kind of a major shift in American policy?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that is making a lot of assumptions. Our policy here, Jo, is that we said a couple of weeks ago in the letter we all are familiar with to Congress that there – that our intel assessments showed that there was reasonable belief – it’s a paraphrase – that chemical weapons were used. At the time – and we continue to be in the same place – we said we were going to analyze the details, analyze the facts, acquire all information we can do. We’re still in that phase.

Of course, the information from the French and taking a look at that is a part of that process, but we’re not going to analyze it in public or evaluate it in public. We take it into account in our process of looking at all the information we have available, including what we’re hearing on the ground, what we’re talking to the UN about, et cetera. And as we have information that confirms the facts, if we have information to confirm the facts, I am sure we will share that, absolutely, to your point. But we’re just not there yet, so we’re just working day and night to make sure that we’re nailing the facts down before we have more to report.

QUESTION: So two clarifications, try again.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: One, that you will make an announcement once you conclude, correct? You will make an announcement?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, this is getting ahead of where we are. And we are taking a --

QUESTION: But --

MS. PSAKI: Let me just finish. We’re taking a look at all the details, all of the information we have available, including the information from the French, including discussions we have with our allies. And if there’s something new to report, we will report that, of course.

QUESTION: Okay. And the other thing, you would consider how lethal this use or this alleged chemical weapons were? Because I remember, I was in Iraq and they would have liquid chlorine, for instance, an explosive. I mean, it stinks but it never killed anyone. It was the explosives that killed people. So you do consider that kind of analysis, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s hard for me to analyze information that we don’t yet have to provide. So when we do, if we do, we will reach that point.

Jill.

QUESTION: Other subject?

QUESTION: I have one.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Syria. Sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I have one on Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Besides Britain and France, which are the other countries which have provided you information on the use of chemical weapons?

MS. PSAKI: We’re not going to read that out for other countries. I’m sure if they want to provide information – tell you that they have provided information, they will. So we’ll leave it to them.

QUESTION: But there are other countries, too, besides these --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into confirming numbers or anything like that. Broadly, we are, of course, working with our allies and sharing information from both sides.

QUESTION: But Britain and France are they not only two countries that have provided you with information?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to get into that. They have both said publicly they did, so I would point you to that. If other countries want to get into sharing that type of information, that is certainly fine, of course.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Syria?

QUESTION: Is there any relation between the assessment of the use of chemical weapons and decisions that White House will take regarding Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would just point you to what the President has said, that the use of chemical weapons is a redline and that he would take a look at all options, barring boots on the ground, but any action we take will be consistent with our national interest and must advance our ultimate goal of a negotiated political settlement to an authority that can provide basic stability, protect the human rights of all Syrians, secure unconventional and advanced conventional weapons. And that’s part of the process of considerations. So I don’t want to get into analyzing his decision-making process. I would point you to the White House for that. But beyond that, this is something the Secretary is very focused on.

QUESTION: You would point us to the White House for an analysis of the President’s decision-making policy?

MS. PSAKI: Well, if there’s something to be shared, I would point to them --

QUESTION: How forthcoming do you think that the White House is going to be about that?

MS. PSAKI: If there’s something to be shared, I would point to them to share it.

QUESTION: Jen, as a follow-up of this decision-making process, is public opinion effective over decision-making process?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I’m following you.

QUESTION: I mean, American public opinion is influential on this decision-making process?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the decision-making process in terms of whether additional steps should be taken has a number of factors that we’ve talked about quite a bit in here, including how we can help advance – how we can help end the bloodshed and help end the suffering of the Syrian people, how we can help bring an end to the Assad reign in the country. But in terms of – I’m not sure what you’re tying it to in terms of how that would play.

QUESTION: You had mentioned about the national security – I mean the national security criteria of this Administration, probably.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: But the public opinion also has an idea about the national security, so --

MS. PSAKI: Well, broadly speaking, if there are – if there is additional aid that is provided or additional resources and that requires Congress to vote on that, that’s certainly something – I would point you to them – that the American public has an opinion and a view on, and that’s always a factor. The President and members of Congress are all elected to represent the American people.

QUESTION: Because I saw today a poll demonstrating that 11 percent of the American public opinion – only 11 percent of them are supporting the arming the rebels idea. I mean --

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not sure I have much more to add in analysis here for you.

QUESTION: Where is the timeline Russia at this time as far as this conflict is concerned?

MS. PSAKI: The conference --

QUESTION: No.

MS. PSAKI: -- or the conflict?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: What specifically about where they are?

QUESTION: I mean, are they with the U.S. or UN? Are they in the mainstream or are they still supporting Syrian Government?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’d leave you to speak with them about that, Goyal, and I’m sure they’ll be happy to chat about it. You know we’ve been working with our Russian counterparts.

QUESTION: So you’ve referred us to the White House for an analysis of the President’s internal decision-making process.

MS. PSAKI: You’re very --

QUESTION: Now you’re referring us to China --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, you’re very talented reporters in here with lots of international contacts, so I’m just lifting up your abilities.

QUESTION: -- to China and Russia for transparent analyses of their policy.

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Are you going to refer us to North Korea now for a – (laughter).

MS. PSAKI: Perhaps, depending on the question. I can’t speak on behalf of the position of the Russian and the Chinese Government. You know that the Russians are working with us to try to move forward in planning for Geneva, and we’ve been very vocal about our concerns about some of their recent actions.

QUESTION: The reason I asked was really that at the international level, at the United Nations level, then you’re talking about more and more countries, and including maybe India also, may be supporting the U.S. or UN if there’s international momentum or support. That’s why.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, the UN will issue the invitations to the conference. And broadly speaking, that will include members of the London 11, the early participants of Geneva 1, and there are still some other determinations that are being made.

Catherine.

QUESTION: I apologize, I was a little bit late --

MS. PSAKI: No problem.

QUESTION: -- if this came up already. Secretary Kerry stayed in Washington for meetings this week, some of which you said would be on Syria. I’m wondering when those meetings will be taking place with the White House and --

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to read out the timing of routine meetings and when they will be and what they’ll be about. I would just reiterate that they have meetings about Syria all the time. That’s obviously a big topic of conversation with the national security team. And so – but beyond that I’m just – I don’t have much more to add.

QUESTION: So does that – just on a technical point here, would you be willing to read out the timing of non-routine meetings, extraordinary meetings, emergency meetings that are held? Is it just routine meetings --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, if it’s an extraordinary meeting like the one we have with Foreign Minister Hague, then you’re well aware of it because it’s on the public schedule.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: I have a question --

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead. On Syria?

QUESTION: Actually, on China.

MS. PSAKI: Can we finish just on Syria --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- and then we’ll go back? Anyone else have Syria?

QUESTION: On Syria, on Aleppo there are news reports that Hezbollah force in Aleppo now and there are some Syrian regime renewed attacks on some of the spots. Is – does your assessment confirms that, or what’s your assessment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, clashes continue to occur in contested areas around Aleppo, which is, I think, what you were referring to, Aleppo city and the Aleppo countryside. We remain deeply concerned by implications that a major impending regime offensive may have in the areas of Homs and Aleppo, where we expect many residents to flee an advance of the regime and allied militias’ attacks. So we are, of course, watching this closely. We have seen the reports of fighting in these – Aleppo city and the Aleppo countryside, certainly.

QUESTION: Sorry – you said that there were signs of a major impending government offensive on Aleppo?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s implications of. Just that this has been something that has been talked about and reported, so we are watching it closely, of course.

QUESTION: Okay. And then this is different than Qadhafi threatening to go into Benghazi how, again?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Matt.

QUESTION: The reason that was given for NATO to take military action in Libya was that Qadhafi had threatened a major offensive on Benghazi in which tens of thousands of civilians would die. We have already seen, as you know, tens of thousands of civilians die in Syria in major government offensives. And now you’re saying that there are signs that there is a major impending government offensive on Aleppo, which one could argue would be the Syrian equivalent of Benghazi.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we don’t have --

QUESTION: And I’m just wondering why, exactly, that is not a trigger for military action in the same way that the threat of an invasion on Benghazi by Qadhafi was in Libya.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I don’t want to compare the two. I know that’s what you’re trying to get me to do. This is obviously one we’ve seen in this specific case. Reports of this we have --

QUESTION: Actually I don’t – I want you to contrast the two. I don’t want you to compare the two.

MS. PSAKI: Compare. Sorry, I apologize. We have seen reports of this. We’re obviously watching it closely. As you know, there are a number of factors that go into decisions about what the next steps should be for the U.S., which we’ve talked about quite extensively in here, as well as for the UN, which I would point you to them on, and I assure you they will be very responsive to your questions.

But beyond that, it’s every – you can’t compare country by country. There are different circumstances in each country, different issues we’re watching, different --

QUESTION: That’s right. I agree with you. I agree there are different issues. One difference, one main difference, is that 80,000 people didn’t die in Libya and 80,000 people have died in Syria. Another difference is that Qadhafi never used chemical weapons. Assad, you say – you think – and the Brits and the French say, have used chemical weapons. I just don’t understand how it is that you can continue to do what you’re doing now, which, frankly, is not arming the rebels, is not doing what you did in Libya, when the threat – it’s not just a threat in Syria, it’s actually happening. But I appreciate that you can’t answer the question. So we can move on.

MS. PSAKI: It is. It is actually happening. Let me just say this last thing: It is actually happening. And as I’ve said over the past couple of days, obviously the influx of Hezbollah and foreign fighters, the impact that’s had on boosting the Assad regime, the expanse, the overflow of this fight into other countries, has refocused our efforts on what we can do on the ground. There are a number of factors, international allies, the UN, everybody’s making their different decisions, but obviously this is one of those tragedies that the Secretary wakes up and thinks about every single day.

QUESTION: Just two quick follow-ups: You said that you are not comparing, but as far as we know you were comparing between the Iraq War and Syria repeatedly, right? What is – what that means?

MS. PSAKI: I was referring to chemical weapons and how we’re not going to jump ahead of the facts that we have confirmed. And I’ve used it in that context a couple of times.

QUESTION: So if this impeding attack – renewed attack is going to happen, obviously there are already half a million, almost half a million Syrian refugees in Turkey, and one would just expect this numbers is going to go up, is going up anyway. Isn’t this concerning you? Aren’t you thinking that these refugees are going to also affect one of your allies in the region, as well as other countries, obviously?

MS. PSAKI: Of course the --

QUESTION: And you are watching closely. But you are watching closely.

MS. PSAKI: Of course the influx of refugees is of great concern. That’s one of the reasons we provided just a couple of weeks ago tens of millions of dollars to several of our allies in the region, to help them with the refugees. Does that solve the problem? No. But ultimately what we need to do here is bring an end to the brutal regime of Assad and a move towards a political transition, and that’s what we’re working toward.

Jill.

QUESTION: A new subject?

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. On this NSA surveillance by the government, Mr. Snowden is saying that the U.S. is bullying Hong Kong to obviously get him out of there. Do you have any response directly to what he is saying? And then, also, is the U.S. talking to Hong Kong directly now about this case, asking for any help, et cetera? Dare we also ask about extradition?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything new on this for you.

QUESTION: Nothing at all?

MS. PSAKI: Nothing at all.

QUESTION: Not even a response to the bullying comment?

MS. PSAKI: I do not have anything new on it.

QUESTION: I have a related question though, from me.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: The South China Morning Post have just published an interview with Snowden in which they’re reporting they’ve seen NSA documents he’s provided showing repeated U.S. hacking of computers in Hong Kong and China. Now, obviously, I wouldn’t expect you comment on the documents themselves, but could you comment on the perception of double standards that exists given the repeated criticism of China cyber-attacks at weekend?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. I can broadly speak to that. And this is something that actually this weekend, when the White House did their briefing, they spoke to this as well. This is a case where obviously talking about cyber security with the Chinese Government, a topic of conversation both this past weekend and it will be again at the S&ED talks in July, is a priority to the U.S., as you know, and it’s important for China as well.

I haven’t seen those specific reports, I can’t speak to them, but there is a difference between going after economic data and financial information that is part of these cyber-attacks, or seems to be, and an issue which is – the President has welcomed the debate on, which is – and the Administration has welcomed the debate on, which is surveillance and going after people who mean to do harm. So there is a difference, and that would be what I would have to say on that.

QUESTION: So – and when you say going after people who aim to do harm, how is hacking computers in Hong Kong and China related to that?

MS. PSAKI: I wasn’t speaking to that specifically. I thought you were asking me about the recent NSA reports.

QUESTION: Well, I’m asking about the perception that you have criticized China for the cyber-attacks, and today we have NSA documents reporting to show the U.S. attacking computers in China and Hong Kong.

MS. PSAKI: I just haven’t seen those reports. So --

QUESTION: Can I ask one just quick procedural question on the extradition issue? Clearly, you can’t comment on that directly, but how do extradition cases like this work in terms of the departmental responsibility? Would it have been the Department of State that would handle this? Is it a Justice matter? Do you act for Justice in contacting authorities like Hong Kong? How would it proceed if it does proceed?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I talked about this on Monday. We do have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. Beyond that, in terms of the logistics of how it works in a case that involves interagencies, I just don’t have that level of detail.

QUESTION: But is it – is extradition normally handled by State? Is it a request that State would make to a --

MS. PSAKI: State is certainly a part of it, but beyond that, every case is different. So I just don’t have a – more level of detail.

QUESTION: Just a clarification --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- Mr. Snowden has not been declared a fugitive, has he? Through – for extradition or --

MS. PSAKI: I wasn’t speaking to that specific case.

QUESTION: Okay, but --

MS. PSAKI: As I mentioned, there are several agencies involved in this. ODNI has spoken extensively to this, and I’d point you to their comments.

QUESTION: So – but no, but my question is as long as he’s not declared a fugitive, certainly there is no active extradition, is there?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to speculate further on this case.

Jill.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. In response to Jill’s original question, did you say that you’re not going to talk about any – to say whether there have been any conversations between officials at the consulate general in Hong Kong or in Washington and officials in Hong Kong about this case?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any updates on that.

QUESTION: Can I ask that you recheck and find out (a) if there are such conversations taking place, if you will be able to say that there are, or if they – lawyers have basically just said, “Shut up” and don’t say anything about it, and then two, if they don’t say that, I would – it would be appreciated, I think, by all of us --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- if you could let us know. Even if it’s not talking about the contents of such conversations, it would seem to be negligent on behalf of this Administration if it was not in contact with officials in Hong Kong about this individual considering what the – at least people on the Hill have said about him and people within – people actually within the Administration.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I don’t have any update, anything for you it.

QUESTION: I understand that, but --

MS. PSAKI: If I do, or if there’s anything that can be shared, I understand the interest and I’m certainly venture to share that.

QUESTION: All right. And then the other thing is that I think that you will not be bound – or you will find that your lawyers will not bind you from talking about extradition in general and the fact –

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and the role that you play as basically, I think, a courier for the Justice Department between the – I don’t believe that State has any actual --

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to get folks --

QUESTION: -- policy rule on this.

MS. PSAKI: -- in – a rundown of the legal breakdown.

QUESTION: It would be --

QUESTION: I think it’s about a paragraph worth of information.

MS. PSAKI: That is a paragraph of information. I just didn’t have specifics on it.

QUESTION: We’ve talked about it in previous cases.

MS. PSAKI: We have talked about it, and I talked about it on Monday.

QUESTION: On Turkey? (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Hong Kong?

MS. PSAKI: Let’s just finish. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Has any country expressed concern about the U.S. program to tap into the internet and emails of foreign nationals? I have seen few media reports --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) Indian officials expressing concern over this.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware – I had spoke about this a couple days ago. I don’t have any update since then.

QUESTION: Jen, Turkey?

QUESTION: There was a statement today from the EU --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- that they’re very worried about it, and they’re actually contacting you to try and find out if any EU nationals --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- have been targeted. Do you have any information on that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any information on that. What I said the other day, which is what I was referring to, was just that I wasn’t aware of any high-level, government-to-government, or any specific contact along those lines.

QUESTION: But this has happened today. They’ve actually --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new on this. I’m happy to check on it --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: -- if there’s any updates to provide, of course.

QUESTION: Jen, Turkey?

QUESTION: Can I ask one more question?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Did you help to any other country in terms of the capability of this program in the past?

MS. PSAKI: Did we help?

QUESTION: Yes. I mean, is anybody, is any country asked help from you to access to any privacy, this kind of --

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to get into specifics on that.

Turkey?

QUESTION: Yes. There were big protests in Turkey, especially in Istanbul, Taksim Square --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- as the Americans watched through CNN all day. What was your assessment of the situation?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we, of course, continue to follow events in Turkey with great concern. We believe that Turkey’s long-term stability, security, and prosperity is best guaranteed by upholding the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, association, and a free and independent media, and we expect the Turkish authorities to uphold those freedoms – these fundamental freedoms as well. We’re troubled by any attempts to punish individuals for exercising their right to free speech, and we condemn attempts by any party to provoke violence.

QUESTION: So when you say you are troubled by punishment of any individuals for exercising their rights, do you have tangible evidence that someone got punished because of their protesting or --

MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been broad reports of arrests and there have been broad reports of violence. Again, these cases will be looked into, but broadly speaking, we’re, of course, concerned about that.

QUESTION: So it has been more than two weeks now these protests have been going on, and you urged Turkish Government to uphold these fundamental rights. How Turkish Government has been doing on this aspect for the last two weeks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to give a grade. We do welcome calls, of course, for calm, and support attempts to resolve this situation through dialogue, which I know there have been some attempts at, taking into account views from different spectrums. And we remain – we want all sides to resolve this through dialogue, and we remain concerned about any evidence of violence or attempts to repress freedom of speech.

QUESTION: Do you have any recent calls between here yesterday or today?

MS. PSAKI: Not since – I spoke about the Secretary, I believe, speaking with Foreign Minister Davutoglu a couple of days ago, but not since then.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any kind of foreign conspiracies against the Erdogan government to dislodge them? This is what the ministers of Turkey – several ministers of Turkey and high officials have been talking about.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of that. I would point you to those who said it.

QUESTION: And one last thing on the – is (inaudible) now the Turkish police forces have been using this tear gas and pepper gas and all that. Obviously, apparently, mostly this gas being provided by the U.S. companies. Are you going to have any kind of – I don’t know what can you do, but do you think the government, U.S. Government, needs to extend precautions while selling this gas to Turkey or another country?

MS. PSAKI: Well, these cases will, of course, be looked into, which we fully support. And we remain concerned about any incidents of violence or use of force by police or others against protesters who are simply expressing their public views.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) really quickly, I just need to clarify something from yesterday --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- on the IG and this whole --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- imbroglio. And that is the – specifically these outside law enforcement experts who are working with the IG now, are they investigating the specific incidents that were outlined in the 2012 October memo, or are they just investigating – or are they just looking at the process?

MS. PSAKI: Their focus, as we understand it – and I would point you to the IG’s office, of course, to confirm this, but their focus is on reviewing the process.

QUESTION: The process, okay.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So it is incorrect to say that the – there is some kind of a new or outside investigation into the actual allegations that are contained in that memo, the October 2012 memo. The investigations into them were done by DS in-house, internally, and are either finished or are in process. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: And the new – anything new – the outside experts – doesn’t have to do with the facts or the non-facts, as the case may be, in those specific incidents?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the way that we understand it – and again, the IG’s office --

QUESTION: I understand.

MS. PSAKI: -- I’m just repeating, is independent, so I’d point you to all of them, but is that they are looking into the processes as it relates to these cases. So I’m not sure how they will go about that process. They’re working with outside law enforcement. But the focus, as you mentioned, is on taking a look at some of the issues raised in the February memo.

QUESTION: Well, no, no. I understand, but they are not actually going – all right, say there’s incident X.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Okay? They’re not re-looking into the facts of incident X; they are looking at how the DS investigators investigated the facts of incident X, correct?

MS. PSAKI: That is the focus. But to confirm everything they’re doing, I would point you to them.

QUESTION: Well, then let me put it another way. Once that – once the outside experts are done, there isn’t going to – with their probe – people who were involved and either disciplined or not disciplined whatever for these incidents, their cases haven’t been re-opened, have they?

MS. PSAKI: Well, some cases are ongoing.

QUESTION: But from the point of view of these outside law enforcement experts that you talked about, they’re not re-looking into the actual events or allegations.

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not trying to be tricky here with you at all, I promise. I just don’t want to go too far in speaking on behalf of the IG’s office. So the focus of their review is to look at the process.

QUESTION: And whether or not investigators were improperly – or whether there was – whether or not they are independent or there’s – they have the appearance and --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: But --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: -- I would refer to them for more --

QUESTION: I have a --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- question on this as well.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Could you tell us how the allegations that were in the original internal October 2012 memo came to light? That has not been clear to me. Was it – because it was a routine review by the IG.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So how did --

MS. PSAKI: Well, all of those cases, which were from different time periods, were already under review, so it depended on each case. Each case is different.

QUESTION: So when the IG went in in October 2012, these allegations had already been made within the DS, the DS was already examining them?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t know under what circumstances these allegations were made? Was it confidential tipoffs? Was it a survey that was given out to workers? How did the allegations come to light?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are different individual cases --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. PSAKI: -- which I don’t want to outline from here, of course.

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. PSAKI: So each case is different.

QUESTION: Okay. So there wasn’t any kind of – they didn’t go in and sit down and say, okay, everybody tell us if you’ve got any concerns, and then they gathered it all up and then from that the October ’12 memo was constructed?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the memo was drafted, again, by the IG’s office.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Right. So that was as part of a routine review. In terms of what information they gathered, you’d have to talk to them about it. But again, they didn’t have access to case files and there was a great deal of unsubstantiated information in there. But I would speak to them about how that memo was put together in particular.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: Jen, another question on the IG, please?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We talked – CNN talked with Congressman Royce today, and he said that there – one of the key issues beyond everything is that there’s a lack of a permanent IG, and he said this has been going on for years. Can you – do you agree that that indeed is one of – is a problem, and can you explain why there is no permanent IG at this point?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can tell you first, one, we have received Chairman Royce’s letter and are processing his request for further information. We’re also working to schedule an appropriate briefing as soon as possible. I know that wasn’t your question, but --

QUESTION: A briefing for us?

MS. PSAKI: For the Hill. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Oh, for the Hill. Not for us.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I’ve been briefing you quite extensively here, if I do say so myself.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: But in terms of the IG, absolutely, there is a need to have a permanent IG in place. The Secretary has made a choice on that front. In terms of when that will be fully through the process, I don’t have any update on that, but it is something that is a priority for him and he is focused on.

QUESTION: Well, why isn’t there one, though, for this long a time?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know the history of why someone wasn’t approved here or put through. I know people have been nominated at various times, sometimes there’s a delay for reasons that are hard to explain.

I have to go up to the Foreign Minister’s meeting, so let me just do one here with the lovely green sweater on.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Jen. It is reported that the United States Senate passed a law and ban for the five years food aid to North Korea. How does the United States deal with the humanitarian assistance to North Korea?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I actually haven’t seen that and I’m happy to take the question and get you all a response to that. As you know, it’s never been about the people of North Korea. We want to make sure that they have the aid and the assistance they need. We work with a number of NGOs in order to do that, but it is difficult. It’s on the North Korean regime for not letting appropriate resources into the country, but I’ll take a closer look at that and we’ll get you a more formalized response.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:59 p.m.)

# # #

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• DEPARTMENT
  • Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Hague's Meeting Scheduled
• SYRIA
  • Aid to Opposition / Nonlethal Aid in Train / U.S. Concern about Status on the Ground
  • Geneva 2 Conference
  • Refugee Situation
• DEPARTMENT
  • OIG Report / Timeline of Review
• ISRAEL / PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
  • Middle East Peace
• BURMA
  • Rakhine State / Concerns About Child Limit for Rohingya Muslims
• DEPARTMENT
  • Passport Revocation
• KOREAN PENINSULA
  • North Korea and South Korea Talks
• SUDAN/SOUTH SUDAN
  • Contact with South Sudanese and Sudanese Counterparts / Concern about President Bashir's Statement
• MALI
  • Elections in Kidal / U.S. Support for Framework Agreement Between Mali Government and Tuareg Rebels

The video is also available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:29 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. I just wanted to make one announcement, although I think it's public already, at the top. So yesterday you all – or somebody had asked about his conversation with Foreign Minister Hague. And at the time, I wasn’t aware that we were in the process of rescheduling, of course, the meeting that was scheduled for Monday. Many of you have probably seen that scheduled now for tomorrow. So he will be here. They’ll be having a bilateral meeting as we previously had planned on Monday. And our apologies for any confusion; sometimes news is happening as we’re – as – even as we’re up here.

QUESTION: Is there also going to be a chance for us to ask them questions?

MS. PSAKI: There will be.

QUESTION: There will? Okay.

QUESTION: What time is that going to be?

MS. PSAKI: It’s tomorrow afternoon. I don’t have the exact time, but I’m sure we’ll re-advise the timing on the schedule.

QUESTION: Okay. In their tweets, each one – each man said that they would be talking about Syria. I presume other issues will come up as well. But on Syria, is there anything new to say today?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any new updates on the process. Basically, what we discussed yesterday still stands. Of course, if you have any specific questions, I’m happy to address them.

QUESTION: No. I’m just curious to know if the Administration is moving closer to making any kind of a decision on anything having to do with Syria, or if you’re sticking with the same strategy that you’ve had for the last several months.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, as I said yesterday –

QUESTION: Because it seems to be working so well.

MS. PSAKI: As I said yesterday, at the President’s direction, his national security team continues to consider all possible options that would accomplish our objectives of helping the Syrian opposition, serve the essential needs of the Syrian people, and hasten a political transition to a tolerant and diverse post-Assad Syria, but I have no announcements to make at this time.

QUESTION: Did that meeting actually take place yesterday where the President sat down and discussed Syria?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to read out or – any schedule pieces for the White House or any other internal meetings.

QUESTION: So when you say that his national security team is looking at all options, are we to assume that there are ongoing meetings that are actually like emergency kind of meetings to deal with the Syria situation?

MS. PSAKI: Again, these are routine meetings. We talked about this a little bit yesterday. And they discuss regularly – the Secretary discusses, of course, with his counterparts, as Matt referenced, also with other members of the national security team. The President has asked and long ago asked for his team to continue to consider and look at all options. That’s exactly what they’re doing.

QUESTION: And now is there a feeling –

QUESTION: Sorry. But you haven’t put the boots-on-the-ground option back on the table, have you?

MS. PSAKI: We have not.

QUESTION: No? All right.

QUESTION: So you’re saying that the situation is so urgent and so critical that the Secretary of State postponed his trip to the Middle East or resumed a trip to the Middle East?

MS. PSAKI: We talked about this a little bit yesterday --

QUESTION: More than a little bit.

QUESTION: More than a little bit. Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: So let me just reiterate more than a little bit as to – let me briefly to save everyone else a little bit. Let me just briefly reiterate what I said, which is that as the Secretary of State, he needs to balance his obligations, whether that’s traveling overseas and meeting with his counterparts, or being here and working with the national security team, advising the President as needed, and he made a decision to be here in Washington for a variety of meetings. But beyond that, I don’t have anything specific on the meetings.

QUESTION: And lastly – I promise this is the last question. Now, does that mean that there’s been a back-tracking by the Secretary of State from let’s say a week ago when he said that we have come to this – to Syria too late?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think it’s pretty clear that the events on the ground – what we’ve seen happen over the past couple of weeks, the influx of foreign fighters and Hezbollah, has raised our focus on this issue. We’ve been focused all throughout I should say, but the team is continuing to take a close look at all options aside from boots on the ground, which the President and the Secretary have both said is not on the table. So that is what they’re focused on.

QUESTION: But – sorry – I mean, there were things that were promised back in April, like trucks and communication gear and so on, that have not been delivered there, apparently because of some bureaucratic hang-ups.

MS. PSAKI: Well, 127 million of the 250 in nonlethal aid is in train, which means it’s in process or being distributed to the various places with the opposition. The majority of it is coordinated through the ACU, and it goes to a variety of programs. There’s an additional 123, which I think is what you’re referring to, which the Secretary announced in Istanbul a couple of weeks ago. The next step is to notify Congress, and that’s where we are. And a portion of that, of course, will go through the SMC and to General Idris, and that is something we’ll be moving forward on soon we hope.

Jill.

QUESTION: Jen, just to be precise, I mean, obviously those options have been on the table for a long time, months. But there’s a – now a time for political decision, a policy decision by the President. I know you don’t speak for the President, but you do speak for Secretary Kerry. Has he come to the conclusion that there’s another course that has to be taken that this strategy, a political decision now has to be made, as opposed to just discussing, let’s say, all options?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to read out internal deliberations and discussions. If there was an easy answer here, I’m sure we would be moving forward on it. But as you know, these are challenging decisions to make. It’s a challenging situation. Of course, over in Syria, we did say – and I did say yesterday, but let me just reiterate in response to your question, that clearly the events on the ground, the influx of foreign fighters, the prevalence of Hezbollah, and of course the conversations that Assistant Secretary Beth Jones and perhaps others in the Administration have had with General Idris, do refocus our efforts on what’s happening on the ground. We’re still focused on a parallel track of moving toward a political transition, still focused on working with our counterparts and planning for Geneva and working with the opposition. But that is something that we have remained focused on, but I’m not going to read out internal deliberations or discussions.

QUESTION: Still on Syria, the French Foreign Ministry has just said that it would be very difficult to organize Geneva 2 given the fact that the opposition is very weak. You said basically the same yesterday when you said that the political process cannot happen in a political vacuum. Do you still believe that Geneva 2 will take place?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we remain focused on planning it. When the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov announced last month plans for the Geneva conference, they said it would be convened as soon as practical, which means as soon as it is determined that it’s – in partnership with the UN and with other international partners, we have done the necessary preparations to bring the parties together and move forward towards a political solution. This isn’t a box-checking process or exercise, and this is something that, as you highlighted, clearly the opposition and

representatives from the opposition are a key component of the participation here. As you know, they are also working towards their elections and electing leadership, and that certainly will impact the timing of the conference.

QUESTION: Sorry, what did you – you just said that this is not a box-checking process or exercise?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Well, how can it not be?

MS. PSAKI: Meaning we’re not just going to have the conference to have the conference.

QUESTION: You said as soon as practicable.

MS. PSAKI: As is --

QUESTION: So you have a bunch of boxes that need to be checked off to make it practicable, right? Otherwise, I mean, then there’s no criteria for having this conference, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s a figure of speech, Matt. But what I was --

QUESTION: Well, I understand that.

MS. PSAKI: What I was --

QUESTION: But I mean, you --

MS. PSAKI: Let me explain to you what I was conveying.

QUESTION: If the opposition isn’t organized or won’t come, that is a box that has not been checked and you have to check that box to have the conference, right?

MS. PSAKI: Maybe we’re talking about different lists of box checking. What I was referring to was we’re not going to have the conference just to have the conference. We’re going to have the conference to move forward towards a political transition, and we want to make sure the environment is ripe to do just that.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: So would you say that --

QUESTION: To what extent does the fact that the Assad regime is gaining ground now in the fighting in Syria make it less probable that they will actually agree to come to a conference? There’s no incentive for them at the moment to do so if they’re gaining on the ground and they think that they will eventually win. Does it – to what extent is that going to complicate your efforts to get this conference together?

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously both sides’ participation is a key component of the conference, which is why we want to do it when the opportunity is ripe to bring both sides and bring key partners together. This – the political process, while we are focused on it, while we still believe it’s absolutely the best process to a transition, can’t be done in a vacuum, which is also why we are continuing to discuss internally here and discuss with our allies and partners around the world additional ways to help the opposition.

QUESTION: So would you say at the moment the opportunity is not ripe for such a conference to take place?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I said last week that we were now targeting July for this. We’re going to continue to work toward that. Counterparts from here and from the UN and from Russia will meet next week, or the week following I should say, to continue to discuss, and we’ll go from there.

QUESTION: Do you believe it could slip beyond July into August or the back end of the summer?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to speculate on that now. Obviously, we want to do it when it’s the right time to do it.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be more prudent for the opposition to go now as quickly as possible before they lose total ground and the regime would lose total interest in really talking to the opposition once they sort of have hegemony over the whole country? Don’t you think so?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t want to speak for the opposition, but it is important for them to elect leadership so we know who the representatives will be and who we’ll be talking with. And that is, as I understand it, the next step on their agenda.

QUESTION: Would you counsel them to think along those lines, though, that the sooner the better?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve continued to counsel them privately but also publicly on the importance of strengthening, uniting the opposition, electing leadership. They did just expand their membership just in the past couple of weeks, which was a step forward. There’s more they need to do, and we continue to work with them in the appropriate way to do just that.

QUESTION: Jen, can I encourage us to think outside the box for a moment?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: And maybe take a sort of 30,000-foot view of this? For more than two years now, it has been the publicly declared objective of the United States Government to see President Assad removed from power. That objective remains unmet. So I ask you which of the only two possibilities obtains here: either that the policy crafted to achieve that objective has been inept; or that the objective itself lies outside American capabilities and no matter what policy we would have employed, it wouldn’t have happened?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to accept, to no surprise, your options. What I will say is that: one, this has never been just an American objective; this is a global issue. This is one of the worst crises happening in the world right now. That’s why there are so many countries who have stakes involved here who feel committed, just as the United States does, to helping move towards a political transition to help them Syrian people help end the suffering at the hands of the Assad regime.

This is not easy. It’s been challenging. There’s no question of that. The Secretary feels that. Many people in the Administration feel that, and there have been ups and downs certainly in this process. But the alternative --

QUESTION: When were the ups?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is not an easy thing, James, moving an opposition, moving to not only unite but elect leadership and confront a regime that has been strong and has been united from the beginning. So they have made gains on the ground over the course of the last two years and they are continuing to work towards uniting as a political organization. And we continue to encourage that.

QUESTION: So you would argue that the Obama Administration’s policies on the Syrian conflict over the past two and a half years have been a success?

MS. PSAKI: Well, James, we’ve continued to support and work with the opposition. Our focus has been not on giving ourselves a grade on this, but on doing what is necessary and what is possible to help the opposition on the ground to help end the suffering of the Syrian people. As you’ve seen over the past couple of months, we’ve not only increased our aid, we’ve continue to provide – go from humanitarian to nonlethal assistance. We’re going to now be working with General Idris to provide aid to the SMC and to the opposition. We’re working with them on the political front. The stakes are too high here not to continue to work hard every day on doing what’s possible to help. That’s what our focus is on.

QUESTION: So onto Brigadier General Idris, he’s saying, which you addressed yesterday, he’s saying that if we don’t receive arms and training and equipment and so on, we will not go to Geneva. Is that – doesn’t that strike you like a little bit of blackmail?

MS. PSAKI: I would not qualify it that way. 　I mentioned yesterday that we have spoken with General Idris. I know other countries have spoken with him as well about his concerns, about what’s happening on the ground. We continue to listen to him and hear what he’s saying and continue to consider all options.

Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. PSAKI: Are we done with Syria?

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Okay. We’ll go back to you first.

QUESTION: The UN is talking to Germany, and then I saw a report – it might have been the L.A. Times – on resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. Is that report accurate in any way? Are those discussions going on?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we talked about this a little bit yesterday. We do – the United States, first of all, resettles more refugees than any other country. We encourage other countries to do the same. The preferred option for refugees is typically going back to their home country when it is safe. The UN has recently determined that resettlement should play a larger role in its response to the situation in Syria and the United States is prepared to respond and will encourage others, of course, as I said, to do the same. This is the process – and we talked about this a little bit, but the context, I think, is helpful, or it was helpful to me – that it’s not – there is a certain cap that is set by Congress on the number of refugees and there are countries that are part of that, accepted as part of that cap, and we will – but there hasn’t been any change in our resettlement policy. But we will consider – continue to consider it.

QUESTION: Well, since yesterday, since you answered the question – this same question yesterday, has the UN actually recommended any refugees for resettlement in the United States, or is --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of any change in that.

QUESTION: All right. So – okay, so there’s nothing --

MS. PSAKI: There’s nothing new from yesterday.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. And I just – you just reread the same thing that you read yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: I did. Some weren’t here yesterday, so I was trying to be helpful to those who were not.

QUESTION: The U.S. has said it is open to discuss this --

MS. PSAKI: But we haven’t received --

QUESTION: You haven’t received it. Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I get it.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: There were some reports that members of the Syrian opposition would be coming to Washington next week. Do you have anything on that, and will they have meetings here?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports. I’m happy to look into them for you and see what the status is and if there’s anything planned.

QUESTION: That’d be great.

QUESTION: On --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, and do we have one more on Syria?

QUESTION: On Syria, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Sorry, Jill.

QUESTION: Can you specify if an idea of supplying the rebels with heavy weaponry such as artillery pieces, anti-tank weaponry, anti-aircraft weaponry is among those considered by the Administration now?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to get into options under consideration, and I don’t have any announcements to make.

Jill.

QUESTION: On the OIG – I know we went over this a lot – but today we have some new developments, and they specifically deal with the ambassador who’s been named in one of those documents in the memo. A certain ambassador has denied any allegations that he took part in the behavior that’s described. So it really begs the question of where – the status of any type of investigation dealing with him. You said yesterday any investigations are either still in process or are over. Can you tell us at least whether or not that investigation of just this ambassador is over?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to comment on individual cases today or yesterday. I will say, as you mentioned, the ambassador himself did put out a statement. I would point all of you to that. And let me reiterate what I said yesterday in response to a question broadly about this, which is the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct is not only preposterous, it’s inaccurate.

Let me just give you an overview, because I think there’s been some confusion of the different memos and what the process is. In October 2012, an internal memo was written by the OIG office which was undertaking a routine inspection. This memo, written without the benefit of reviewing any case files, included a number of unsubstantiated accusations. Prior to the drafting of this memo, the Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security had already started looking into or completed the process of looking into these individual incidents. All of these cases have been and will be brought – or will be brought to their logical conclusions.

In February of 2013, OIG wrote a report on the inspection, which is publicly available on their website. As is normal, the Department of Diplomatic Security was afforded an opportunity to provide comments before the report went final. As I mentioned yesterday, they expressed some concerns as part of a standard process. They are still reviewing the recommendations that were made in this February report.

Since that time, OIG has brought on some additional experienced former law enforcement officers to review the DS cases and process for handling the cases. This is a decision, of course, that they made, and the OIG is, again, independent, but the Department fully supports this step and we look forward to their final report.

QUESTION: Okay. But there is this one moment which really we need to pin down, which is the OIG says – I should say the memo says that that investigation was stopped by a senior official here.

MS. PSAKI: Which investigation?

QUESTION: Well, the – looking into the allegations about the Ambassador.

MS. PSAKI: Again --

QUESTION: That that was stopped by Mr. Kennedy.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe you’re referring to the October 2013 – and we have –

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- there’s a statement out there from Mr. Kennedy --

QUESTION: Twenty twelve.

MS. PSAKI: Sorry, 2012.

QUESTION: Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

MS. PSAKI: We are not at October 2013 yet, that’s correct. (Laughter.) One, let me first say that there is a statement that Mr. Kennedy himself has released, which many of you may have. Two, this is a memo that you’re referring to that had unsubstantiated accusations in it. This is a case where we are – of course take every allegation of misconduct seriously, and we investigate them thoroughly. That’s exactly what we’re doing and are in the process of doing or have completed doing in all of these cases. But these accusations are not – these are accusations and not conclusions, and that’s why this process will be seeing it through.

Also, just to go more specifically to your question, Jill, the February 2013 memo, which, again, is publicly available on their website --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: A report, I apologize – a report publicly available on their website, the Department of Diplomatic Security expressed some concerns about what was included in there, including a reference – and I talked about this a little bit yesterday – to the lack of a firewall, and they are conducting the next stage in their process here of their review to look at the processes here that took place. And we will see that through.

QUESTION: Okay. But again, getting back to the Ambassador, if he is still in place – he’s still working – doesn’t that imply that that investigation is over if he can remain in his position?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to speak to the status of any of these investigations or any individual cases. Of course, we look into every allegation that is made seriously. We would take every allegation seriously. But I’m not going to outline the status of those or any individual cases from here.

QUESTION: Jen, my understanding is that the case – that the allegations, which were reasonably serious against the Ambassador, have actually been proved to be false and he’s been completely exonerated. Wouldn’t it be better for you to say publicly that that is the case?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as a matter of policy, I’m just not going to talk about personnel processes or reviews that have gone on or are ongoing.

QUESTION: But surely you not talking about it undermines his position. I mean, I’m aware of the statement. I’ve seen the statement that the Ambassador has put out himself. But it would be a show of confidence on the State Department’s part to – if that is the case, if he’s been completely exonerated of these accusations, just to say it; just to say they were false and we’ve looked into it and the matter is now closed and he has our full confidence.

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything more to add on any individual cases.

QUESTION: Well, then why don’t you just say the – why don’t you try and answer this: You said that the October 2012 memo, which has been the basis for this, contained unsubstantiated allegations. To the best of your knowledge, are those allegations still unsubstantiated?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to go through case by case or make a sweeping --

QUESTION: I’m not asking you case by case. Well, you said they’re unsubstantiated. Are they – after they were investigated, are they – do they remain unsubstantiated?

MS. PSAKI: There are some investigations that are still ongoing, some that have been concluded.　

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t want to break down – I’m not going to break down individual cases from here.

QUESTION: Okay, but there’s – so some remain unsubstantiated, but others, there was something to them; are you saying that?

MS. PSAKI: I – there are processes that are still ongoing, and I don’t want to get ahead of any processes that are still ongoing.

QUESTION: Well, just to clarify what you’re saying to Matt, when you tell us that the memo contains unsubstantiated allegations, A, you agree that unsubstantiated does not mean untrue, correct?　

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s disproving a negative, so of course we take – let me just reiterate, we take every allegation seriously. Of course we would look into it. I am seeing through the process; we are seeing through the process. I’m not going to break down individual cases. To go back to Jo’s point here, I can assure all of you that if the Secretary or previous Secretary were presented with documented evidence of misconduct, they would take appropriate action. But I’m just not going to break down individual cases.

QUESTION: Okay. And by way of not breaking down individual cases and also not making blanket statements, because, as you know, this memo listed eight different cases, when you tell us that the memo contains unsubstantiated allegations, you’re not asserting that the allegations in all eight cases were unsubstantiated, just in one or more, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the processes are still ongoing for a number of them, so I’m not going to make a sweeping term on that front.

QUESTION: Well, that’s the point. You weren’t making a sweeping statement about all eight cases, were you?

MS. PSAKI: Again, there are processes that are still ongoing where there isn’t a conclusion on them. So I can’t go more specific than I’ve already gone.

QUESTION: Couple of other parts if you would, please.　

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: First, has Secretary Kerry spoken to the Ambassador?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of.　

QUESTION: Does the Secretary have full faith and confidence in this Ambassador?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary is proud to lead, of course, a Department of 70,000 dedicated men and women serving. He takes every accusation seriously, as we all do. And I can assure you, as I just said, that in any case, if there were documented evidence and action was needed to be taken, he would be taking that action.

QUESTION: 　So you’re declining this opportunity to say, on behalf of the Secretary, that he has full confidence in this Ambassador?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just seeing through the process, James.

QUESTION: Okay. Continuing forward, regarding Under Secretary Kennedy, I have the statement that he issued earlier today through the State Department, but there was a lot in the October 2012 memo to which the Under Secretary, in his statement, did not at all respond. For example, the idea, the notion that he received from the special investigating agent a full memo on the Ambassador and the investigation that was underway in May of 2011. Can you confirm that Secretary Kennedy received that memo?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of the memo.

QUESTION: Do you have any plans to provide – to make Under Secretary Kennedy available for questioning by the press on this subject?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think he released a statement, and if there’s more to say, we’ll see if there’s more to say.　

QUESTION: Well, I’m telling you that I have questions based on that statement, and I think others might as well. Are you willing to --

MS. PSAKI: Consider your request for an interview lodged.

QUESTION: On Cheryl Mills, who was also named in that October 2012 memo, can we expect a similar statement from Ms. Mills as was provided by Under Secretary Kennedy?

MS. PSAKI: I believe there was one, but I’d have to check on that. And if there was, we’re happy to get that to all of you.

QUESTION: Last question. You’ve been very indulgent and so have my colleagues here. You stated yesterday and again today that any notion that any investigation involving allegations of internal misconduct would somehow be overlooked or halted prematurely or otherwise blocked by senior officials in this Department – preposterous and inaccurate. But the allegation that just that kind of thing occurred and occurred repeatedly was contained not only in the October 2012 memo, but in the December 2012 draft of the OIG final report, which stated that the OIG team heard of instances once or twice a year where senior officials in this Department intervened to block investigations. And that sentence was scrubbed from the March 2013 final report to which you referred us. So this allegation that you call preposterous was in fact included in a draft OIG report. Your comments?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it was also, I believe, included in some capacity in an internal memo in October that was, as I referenced, based – included a number of unsubstantiated accusations. We – I went through a little bit of the process here just to give people a better understanding of that. And one of the pieces I mentioned was that as is normal, as a part of an OIG process, when there is a report or a memo – not a memo, but a report about you, the Department of Diplomatic Security expressed some concerns about some of the issues and allegations that were raised in there. That was one of them. We talked about this yesterday.　

But again, they’re now going to go back and take a look at the process, the OIG is. I would point you to them on the status of that process that they’re – their review process, which is what it’s called, and see what’s happening there. And they’ve included some former law enforcement officers in that. We welcome that, and we look forward to the conclusion of that.

QUESTION: Is that at the cost of the taxpayer, the retention of those former law enforcement officers?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the OIG for that question.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Just a couple things very briefly. When you said about the unsubstantiated allegations and the 2012 October memo, that was not just the allegations against individuals, but also the allegation that there was interference; is that --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: That’s what you’re saying?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So that is also unsubstantiated as far as --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, and we took issue with that specific piece in the February memo.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. And then the other thing is that on the line that you say it’s preposterous and inaccurate that you wouldn’t pursue criminal proceedings, are you aware if the allegations against the ambassador in question were criminal?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to individual cases, but again, when needed, we do refer as part of our process, of course, to the Department of Justice if there is criminal activity.

QUESTION: Okay. Because I’m not sure, I don't know what the laws on prostitution are in the country in question, but I don't know for sure that – if the allegation was true, if it was actually illegal. However, I do know that this kind of conduct, if it’s true --

MS. PSAKI: Is unacceptable at the State Department, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Right, exactly. So is it also preposterous and inaccurate to say – aside from a criminal prosecution, but an administrative disciplinary proceeding, is that – that you would – that that would not happen or that that would be stopped. Is it also preposterous to say that that would be – that that would – do you understand what I’m getting at here? I’m not sure if I can explain it.

MS. PSAKI: I’m trying to follow it. I think I do, but – (laughter) --

QUESTION: If it is preposterous and inaccurate that the State Department would not pursue a criminal – or a criminal prosecution of someone who has broken the law or someone who there is evidence broke the law, is it also preposterous and inaccurate to say that the State Department would not pursue the appropriate administrative disciplinary action if warranted?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, and let me – just to your question, if you’ll indulge me here for a moment, if we have proof an individual has engaged in acts that rise to criminal behavior, we’ll seek to prosecute, working with the Department of Justice. That’s how that would work. If an individual engages in acts that contravene our rules and procedures, which that would be applicable there, that individual could be subject to administrative disciplinary action. There are several levels, just as there would be anywhere, of actions that would be taken broadly in any case.

QUESTION: But it sounds like, from what you’ve said so far today, with regard to the eight cases listed in the October 2012 memo, none of them have been referred to the Department of Justice as far as you know; correct?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of, but again, I don’t want to get to any individual cases.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Just – could we get one – thanks for covering a lot of ground on this issue?

MS. PSAKI: Sure, Guy.

QUESTION: One clarification?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So regarding all of these ongoing investigations that you’re – is anyone in this building now specifically investigating whether senior officials did, in fact, tell Bureau of Diplomatic Security officials not to investigate the allegations in question?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s the OIG investigation. They’re independent. It’s not even an investigation, I should say. Let me be very clear. It’s a review. So that is what the OIG is reviewing.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Jen, just to clarify your exchange with Matt again just now – this is just a bit of housekeeping here, but my understanding is you weren’t saying that it would be preposterous to assert that the State Department would fail to follow up on criminal misconduct. As I understood you, you were saying --

MS. PSAKI: To investigate.

QUESTION: -- to investigate criminal misconduct, that’s correct.

MS. PSAKI: There’s a process that involves many agencies often if there is, in any case, criminal misconduct, of course.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

QUESTION: Wait, wait.

MS. PSAKI: No, sorry. Let Matt and Jill --

QUESTION: Just one more. I’m just wondering if you – is the building concerned at all or are people concerned at all that unsubstantiated allegations like this are being floated around by someone who claims to be or claims to have whistleblower status? I mean, at what point – is there a concern that something that – if you’re describing them as unsubstantiated allegations, that’s – and they remain unsubstantiated now, which I realize you’re not saying, but if they are or some of them are unsubstantiated, doesn’t that just – I mean, it’s kind of just like gossip, no?

MS. PSAKI: Well, one thing, just to be clear, is that the individual, as I understand it, who claims whistleblower status, is not the same individual who wrote the memo, so that’s one – just to be clear on that.

Of course, whenever there are what we view as unsubstantiated allegations, we are concerned because these are people’s lives and these are – there are tens of thousands of men and women who serve proudly around the world on behalf of the State Department, as is evidenced by past actions. If there is criminal activity, if there is an allegation that warrants administrative activity, we do take action, and we would, in any case, if needed of these as well.

QUESTION: Jen, just --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- a minor clarification. You said if we have proof that rises to the level of criminal behavior, you would refer to DOJ, right?

MS. PSAKI: Uh-huh. That’s the process.

QUESTION: Okay. So in other words, the people who are looking at this – let’s say Diplomatic Security initially – it does not go to DOJ unless, I guess, there is some sort of level of investigation or collection of evidence, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, if it --

QUESTION: Or just the allegation doesn’t trigger pushing it over to DOJ?

MS. PSAKI: No, that’s my understanding: It does not, if it rises to the level that an individual has engaged in acts that rise to criminal behavior.

QUESTION: Okay. So – and none of them have been referred to DOJ?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: But again, I don’t want to speak to individual cases.

QUESTION: Yes. Could we change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Jo?

QUESTION: Mine is good.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. On the Israeli settlement activities, in the last six months, Israel has built more settlements or announced more settlements – more than the whole year 2012. And they did the same thing in 2012 for 2011. Are you alarmed by the accelerated activities? And is the Secretary of State, as he prepares to go on another trip presumably, is he alarmed by this activity, and what is he doing about it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know we’ve talked about this a bit in here, and the Secretary has raised --

QUESTION: Of course. Yes, we always talk about it.

MS. PSAKI: -- with his counterparts in the Middle East as well that unhelpful – he’s asking all sides to refrain from unhelpful actions and unhelpful rhetoric when that applies. And certainly, his focus remains on encouraging both sides to move back to the table to resume negotiations. That’s what his focus has been for the past couple of months and why he’s spent so much time in the region and on the phone with various counterparts.

QUESTION: So the focus is on returning to the table. I understand that. But independent of that, is there any effort independent of returning to the table that could – would encourage or persuade the Israelis to decelerate the settlement activity process?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’d have to speak to the Israelis on that question.

QUESTION: No, but – I mean, you are their benefactor. You are the most influential party with the Israelis. You – I would expect, or the world would expect that you would do something with Israel.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we’re just focused on encouraging both sides to resume – to move back to the negotiating table, to refrain from unhelpful behavior that would hurt the peace process, or moving toward a peace process, I should say.

QUESTION: So to understand clearly, you’re saying that the only way to bring the issue of the settlement to activity is through going back to the negotiating table, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve always said our view is discussions without preconditions.

QUESTION: Is there any news yet on when the Secretary’s trip might be rescheduled?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an update on that yet, Jo, unfortunately.

QUESTION: I need to go back to the IG thing --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- for just one second, but it has to do with the Hill.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Congressman Royce put out a statement yesterday; he said he wanted to talk to Secretary Kerry about this. Do you know if that conversation has happened?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of a conversation that’s happened.

QUESTION: All right. Do you know if – excuse me, if his office has been in touch with the Secretary’s people to arrange something?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of as of this morning, so unless something happened late this morning.

QUESTION: And has his office or the committee gotten in touch with the building to arrange for a hearing or witnesses to – you don’t --

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Okay. And then one last really brief one: 　I understand the speaker of the Burmese Parliament was here today for meetings. Do you have anything on --

MS. PSAKI: Yes. I believe that was with – I may have to double check on this, but I believe it was with Deputy Secretary Burns. I don’t have any readout of that, though.

QUESTION: All right. Is it possible to get something?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I mean – thank you.

QUESTION: Related to Burma/Myanmar, the – we’ve got a report out that Myanmar’s immigration minister has expressed support for a controversial two-child limit on a Muslim minority group that Aung San Kyi and the UN calls discriminatory. I was wondering if the U.S. had any – has discussed this at all, or has any reaction.

MS. PSAKI: We do. We are deeply concerned about reports that some officials in Burma plan to enforce or have said they plan to enforce a two-child limit for Rohingya Muslims. The United States, of course, opposes coercive and discriminatory birth limitation policies, and we have pressed senior Burmese Government officials to abolish this local order. We urge the Government of Burma to eliminate all such policies without delay and we will continue to express our concerns.

QUESTION: Sorry, Jen, on that, the last time you were asked about this, it was simply the local authorities out in --

MS. PSAKI: This was a new official who made a statement.

QUESTION: I know, but I want to make sure that you are talking about this new – the national level official now.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. So – and do you know if there has been contact since this minister made these comments?

MS. PSAKI: We are in regular contact. I know these were very recent, I believe at the embassy level. But I can check on that, if there’s anything specific for you.

QUESTION: Could I ask about passports and the issuance and revocation of passports? I mean, obviously I’m asking because of the situation of Edward Snowden, who’s now in Hong Kong. But I wanted to ask when the United States issues a passport, under what circumstances can those passports then be revoked?

MS. PSAKI: Let me just find the exact guidance here for you, Jo, so that I can read it out to you. We can revoke passports. Thanks for your patience. I do have something on this, so let me get that following the briefing, and I can get you the exact guidelines on when we do revoke and what would require it.

QUESTION: Well, my follow-up question would obviously then be would Mr. Snowden’s case meet the guidelines for such a revocation of a passport?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not – we don’t speak to individual cases as a matter of policy.

QUESTION: Okay. But I would like the general guidance.

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. I’m happy to – we’ll get that around to everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Maybe we do two more here. Right there.

QUESTION: On East Asia. Yesterday you welcomed the expected talks between North and South Koreans, but abruptly, unfortunately, it collapsed today. So do you have any comment on that? And the other question is: Do you see any signal from North Koreans to talk vis-a-vis the United States?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’d refer you to, of course, to the Republic of Korea for information on the timing of the talks. The reports I saw – maybe you saw something more recent – were that they were postponed. We’ll see. But we, of course, support improved inter-Korean relations and we will continue close coordination with our allies and partners in the region and are certainly supportive of these efforts.

In terms of North Korea, we’re not going to – our position has been the same for quite some time. We’ve been very clear that we’re open to improved relations with North Korea, if it is willing to take clear actions to meet its international obligations and commitments, including abiding by the 2005 joint statement of the Six-Party Talks.

QUESTION: Jen, could you comment on some news reports that are alleging that the Emir of Qatar, one of your biggest allies, is ready to step down at the end of this month?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve seen those reports. I know I was asked yesterday. I would simply refer you to the government on those specifics.

QUESTION: But you have no --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more.

Let’s do one more.　 Let’s see. Scott.

QUESTION: You took a question from Camille yesterday about Sudan. Since then, South Sudan says that the Sudanese Government has sent several thousand troops across the border into the South. Do you have any reaction to that? Do you believe that to be the case?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any independent confirmation of that. I do have something else that may be helpful. I know one of the questions was about our contact with them since the Secretary met with both counterparts. On June 10^th, Deputy Secretary Burns spoke by phone with Deng Alor Kuol, the Government of South Sudan’s Minister of Cabinet Affairs. Also on June 10^th, Ambassador Joseph Stafford, the charge of the Embassy of Khartoum, met with Ali Karti, the Government of Sudan’s Foreign Minister. Additionally Ambassador Susan Page, U.S. Embassy Juba, has spoken with a number of South Sudanese officials.

In all of those meetings, we expressed our deep concern at President Bashir’s statement that Sudan will instruct oil companies to stop the flow of South Sudanese oil transported via Sudan’s pipeline and we urge Sudan to reverse their decision and for both Sudan and South Sudan to engage through agreed mechanisms, such as the Joint Political Security Mechanism and Petroleum Monitoring Committee in order to address and to resolve issues related to security and support to rebels.

QUESTION: Can you take the troops question?

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Sorry. Do you have two ambassadors in Juba? Or just one person has the title?

MS. PSAKI: I believe Ambassador Susan Page, U.S. Embassy Juba – let’s see. I believe Ambassador Joseph Stafford is the charge, who also has an ambassador title, as sometimes happens in the Foreign Service.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you.

QUESTION: Can you do another Africa question?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I don’t know if you have – if it’s crossed your radar, but on Mali, the government delegation and the separatist rebels have had an agreement in principle – this is quite a big development – that would allow planned elections in July over the disputed Kidal region. I was wondering if you have a reaction to this, whether you see this as a way to seal the democratic transition?

MS. PSAKI: We do. It is on our radar. After a short pause in discussions to conduct consultation with their leadership, we expect talks to resume today between the Government of Mali and the Tuareg rebels. These discussions are focused on reaching a framework agreement that would pave the way for elections in the city of Kidal on July 8^th – July 28, I should say. We hope that the current negotiations will set the stage for long-term national reconciliation. We call on the parties to conclude a framework agreement for elections in Kidal without delay.

Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:14 p.m.)

DPB # 96

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• DEPARTMENT
  • Secretary Kerry's Travel
• SYRIA
  • Aid to Opposition / Massacre in Qusayr / Ground Situation
  • Geneva 2 Conference
• DEPARTMENT
  • Secretary Kerry's Travel / Talk with British Foreign Secretary Hague
• SYRIA
  • U.S. Concern about Status on the Ground / Influx of Help from Other Countries / Political Transition
  • Refugee Situation
  • Support for Opposition / Foreign Fighters / Nonlethal Assistance
• CHINA
  • Extradition Treaty with Hong Kong
  • Eric Snowden
• D.P.R.K./R.O.K.
  • North Korea and South Korea Talks
  • U.S. Relations with North Korea
  • Deputy Secretary Burns's Meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Kyou-hyun
• DEPARTMENT
  • CBS Report on OIG Office
• BAHRAIN
  • Secretary Kerry's Meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain
• DEPARTMENT
  • FOIA Request
• SUDAN/SOUTH SUDAN
  • President Bashir Instructs Oil Companies to stop Oil Exports to South Sudan
• TURKEY
  • Protests / Secretary's Conversation with Foreign Minister Davutoglu
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Attack at Kabul International Airport

The video is also available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:23 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hello, everyone. Deb, welcome to the briefing room. Under some excellent tutelage here. We’ll see. I’ll tell you at the end of the briefing.

I don’t have anything at the top. I know there’s a lot out there in the news today, so let’s start first with what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Let’s – can we start with Syria and the Secretary? And there are all sorts of reports out there that he postponed a trip to the Middle East because he wanted to be in Washington for meetings on Syria, that these meetings could possibly lead to a decision to arm the rebels. Are those accurate?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, you are correct that the Secretary will be in Washington this week. He had planned a trip that was widely reported, across the region. As the Secretary of State, he needs to balance, of course, foreign travel and foreign diplomacy and that part of his job – which, as we all know, he does quite a bit of – with the need to be here in Washington from time to time, of course, advising the President and working with the national security team.

In terms of meetings that he’s attending, there’s a wide range. There are routine meetings, as the White House often has, as the Secretary often participates in, but I’m not going to get ahead of what will or won’t be discussed or what certainly would come out of any of those.

QUESTION: Well, are there any plans or – to raise the possibility of increasing your – increasing activity towards the Syrian opposition?

MS. PSAKI: Well, at the President’s direction, his national security team continues to consider all option – all possible options that would accomplish our objective of helping the Syrian opposition serve the essential needs of the Syrian people and hasten a political transition, which we talk quite a bit about. And a wide range of options have been prepared for the President’s consideration, and internal meetings to discuss the situation, which, of course, are routine, which are ongoing throughout last week, weeks ahead, of course.

So in terms of what they’ll be – I don’t want to get – I have nothing to announce for you. But we continue to look for ways, the President continues to look for ways, to help the opposition and increase aid, as we’ve talked about, and something we’re encouraging our allies around the world to do as well.

QUESTION: All right. So, I just – I’ll stop after this, but is it now all options, or is it still all options but one?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the President has talked about how boots on the ground is not an option, as has the Secretary.

QUESTION: So it’s not all options.

MS. PSAKI: So all options, barring that.

QUESTION: Short of that?

MS. PSAKI: Short of that, correct.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Is it the case that among the meetings, whether routine or not, that he is – or you say they’re routine, but are the meetings that he is staying in town to attend, do they include meetings on Syria?

MS. PSAKI: There are some on Syria, but I’m not going to discuss internal meetings. There’s a wide range of meetings that the Secretary is involved in and will be involved in in the coming days. And again, there’s been a long conversation about how to continue to aid the opposition and what we can do to strengthen their position on the ground while also planning a political transition. Many of these options have been discussed, and they will continue to be.

QUESTION: And does one of those – just – sorry, one more for me on this. Does – do those options include not – well, if it’s all options but the one that Matt cited, then it would be fair to say that those options do include the possibility of the United States shifting its policy so as to potentially provide arms to the rebels?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s long been included as part of the options, so the one that is not included is the one Matt referenced about no boots on the ground, which the President and the Secretary have both spoken to.

QUESTION: Jen, can I just make sure I heard? When you said – at about two minutes in, you said a wide range of options or a wider range of options?

MS. PSAKI: A wide range of options.

QUESTION: Wide, okay. Now also we do have this situation of big setbacks for the opposition fighters. You have the influx of foreign fighters coming in on the side. Do you have – what is the level of concern about all of those? I know we’ve talked about it, but now it seems to be reaching critical mass.

And also, do you have any numbers on the actual numbers of foreign fighters coming from these different countries, including Europe and the United States?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any numbers on foreign fighters. I can say that we do share, of course, the opposition’s deep concerns over the ground situation in Syria. Just this past weekend, there was an abhorrent massacre of at least 100 people fleeing Qusayr, including civilians. It’s heavy shelling clashes in the north, especially in the Aleppo suburbs, and the intense preparations for a siege on the city of Aleppo only reaffirms the urgent need for the international community to focus its efforts on doing all we can do to support the opposition as it works to change the balance on the ground.

QUESTION: What influence did those events on the ground have in the timing for the talks this week about whether it’s time to arm the rebels or not?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would caution all of you in overemphasizing or over-reading into what routine meetings mean. These issues are often discussed. It’s been the same issues on the table. Again --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) canceled a trip for every – for routine meetings?

MS. PSAKI: He postponed a trip that he knows that he can go on at a later date, probably soon, and I’m sure that he will. So – but to answer your larger point, question here that you’re raising, we still are focused, of course, on the parallel process. We are continuing to work with our counterparts on planning for Geneva 2. But the political process, of course, cannot occur in a vacuum. And as we’ve heard firsthand from General Idris over the weekend, conditions on the ground have worsened, and that is greatly concerning. And the bloodshed and the loss of innocent lives has grown worse. The increase of foreign fighters has led to a greater concern about sectarian violence. So we are taking a closer look at what we can continue to do to help the opposition.

QUESTION: Can’t you – I mean, you said you heard that from General Idris over the weekend, but did you not notice that Qusayr fell last week?

MS. PSAKI: Of course, but I was just reiterating what we all heard. General Idris, who is the commander on the ground, of course, and has some – quite a bit of reputability, well deserved, so I was just reiterating that point.

QUESTION: What is General Idris telling you about the battle that seems to be shaping up now to retake Aleppo from the opposition forces?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we – I’m not going to read out private conversations. But of course, we’ve seen, and we’ve seen the regime say, that they are pursuing, of course, the areas around Aleppo. I will tell you that Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones spoke with General Idris. She was the person who was in touch with him and received an update on what’s happening on the ground. And we will remain in touch.

QUESTION: When did she speak to him, what day?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure of that. I’m happy to check on the exact timing of that.

QUESTION: Can you let us know?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Do you have any confirmation also about a report that came out from the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights that a 15-year-old boy yesterday was executed by Islamist gunmen who accused him of blasphemy?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any independent confirmation of that. We would, of course, condemn that type of abhorrent behavior in the strongest terms.

QUESTION: I mean this speaks to your fears that the whole situation is now just disintegrated more and more into a kind of sectarian fight, wouldn’t it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have been very long concerned about the increase in sectarian violence, and the influx of foreign fighters has only heightened that. And that is why we are so focused on continuing to take a close look at how we can help the opposition.

QUESTION: So you call these meetings routine, but these meetings have nothing to do with your great concern about the worsening situation on the ground?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, they – there are frequent meetings about Syria. This is an issue that is on the minds of the President and the Secretary of State and every member of the national security team. And there are often discussions about it, and --

QUESTION: Is it more pressing now?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I referenced how pressing the situation is, certainly with the increase in violence. That is greatly concerning to all of us.

QUESTION: Jen, do you have an update on the Geneva 2 initiative, if there was anything happening?

MS. PSAKI: Just to say that we remain focused on planning and continuing to work with our counterparts. As you know, the next official meeting with the Russians and with the UN will be on June 25^th. There are, as always, conversations that happen in between those meetings. But again, the political process can’t happen in a vacuum, so we are taking a closer look at what we can do on the ground to help the opposition.

QUESTION: Jen, can you help us understand what the Secretary achieves by being here rather than closer to the situation in the region? Is he in contact with other counterparts here that he wouldn’t be able to --

MS. PSAKI: Closer to the Syria situation or --

QUESTION: To the Middle East and the concern right now. Syria specifically, yes.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But what can – does he achieve by staying in Washington, and who has he been in contact with – other counterparts, foreign ministers and the like?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he is in frequent contact with other foreign ministers. I don’t have any update of recent calls over the last 24 hours, but as you know, he is frequently on the phone, often day and night.

In terms of the region, I just would want to separate them out slightly because his planned trip was focused on continuing the efforts on Middle East peace, which he remains focused on. He can do both at the same time. And we will have that trip soon, in the short term. But this is a balance, and this is a challenge every Secretary of State – and I venture, on a different scale, the President – has in balancing when they need to be where, and he made a judgment he wanted to be in Washington for the first couple days of this week.

QUESTION: You – okay, because when you started you said the Secretary will be in Washington this week. Now you say the first of couple of days?

MS. PSAKI: I think I said the early part of this – I don’t have anything specific for you on when our planned travel ends so – was – so I didn’t mean to parse it in a confusing way. I don’t have any update on when the trip will be postponed to.

QUESTION: But it’s conceivable he could go somewhere else later in the week?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any planned travel, so it’s – we will reschedule or postpone the trip, but I don’t have any update as to when that is. I wasn’t trying to be confusing.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary speak with Hague this morning?

MS. PSAKI: He did. He was unable to come for his own reasons.

QUESTION: Well, no, no – well, I understand that, but didn’t he – but they did have a conversation?

MS. PSAKI: He did. He did. That was scheduled, to speak with him.

QUESTION: Presumably, it was largely about Syria.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have the specific readout of it. I’m happy to get that to all of you. That was a long-planned bilateral meeting where I’m sure a number of issues would be discussed, including Syria, but I don’t have any readout on what they did discuss.

QUESTION: Do we need to – just going back a bit to last week and the previous weeks, Secretary Kerry has said that he now needs the Israelis and the Palestinians to make the tough decisions needed to get back to the negotiating table. Last week in a speech before the American Jewish Committee, he said that the chances are running out now. Is this – the fact that he’s postponed this visit, does that mean that he hasn’t had those assurances from the Israelis and the Palestinians that they’re ready to make these commitments?

MS. PSAKI: No, I would not link the two. He made the decision because he wanted to be here in Washington, and he is looking forward to doing that trip in the short term. I just don’t have a specific date on when that will be.

QUESTION: So just back to the point – so there have been in the past – he has been traveling when there have been these routine meetings about Syria and other national security issues, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: So he made a decision that he thought it was important enough for him to stay in town for this meeting. So I’m not sure exactly why you’re saying – insisting that it’s routine when --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I would --

QUESTION: -- it’s clearly not routine because if it was routine, he would feel comfortable being away.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, what I was implying was that it’s not that there is a checkbox that you say if these five criteria are here, I’ll stay in Washington; if these five are here, I’ll travel. It’s a judgment call made by every Secretary probably back to the invention of airplanes, and that’s one he made.

QUESTION: So there are not five boxes; there might be three?

MS. PSAKI: There may be – could be three to five.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a specific number for you.

QUESTION: But is it fair to say that it is routine, the meeting? I mean, do you think that’s – I know that there have been many, many, many, many meetings on Syria, but are the ones this week – are you absolutely convinced that the ones this week are indeed routine?

MS. PSAKI: I am.

QUESTION: Well said. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Which is --

QUESTION: Her definition of routine is something different.

MS. PSAKI: Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah, Syria. The – Al Mayadeen TV is reporting that the Syrian Government wants to move elections up to later this year. What’s your position on those elections?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports, so I can’t speak to them, but I’m happy to look into that following the briefing. It sounds like something that just came out before.

Okay. Syria?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Jen, when you mentioned --

MS. PSAKI: This is my first briefing with you.

QUESTION: My building pass still works amazingly, so – (laughter) --

QUESTION: Well, have you tried to leave? (laughter) --

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier that the U.S. shares the Syrian opposition’s deep concerns over the status on the ground, and you mentioned specific areas on the ground that are occasioning this deep concern. When Ambassador Ford testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 20, he was explicit in testifying that the military position for the Syrian Government had been worsening, at least as of that time that he testified.

What is your overall sense for the military position of the Assad government now? Is it still worsening or is it, in fact, improving?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a few things wrapped up in there, so let me try to untangle them. Well, that first testimony was, it sounds like, three and a half months ago or so, and obviously, events happen on the ground rapidly, especially in crises like these. We’ve talked a little bit over the past couple of weeks or days – it all runs together – about the influx of foreign fighters and how they have come in, and they have dramatically helped the Assad regime. They have had a large impact both in their success in Qusayr and other parts of the state – of the country that we’ve been discussing recently.

So when I say that we are concerned about events on the ground, and things have worsened on the ground, we’re talking about the massacres that have happened at the hands of the Assad regime and the foreign fighters and the influx of help from Iran and others, and that has certainly helped them. So there’s no question that that has been an adjustment in the ground – what’s happening on the ground.

QUESTION: And is it still accurate to say that President Assad’s days are numbered if his situation is, in fact, improving? Is that still an operative statement?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe I talked about a couple of parallel courses that we remain focused on. One, which has been a development since that testimony, of course, is working with the Russians and the UN to plan a political transition or, I should say, a conference to discuss a political transition. And also, which we’ve talked about already a little bit today, is continuing to look at ways we can help the opposition on the ground. That’s something that the President will make decisions on. All options aside from boots on the ground is on the table. That will – that is a big focus of the Administration’s.

QUESTION: But you would agree, wouldn’t you, that the pursuit of any of these alternate courses that you’re describing becomes harder in each and every case if President Assad’s military position is improving, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s exactly why we are focused on taking a look at how we can help the opposition and doing what we can to change the situation on the ground.

QUESTION: Excuse me, Jen.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: You’ve often said – your predecessors and the Secretary himself have said that Assad’s days are numbered, as James just mentioned. Is it still the Department’s belief that President Assad’s days are numbered?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, we believe that we can work with our international allies, we can help strengthen the opposition, that the massacres and the horrific acts of the regime are not and will not be accepted by the international community. We know this won’t be easy, never thought it would be easy, but that’s why we’re working on multiple tracks and why we’re so focused on this day in and day out.

QUESTION: Jen, could you just give us a little more detail? You gave us some specifics there about a massacre, about a hundred people fleeing Qusayr and also a siege on Aleppo. What is the characteristic common among those being targeted? I mean, do you have anything more about why that group of 100 was massacred – their affiliation, their religious group, anything?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any specifics for that. The vast majority of massacres that have been – happened at the hands of the Assad regime have not been targeted. They’ve been – thousands of innocent women and children and civilians have died, but I don’t have anything more specific on those 100 individuals.

Syria?

QUESTION: American Administration is considering resettling Syrian refugees to the U.S. Do you have any details about this plan?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let me speak to that. Well, let me first say the preferred solution for the vast majority of refugees is to return home once it is safe. We are in close contact with the UN on the need for resettlement of refugees from countries of first asylum throughout the world. The United States accepts more UN-referred refugees than all other countries combined, and we are aware, and we would – and the UN is aware that the U.S. would consider any individuals referred to us to have been determined to be in need of resettlement. So we are prepared to respond if asked, and will encourage other resettlement countries to do the same.

QUESTION: What’s the number that you are ready to resettle?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it doesn’t work exactly that way. There’s a cap by Congress of about 70,000 refugees in total. So the way it would work would be if a specific country is added to the list of refugees where we would accept their refugees, which the U.S. is certainly open to – but let me just reiterate that the preferred solution for the vast majority is to return to their country once it’s safe.

QUESTION: Are you aware if UNHCR has referred anybody to any country?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that kind of an update for you.

QUESTION: I mean, has it --

MS. PSAKI: I’d refer you to them.

QUESTION: Okay. But you don’t know?

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, many countries in the region have accepted tens of thousands of refugees --

QUESTION: Well, but that’s for temporary --

MS. PSAKI: -- across the border for temporary --

QUESTION: Right. No, this is for --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on the exact status in that regard.

QUESTION: Jen, the Secretary General of OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, was in town last weekend.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: He met some top Administration officials. And his office confirmed that he asked no-fly zone from the Administration. So can I have a comment on this? What is your --

MS. PSAKI: I would just reiterate that for the President and for the Administration, we continue to focus on looking at all options aside from boots on the ground and evaluating those. But I’m not going to parse individual options that are thrown out there.

QUESTION: But how much is the stand of the Islamic countries is significant for you on this issue?

MS. PSAKI: Of course we weigh the input of countries in the region, of our different international partners, very heavily. But I’m not going to parse internal deliberations on any of these issues.

QUESTION: He’s going to Russia to meet some Russians officials. Are you expecting something from his meetings in Russia?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to him and to the Russians on that question.

QUESTION: But the meetings on Syria at the White House, have they started today? Or when is Secretary Kerry’s first meeting?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to specify exactly when meetings may or may not be routine meetings, as I’ve said a few times. But I would say it’s safe to say over the next couple of days, he’ll have meetings about a range of issues.

QUESTION: Can we expect any big decision from these routine meetings? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I have nothing – I have no announcements to make, and I --

QUESTION: How about any routine decisions? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I have nothing new or nothing to predict for you.

QUESTION: Jen?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Very basic question about Syria --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, there you are in the back.

QUESTION: Sorry, I’m way in the back. As you consider ways to help the opposition – I just have a very basic question – does this Administration want the rebels to win?

MS. PSAKI: Of course we want the opposition to win. Of course we want the terror of the Assad regime and the actions they’ve taken against tens of thousands of civilians to end. We want the bloodshed to end, and we think a political transition is the best step toward doing that. But we’re going to remain focused on our dual path.

QUESTION: If you – last week, I think I’d asked you if the Administration felt it should have done more to prevent the fall of Qusayr. Does the Administration believe it is in its interest to try to help – I mean, you just said you want the opposition to win. Does the Administration believe it is in its interest to try to help the opposition fighters keep ground?

MS. PSAKI: Keep ground, in terms of --

QUESTION: Yes, hold onto ground that they’ve seized from government forces that the government is then seeking to retake.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Arshad, given that I did express extensive concern for the events on the ground, and the massacres that have taken place, and the actions of the regime, and the fact that we are taking a closer look at what we can do to help the opposition, I think that answers that question.

QUESTION: But it doesn’t, actually. I mean, does – do you believe – I mean, can you not simply then say, “Yes, we do believe that it is important for the U.S. Government to try to help the opposition keep ground that it has seized from the government forces”?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly want to continue to help the opposition and take a close look at what we can do to help the Opposition --

QUESTION: So, again, not a --

MS. PSAKI: -- to make gains and to continue to hold the parts that they are holding, yes.

QUESTION: Great. And how about to extend their hold on ground?

MS. PSAKI: I think across the board we want to help the opposition, and we are very focused on what’s happening on the ground right now.

QUESTION: Why didn’t you do more to prevent the fall of Qusayr, which is widely regarded – which is a strategic town in terms of lots of flows, given its space? Why, if you do believe – well, you just said the U.S. Government believes that it should help the opposition keep ground and help the opposition extend ground, why didn’t you do more to prevent the fall of that town?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, I know this isn’t an answer you’re going to love, but there’s no real benefit in looking in a rearview mirror. This was a specific case where, as we know and as we’ve seen reports, Hezbollah and their influx of fighters there and help from Iran had a dramatic impact on helping the regime. And as we looked at the scenario that was unfolding, this was a case where that helped the regime. And also, as we talked about a little last week, one of the largest issues we were concerned about as it was unfolding is – were the hundreds, if not more, of civilians who were stuck there, who were not getting aid, and the inability of humanitarian aid to go in.

So all I can say is that we have provided and we have continued to increase our assistance over time. As you know, we’re at 250 in nonlethal – 250 million, I should say – in nonlethal assistance, over 500 million in humanitarian aid. The next tranche of nonlethal assistance, which we’re going to be notifying Congress on in the short term, a portion of that is what the Secretary talked about in Istanbul that will go directly to the SMC and to General Idris. We’ve obviously been in touch with him to get a ground update, and we’re focused on moving forward.

QUESTION: When – just to follow up on that, you don’t, I hope, simply look at things through a rearview mirror. The battle for Qusayr extended over more than days. You were aware that it was going on, you were aware and said from the podium that Hezbollah fighters were on the ground and fighting on the side of the government forces, so my question is: Why, at that time, when you had real-time intelligence about the fact that the government forces were getting reinforced, and given that the U.S. Government believes it should help the opposition to keep and take back ground, did the U.S. Government judge that it was not – that it should not have done so in that case? Why didn’t you do more back then?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything more for you on it.

QUESTION: Can I get to a broader point here?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Have you ever driven a car?

MS. PSAKI: Have I personally driven a car? I have.

QUESTION: Then you know that there actually is benefit to looking in rearview mirror, at least in that specific --

MS. PSAKI: Fair analogy.

QUESTION: And also, you’re familiar with – in terms of policy, expressions like “Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to” – “the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.”

MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve spoken a lot about what we’ve learned from the past. I was talking about --

QUESTION: Okay. No, no --

MS. PSAKI: -- this specific case.

QUESTION: Well, I understand, but I just want to – but surely you do look back on recent developments and use those – use that to determine how you’re going to forward, right?

MS. PSAKI: Of course, Matt. Of course.

QUESTION: Okay, well then what’s --

MS. PSAKI: And I didn’t --

QUESTION: Then I don’t understand why you’re so adamant against answering --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think he’s asking me to analyze one specific part of Syria, and one specific couple days of events that happened. More broadly, of course – and I said this at the top – the influx of foreign fighters, the role Hezbollah has played, what we’re seeing on the ground is, of course, part of our determination in taking a closer look about what we can do more. And that’s part of your decision-making always, and is certainly part of the government’s decision-making.

QUESTION: So how does the capture of Qusayr, then, given that we now know that Aleppo is next in the target sights of the Assad forces, how does that picture into your thinking going forward?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can’t take a specific incident, as tragic and terrible as it was, and tell you how exactly it’s going to determine a decision, or any other decisions. I can say broadly that we do, of course, take a look at events like this and the influx of Hezbollah, foreign fighters, the impact that had on helping the regime. We do talk to, of course, leaders – military leaders like General Idris and hear about what’s happening on the ground. And that is, of course, factored into any thinking and discussion as we move forward.

QUESTION: Okay. So just to put a very fine point on this, the fall of Qusayr is – will inform your – the Administration’s decision-making as it relates to going forward and specifically to Aleppo.

MS. PSAKI: I would say any tragic events, any tragic cases – that is certainly the recent one – where Hezbollah and their role had a prominent place is something that certainly is part of the discussion.

QUESTION: To what extent the Administration is ready to listen to General Idris call for arming the opposition and for helping the opposition?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, the Acting Assistant Secretary Jones spoke with General Idris and listened to him and what he had to say, and beyond that I’m not going to parse out internal discussions or deliberations.

QUESTION: Jen, would it be fair to say that Secretary Kerry and this building have had some diplomatic success in encouraging some of our partners to also support the SMC and to provide some lethal – some nonlethal support through those channels that we believe are moderate and worthy of supporting? Has there been a shift?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to – I don’t want to speak for other countries and why they make decisions they make, but certainly – well, if we go back to Istanbul, part of the result and positive outcome of those meetings was an agreement by the participating countries that they would send aid through the SMC, and that, we felt, was a very positive development. We’re going to be doing that, and we are hopeful other countries will be doing that. And that’s something the Secretary certainly does discuss frequently when he talks to his counterparts.

QUESTION: So he has seen the follow-through to those pledges that he would like?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I don’t have anything – any updates on other countries. I can tell you what we’re doing, but that was an agreement made and something that they all felt strongly as being the next – the appropriate path forward.

QUESTION: Forgive me if this came up on Friday when I was off, but General Idris was quoted in a New York Times story as saying that if he didn’t get arms, the opposition wasn’t going to come to Geneva 2. If it did not come up on Friday, what do you think about that stance?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point back to what I’ve already said here, which is that we are continuing to plan and discuss with our counterparts Geneva 2. Obviously, the opposition is a key component of that. We have been in touch with General Idris and we’re continuing to look at how to continue to help the opposition. But we’re working on both parallel paths at the same time.

QUESTION: Do you take him at his word that the opposition will not come if it does not get arms?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t want to parse what he said and what it means, and I would encourage you to speak with him.

QUESTION: Do you think he’s playing hardball with you?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to characterize it one way or the other. Obviously, the Secretary has a great deal of respect for him and the hard work that he’s been doing, and we’ve been in touch with him and we listen closely to what he has to say. And that’s one of the reasons that the next tranche of aid will go through the SMC and why we’re continuing to look at options.

QUESTION: Was --

QUESTION: Different subject?

QUESTION: Well, did the --

MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s finish Syria just to make sure.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary think that was a helpful comment on General Idris’s part, to his effort to convene Geneva 2?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think the Secretary is under no illusion that this is easy. He said that himself before and I’ll say it on his behalf, and is not – I don’t think any of us are surprised that it has been a journey to move toward the conference and to move toward getting that done, and he just remains focused on it. So we’ll continue to have discussions.

QUESTION: And one last question from me on the timing: As you know, the month of Ramadan will begin in – I think it’s in the second week of July – maybe the 9^th. Is it conceivable to you that the Geneva 2 conference could be held during that month, during that period?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we said last week that our target was now July. I don’t have any updates on the timing or dates or anything along those lines. Obviously, there are many participating countries, and I’m sure we’ll take scheduling needs into account.

QUESTION: Jen, a technical question about nonlethal aids: Are you trying to find new ways to deliver these nonlethal aids to opposition parties in Syria, I mean, to some safe zone within Syria maybe? Or will you transfer again this nonlethal assistance through Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure if that’s actually an accurate depiction of what’s happening. There’s been some cases where humanitarian aid, it’s been difficult to get it through. That’s absolutely true and we work with the International Red Cross and other partners to do that.

In terms of nonlethal assistance, and we talked about this a bit last week, the 127 that is in train, that has gone through – a large amount of it has gone through the ACU, the coordinating body, and it does go for different purposes and different needs on the ground. The ACU is underneath the SOC. So that continues to be how we transmit that aid. And the next tranche, part of that will be through the SMC, so – but we’re not quite there yet.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, we can.

QUESTION: I just have a couple things, and I realize you can’t talk in specifics, but maybe in generalities. This has to do with Hong Kong and the extradition treaty. Do you know – I mean it seems as though this treaty has been used often since it came into force in ’98. Do you have specifics on the numbers of how many people have gone in each direction, and whether there have been any denials of extradition?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have specific numbers or that level of detail. To your larger point, which is – we do have, and some have asked me this, an extradition agreement in force with Hong Kong, which a number of people have asked. But I don’t have any specifics on how many times we’ve used it or anything along those lines.

QUESTION: Okay. Is it possible to find out? I’m less interested in how many times it’s been used than how many times it may have been one side has asked for extradition and that has been denied.

MS. PSAKI: I’m sure we can look into what information is available.

QUESTION: And then just on the other thing: That treaty was negotiated by this building and Secretary Albright at the time very carefully so that people could not be – or would not be forced to – would not be extradited for political offenses.

Does this building or does anyone in this building find it somewhat ironic that we’re currently looking at a situation where someone is potentially going to be using this – be using an argument for – on political prosecution to avoid being returned to the United States? Because when it was negotiated, that was never envisioned. It was always the idea that the U.S. could refuse to return someone to – or send someone to Hong Kong for political reasons there. Has this raised any eyebrows in the building?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, given that I’m not going to comment on whether we’ve asked for extradition or will do so in the future --

QUESTION: Well, I’m not asking that.

MS. PSAKI: -- I’m not going to speculate on that. I can give you a little history, of course, here.

QUESTION: I just wonder if there’s anyone in the Legal Adviser’s office who is sick to their stomach or something – feeling some kind of strange emotions about the fact that it is – that the United States is now in a position – the Administration is now in a position where it could be accused of pursuing politically motivated prosecutions, especially from – when it involves a part of the People’s Republic of China.

MS. PSAKI: Again, not that I’m aware of, Matt.

QUESTION: No? Okay.

MS. PSAKI: But I’m not going to speculate on whether we’re going to use it or not. Just to tell you that we do have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

QUESTION: You were just about to give us some history. That would be –

MS. PSAKI: Oh, sure.

QUESTION: Give me the rearview mirror, as it were.

MS. PSAKI: Through the rearview mirror.

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: What if it’s no value to them?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it was established – the extradition agreement with Hong Kong was signed in 1996 and entered into force in 1998. It is still in force, and we’ve actively used it over the years. I don’t have numbers to Matt’s earlier question. It is called the agreement – the U.S. has an extradition agreement with Hong Kong. It is called the Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders. Beyond that, I think that’s the extent of my history, but a little for all of you.

QUESTION: Can you just give us any sense of how these recent developments involving Mr. Snowden have impacted this Department or created work for any particular bureaus? I mean, is there any involvement of the State Department at all in this case right now?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to speculate on all of that or read all of that out to you here today.

QUESTION: Do you share the view expressed by other spokesmen and other Administration officials that this disclosure was seriously damaging to U.S. national security?

MS. PSAKI: Again, this has been extensively spoken to by the Department of Justice, by ODNI. They have put out a number of statements. I would point all of you to those.

QUESTION: American diplomats though also impacted?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not aware of discussions at this point or demarches from governments. Of course, we always listen to our counterparts and are in close contact about a range of issues.

QUESTION: Have you talked to the Chinese Government or the Hong Kong Administration on the extradition issues?

MS. PSAKI: I just have nothing more on the extradition question for all of you. Just that we have a treaty.

QUESTION: In general on this treaty, do you communicate with the Chinese Government or the Hong Kong Administration?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I just don’t have anything further you on it.

QUESTION: Have you been contacted by the other governments on the incident, I mean, about what is this PRISM, the content of PRISM, what was the nature of the work, et cetera, on this issues?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think I spoke to this a little bit, in that I’m not aware of any discussions at a very high level or demarches from other governments. Broadly speaking – and maybe this will answer your question – these programs – and the President has spoken extensively to this, as have ODNI and others – but are used to obtain information on persons who would do harm. That information is used to protect human lives both here and abroad, not just in the United States. And these programs are designed and implemented in a manner consistent with a nation’s rule of law based democratic system of government that respects individual civil liberties while providing security to its people. And they’re also tailored to ensure that information is collected, utilized – and utilized as needed and that intrusions into privacy are minimized. So that’s just a broad overview of, of course, what they do and what has been, of course, communicated.

QUESTION: Was Secretary Kerry aware of the existence of this program prior to The Guardian report?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Who informed him of this report? Do you know how he learned about it?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that either.

QUESTION: Madam, ask you about Korea. Last week --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Korea?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Last week I asked you a question about inter-Korean talks. You gave me some comments. I appreciate that. But there was new development in Korea over the weekend, the two Koreas agreed toward minister-level talks. So I’m wondering if you have an updated statement on that.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, our understanding is that there was an agreement to – these were preliminary talks over the weekend and they have indicated plans to meet again in Seoul. We welcome news that South Korea and North Korea have agreed to talks on the Kaesong industrial complex and other issues. We support and have always supported improved inter-Korean relations and will continue our close coordination with our allies and partners in the region and, of course, monitor this closely.

QUESTION: Jen, so do you still think it is premature to talk about dialogue between the United States and North Korea?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s a slightly separate issue. We have long made clear that we are open to improved relationships – relations with North Korea if it is willing to make clear actions to live up to its international obligations and commitments. And we continue to seek credible and authentic negotiations that lead to concrete steps toward denuclearization and that result in an enduring reduction in tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: One final.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Just one more. South Korea’s Deputy Foreign Minister – his name is Kim Kyou-hyun – is in Washington, DC. So do you have – I think you may have a readout of his meetings with State Department officials?

MS. PSAKI: Yes. I believe – are you referring to the meeting with Deputy Secretary Burns?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: They discussed a range of bilateral, regional, and global security issues. This is a part of our ongoing consultations with South Korea. And that’s what I have for you.

QUESTION: Different subject.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: First, what – I guess we can begin most broadly simply by asking what comments you have about the report that aired on CBS News this morning concerning State Department OIG Office.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, the Department of State employs more than 70,000 dedicated men and women serving in some of the most challenging environments working on behalf of the American people at 275 posts around the world. We hold all employees to the highest standards. We take allegations of misconduct seriously and we investigate thoroughly. All cases mentioned in the CBS report were thoroughly investigated or under investigation, and the Department continues to take action.

Finally, the Department has responded to the recommendations in the OIG report regarding the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Office of Investigations and Counterintelligence. Diplomatic Security has taken the further step of requesting an additional review by outside experienced law enforcement officers on top of the OIG inspection so that officers with law enforcement experience can make expert assessments about our current procedures.

QUESTION: Okay. There was a lot in there. And let me see if I can untangle it --

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Let’s see. We can go back and forth untangling.

QUESTION: -- to borrow a phrase. You stated at one point early in your answer just now that all cases mentioned in the CBS News report were thoroughly investigated but that the State Department continues to take action on them. Did I understand you correctly?

MS. PSAKI: Yes. I did not mean to imply they were – the investigations were completed. Some are in process.

QUESTION: And when you talk about those cases being in process or in progress and action continuing to be taken on them, is that separate from the hiring of outside personnel that you also just referenced?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s not a hiring. It’s – it would be an investigation being done by the Inspector General’s Office working with outside law enforcement officers. So I would refer you them for any more specifics on that or how that would work. That’s a decision, of course, they make.

QUESTION: So you don’t have any further details you can share about who these outside investigators are or what they’re expected to accomplish?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the IG’s Office, which is as you know is independent, would be conducting this investigation, something we thoroughly support. But for any questions about that, I would naturally refer you to them.

QUESTION: So when you say that not all of these cases have been completed, some are still in progress, and that the State Department continues to take action, you’re saying that those pending cases are unfolding underneath the aegis of the State Department, not with respect to OIG?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. And there would be taking a look – and again, I don’t want to parse what their investigation is for them – but looking into current procedures, which is something that we fully support them doing.

QUESTION: As you know, one of the allegations in this story concerns a United States Ambassador who is still in that post said to have engaged in inappropriate conduct with minors as well as prostitutes. And I think you could understand the concerns that all Americans would have if one of our top diplomats overseas were engaged in that kind of activity and what that would do for the United States image abroad if credible allegations to that effect were, in essence, covered up. Can you assure the American people that no U.S. Ambassadors are engaged in that kind of inappropriate conduct, or that where there have been such credible allegations they have been fully investigated?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, I can confirm they would be fully investigated. I’m not going to talk about specific cases, but I can say broadly that the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct in a case – in any case is preposterous. And we’ve put individuals behind bars for criminal behavior. There is record of that. Ambassadors would be no exception. But of course, we would be – we are conducting investigations of all of these cases, and I don’t have anything further to speak to the process or status or anything along those lines.

QUESTION: Can I just – I want to clarify something, because there seem to be three different things going on here. One is the memo that the story reports on, which has to do with Diplomatic Security special investigations. You’re saying – and you said in answer to James’ question – all the cases that were mentioned in that story, which presumably is most of the ones or at least those are ones that are in this document, this memo, have either been investigated and they’re over or they’re still in the process of being investigated by DS.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, secondly, you have an IG report or audit or inspection of the investigatory department, that – of all of DS, I guess, but including that agency or that branch of it, which said that there is the perception, at least among some in DS, that investigations have been or can be influenced. Are you aware – because the IG report doesn’t actually come out and say that there has been any of this undue influence or improper influence. Is that still the case?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t – am I aware personally? No.

QUESTION: Well, is the building – does the building think that this is a significant enough concern that the procedures should be changed, or is this something that is purely going to be done by the third strand of this, which is this outside review of the DS chain-of-command or the DS process?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me see if I can explain this a little further. In the memo – there was an original memo that CBS was referring – there’s another IG memo that is public from February. And one of the issues that was raised in there was the lack of a firewall, which is what you’re referring to, I believe, if I’m understanding your question. And we have disputed this finding in a number of engagements with the OIG. The Department would never condone any undue influence on any report or investigation. But again, we took the extra precaution of asking – or I should say DS did – of asking or supporting – IG makes their own decisions – an investigation to look into the processes. And that’s what they’re doing so.

QUESTION: Okay. So in fact, there was a response to the OIG report, which said that there was this potential problem in the way that the structure in DS – that’s the process – there was a potential problem with the way it was structured and the investigatory process. And you said no, you don’t think that there is, but we’re going to go and bring in these outside people to look at it to make sure; is that --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. And when was that outside – there was some suggestion that it was as a result of questions being asked about this that the outside investigation or the outside review was commissioned. How long ago was that?

MS. PSAKI: No, I can’t – I don't know the exact timing, but I can assure you it was long before we were contacted by CBS.

QUESTION: Can I – there’s something I don’t understand here, Jen. First of all, the outside people who are being brought in, they’re --

MS. PSAKI: And just to be clear, sorry to interrupt you --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- they’re not being brought in here.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: This is an independent IG process.

QUESTION: Right, so that’s the first thing I want to understand. So in other words, the State Department Inspector General has made a decision to bring in outside people to look into that issue?

MS. PSAKI: The process, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The process, good.

MS. PSAKI: And procedures, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Second, it’s not clear to me, and maybe you said it precisely, but I thought I heard it both ways – are those outside people who are being brought in by the IG to look at the process – are they current law enforcement officials, or are they people simply with law enforcement backgrounds?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that level of detail. Experienced law enforcement officials – the IG would be able to – office would be able to define them more clearly for you.

QUESTION: Since you mentioned it, though, I think it’s an important distinction to make, and ideally for you to clarify. Because if they are law enforcement officers working for another agency, right, like the Department of Justice or the FBI, whose jobs it is to investigate criminal malfeasance, then --

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I don’t want you to combine a DOJ or FBI investigation with this independent IG investigation.

QUESTION: But that’s exactly why I’m asking, because if you’re not explaining who these people are – and I’m not looking for details, but I do think it’s important to understand whether these are people who have brought in – been brought in from other arms of the government whose job it is to investigate alleged malfeasance, or whether it – I don't know, there may be consultants, there are lots of them that exist, that happen to have had law enforcement background, but are independent consultants who don’t work for the U.S. Government formally now.

So can you clarify that one point for us?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. I don’t have that level of detail, but I also just want to be very clear: I’m not suggesting that the IG is uniting with DOJ or the FBI. We would refer any criminal case, of course, to DOJ, as would be standard. But this is not that. So --

QUESTION: Okay. I think it’s important to understand, are these contractors with law enforcement experience, or are these law enforcement officials who have been brought over by the Inspector General? So if you can clarify that for all of us, I would appreciate it.

MS. PSAKI: Again, the IG’s office is the best place, but I understand your need for clarification.

QUESTION: Well, I’m confused now. Is the IG office – whose process are these outside investigators looking at? DS’s, right?

MS. PSAKI: The OIG, the Office of the Inspector General, is working with law enforcement.

QUESTION: The IG has hired these outside people to come in and look, or whatever?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t have the level of detail of how they’re working together.

QUESTION: It’s the IG and not DS that’s done that?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: All right. DS prides itself on being a federal law enforcement department. How is it that they can’t figure out what the proper way to structure these things is?

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’ve also – they’re also conducting investigations, as would be standard in any case of misconduct, on these cases as well. So this is just a separate investigation by an independent body looking into the processes, something we fully support.

QUESTION: Do you know, of the cases mentioned in the memo or the CBS report, how many have been resolved --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t, and I also would --

QUESTION: -- and how many are still under investigation?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I would be able to provide that information.

QUESTION: Well, surely you could say that if any criminal activity was uncovered, do you know how many of them resulted in – because there are such things as allegations that turn out not to be proven, not to be true.

MS. PSAKI: There are. There certainly are.

QUESTION: So do you know how many were – turned out not to be true, or how many --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that level of information.

QUESTION: Well, I think that it would be quite nice if we could figure out exactly --

MS. PSAKI: If there’s something we can share on that, I’m happy to.

QUESTION: Because if all of these cases have been thoroughly investigated and there was no indication of criminal activity or that they were handled administratively, there was something short of criminal activity, it would be good to know. Because the impression from the report left out there is that the State Department is just ignoring really serious violations of the law.

MS. PSAKI: I think I made clear that’s not the case.

QUESTION: Well, that is the impression.

QUESTION: Can you address one particular allegation that’s in this original memo, which is the effect that the use of prostitutes by members of the Secretary of State’s detail, security detail, has been endemic over the years? That’s the word that was used, endemic.

MS. PSAKI: Again --

QUESTION: Is that something you can assure the American people, that the Secretary of State’s protective detail hasn’t been out cavorting with prostitutes in every port of call?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I started off by talking about how many people work for the Department of State around the world. Last year alone, the detail accompanied then-Secretary Clinton to 69 countries with more than 10,000 person-nights spent in hotels abroad. So I’m not going to speak to specific cases, as I said at the onset, for obvious reasons. But it is hardly endemic. Any case we would take seriously and we would investigate, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

QUESTION: What is (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: He asked me if the incidents of a couple of individuals soliciting prostitutes would be – would show that it was endemic.

QUESTION: No, I thought he asked – and maybe I’m wrong, but I thought he asked, is the use of prostitutes by the Secretary’s detail endemic.

MS. PSAKI: I think we just said the same thing, and I just said --

QUESTION: And – well, no, you said he asked whether a few instances suggested that it was endemic, whereas I think his question was, “Is it endemic?” And is your --

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely not.

QUESTION: Okay, great. Thank you.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, are you saying that there are a few instances of this?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not at all.

QUESTION: Well, you just said that.

MS. PSAKI: He was asking me about a report that is being investigated.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MS. PSAKI: And I don’t have anything further on that specific report. So he --

QUESTION: All right. So that is one of the ones that is still being looked at?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t have anything specific for you on the status of any of these cases.

QUESTION: Well, I think you – but you opened the door to this line because you said – you hardly – you think that a few isolated – or whatever you said – a few --

MS. PSAKI: Alleged, Matt, alleged.

QUESTION: Okay. Alleged, all right, so it is still – it is alleged.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into, again, just to repeat, the specific incidents or the specific cases. But I did think it was worth making the point of how broad the Diplomatic Security issue – office is, how many men and women serve proudly and bravely every day.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you just one more thing on this?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Are you comfortable speaking – declaring something not to be true for 70,000 people?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think --

QUESTION: I mean, are you comfortable, when you’re asked, can you assure the American people that something, whatever it is, is not endemic, you’re pretty confident when you say no, it’s not --

MS. PSAKI: I do feel comfortable --

QUESTION: -- even though you’re talking about a large, large universe of people?

MS. PSAKI: -- and after I said we have 70,000 employees, I said we take – we hold every employee to the highest standard. We take every allegation of misconduct seriously and we look into it.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Jen, can I ask you, do you take issue with any of the instances that were mentioned in the CBS report that are being or have been examined by the Diplomatic Service and the IG? There was – the one we’ve mentioned, we talked about the prostitutes, there was always – also an issue about drugs being sold at the Baghdad Embassy. Do you – does the Department take issue with any of those cases that were mentioned?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I just – I understand the desire to know more about each case, but I just can’t go into specifics for ongoing cases. I just made a broad point for the purpose of talking about Diplomatic Security as a whole, but I’m not going to go into specific cases.

QUESTION: So you can’t tell us whether each of those cases mentioned in the CBS is actually something that has been looked into by the IG?

MS. PSAKI: I did say at the beginning that they’re all being investigated or have been investigated, but I’m not going to go into specifics of the status of what they --

QUESTION: No, but you could confirm if those cases are factually correct, as in the CBS report.

MS. PSAKI: It is not at all confirming they’re factually correct. These are allegations in a memo. So obviously, as I stated at the beginning, they have been – all these cases are being looked into. They were already in the process of being looked into prior to the memo, and again, I don’t have any update on status, or I don’t want to break down what is happening internally.

QUESTION: And can you tell us how they came to the notice of the IG? What triggered --

MS. PSAKI: I can’t. You’d have to ask the IG office that question. It was an IG memo.

QUESTION: So then just for clarification, none of these cases have been resolved, then? Because you said they’re all --

MS. PSAKI: Again, I didn’t --

QUESTION: You said you can’t comment on cases that are in an ongoing process. So --

MS. PSAKI: Just to alleviate all confusion, these – all these cases have been looked into or are being looked into. I’m not breaking down which have been concluded, which haven’t. That’s not something --

QUESTION: Can you – I mean, you said you’re --

MS. PSAKI: I cannot.

QUESTION: -- not allowed to talk – I’m just clarifying --

MS. PSAKI: I cannot.

QUESTION: -- you’re not allowed to talk about cases that are in process, but --

MS. PSAKI: I didn’t mean --

QUESTION: -- are you able to talk about cases that are resolved?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on any of the specific cases.

QUESTION: And you would dispute the notion that any of these cases that have been – that are being looked into, that there was any kind of political pressure or other kind of pressure put on the investigators? You would say that that is not correct, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. This is obviously – we’ve taken --

QUESTION: So the memo, the allegations in the memo, according to this building, are wrong?

MS. PSAKI: Again, we’ve taken the extra step. The DS office has taken the extra step --

QUESTION: But the allegation in the memo that --

MS. PSAKI: We will let that process unwind.

QUESTION: Because if someone – fair enough, but I mean, the whole idea is that the investigations – that people might be being pressured into terminating an investigation or dropping it just because they’re told to improperly. So, you could say --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve – well, what I said --

QUESTION: -- that all the cases are being investigated, and --

MS. PSAKI: -- earlier, so let me point back to this, Matt --

QUESTION: -- both could be true.

MS. PSAKI: -- is that we’ve disputed the notion of the issue of the firewall with the OIG office.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: We would never condone this. As an extra step, the DS has asked them to look into this.

QUESTION: I understand, but I just --

MS. PSAKI: We’ll let this play out.

QUESTION: I just want to make sure and clear that you deny the allegation in the memo that there was political or some kind of pressure put on investigators to drop cases or to --

QUESTION: Undue pressure.

QUESTION: -- undue pressure to --

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t have anything --

QUESTION: That’s not correct.

MS. PSAKI: -- more to add than what I’ve already added on this case.

QUESTION: Can I ask just two sort of housekeeping questions on this? Number one: Is there anything in CBS News reporting this morning, either on TV or online, that the Department of State disputes?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I’m going to get into parsing this CBS story here. I think I’ve laid out what our position is, the steps we’ve taken. Some of that wasn’t included in the report, so I would – in the report this morning, so I would point you to that.

QUESTION: Let the record reflect I didn’t ask you to parse anything, I just asked if you had any problems with the accuracy of the report. As you know, your colleague, Mr. Ventrell, seated to the side of the podium today, has on certain occasions – and all spokesmen from time to time find it within their rights to say when they think something has been inaccurately reported. I wasn’t asking you to parse anything, but let the record also reflect you have nothing that you want to raise as an issue with the CBS News reporting on this subject, unless you interrupt me to the contrary.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what I just said, to answer your question, is that there was information, including the fact that we have been looking into these cases, what we’ve asked the IG to do and to undertake, that are important, relevant components of that. I’d have to look back closely at the story, but those are important pieces for everybody to note in their reporting moving forward.

QUESTION: Lastly, you stated earlier that the decision to retain these outside law enforcement types was one that was taken officially long before the Department of State was contacted by CBS News.

MS. PSAKI: That’s not what I said. What I said – and sorry, I know this is – there’s a lot of details here in that the Department – Diplomatic Security had been looking into these cases. Separately, they had also asked – has taken the further step of asking for an additional review by outside, experienced law enforcement officers on top of the OIG investigation, so working with the OIG investigation --

QUESTION: And that latter --

QUESTION: This is what --

QUESTION: Excuse me. Excuse me. That latter decision to retain those outside types, you stated earlier in this briefing, was made, quote, “long before we were contacted by CBS News.” That’s what you said.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: When were you contacted by CBS News?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I’m going to get into that from here.

QUESTION: Hold on a second.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: This is why I wanted to clarify this right after Arshad’s last question. It is not the OIG that is contracted or otherwise arranged with this law enforcement – outside law enforcement to do this review. It is DS itself. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: No, I believe it’s the IG is working with these --

QUESTION: All right. Because that’s not what you just said.

MS. PSAKI: It was perhaps phrased in a confusing way. So I apologize for that.

QUESTION: So it is --

MS. PSAKI: But the IG is doing the independent report on this. They are working with outside law enforcement folks.

QUESTION: So if – so in other words, DS still thinks there’s no problem?

MS. PSAKI: DS continues to look into these cases where relevant.

QUESTION: Right, but they think there’s no problem. As you said, they dispute the finding of the IG.

MS. PSAKI: They support the effort --

QUESTION: So they --

MS. PSAKI: -- to do the additional investigation.

QUESTION: Does the fact that the Ambassador in Belgium is still in place speak to where the case is and what progress?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Can I move on?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I got two brief follow-ups. One, Venezuela. Anything yet on this new dialogue that we all reported --

MS. PSAKI: I suspected you might ask about this, Matt. I don’t have any new update for you. I know we talked a little bit about the Secretary’s trip and how it was successful in moving things forward. And then in terms of next steps and where that will happen, not quite yet.

QUESTION: All right. I asked a question earlier in the week and then again on Friday about Bahrain and the Secretary’s conversation with the Crown Prince and whether it specifically talked – whether they specifically talked about the UN Special Rapporteur.

MS. PSAKI: They did not.

QUESTION: They did not. You’re aware that there’s a letter that’s been sent to the Secretary and others signed by a couple dozen --

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen the letter. I’m happy to take a closer look at it.

QUESTION: Can you – okay. Do you know why this wouldn’t have come up at the conversation?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, they did discuss a range of issues, including human rights, which was part of the conversation. But every meeting --

QUESTION: But the Administration does think that the Bahrainis should allow the Special Rapporteur in, correct? I mean, you say that you want special rapporteurs --

MS. PSAKI: Sure, but --

QUESTION: -- to have access --

MS. PSAKI: -- I would just caution you on thinking that every topic that’s important comes up in every meeting. It doesn’t. They had an extensive conversation, wide-ranging, which we did a little readout of.

QUESTION: Okay. But they – yes. But they did talk about human rights and somehow the – somehow, the concept that that didn’t include the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights --

MS. PSAKI: Our position remains the same, and --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- every topic doesn’t --

QUESTION: All right. It’s just --

MS. PSAKI: -- come up in every single meeting.

QUESTION: Well, fair enough. Okay. And then last one, and this has to do with Benghazi, but not anything – just – you complied with the subpoena on Friday. Have you heard back from the committee as to whether they’re satisfied with this opening tranche of documents?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the RNC FOIA request?

MS. PSAKI: I do have an update for that on – on that for you. We did receive the request on Friday and we’ll review it and process it as appropriate, as we do with all FOIA requests.

QUESTION: Sudan. A report – well, over the weekend, President Bashir ordered a stop to oil exports to South Sudan and is telling people to prepare for a holy war. What’s your reaction to that? And what kinds of conversations have people in this building had with either Sudanese or South Sudanese officials?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, the Secretary was there, met with both the Sudanese and South Sudanese officials just about two weeks ago. But I’m not aware of a recent conversation. I can check if there have been some others from the bureau.

President Bashir’s statement that Sudan will instruct oil companies to shut down the pipeline transporting southern oil is deeply disappointing. If carried out, this threat is in violation of Sudan’s obligations under the September 27^th agreements, which only allow for a shutdown with 60 days of notice for economic or technical reasons. This is neither. We deplore this action and urge Sudan to reverse this decision and respect its internationally recognized obligations.

QUESTION: On Qatar. The Telegraph has reported today that the Amir of Qatar will relinquish power this summer to his son, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad. And The Telegraph added that the U.S. has been briefed about the succession. Are you aware of that?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to Qatar on that, specifics on that.

QUESTION: But how do you view this move, if he will relinquish the power to his son?

MS. PSAKI: I understand it’s a report. I don’t have anything further for you on it.

QUESTION: But in general?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything further for you on it.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: By anything further, you don’t have anything at all.

MS. PSAKI: Anything at all.

QUESTION: Do you have an update on Turkey, on the protests in Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: Did you have a specific question about it, or --

QUESTION: About your dialogue with Turkish Government maybe, because the Prime Minister --

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary did speak again with the Foreign Minister this weekend, but it was mainly focused on Syria. Of course, we remain focused on calling for calm and calling on all sides to make sure that they don’t escalate the rhetoric and that – refrain – that all sides refrain from violence. So that’s where our focus remains.

QUESTION: The Prime Minister made a statement about the Occupy Wall Street protests. And he said in America also, there were 17 people who were killed during the incidents. And immediately, the U.S. Embassy in Ankara refuted his remarks, and they tweeted that there was no one who were killed in the incidents.

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct.

QUESTION: But then they deleted the tweet.

MS. PSAKI: And they’ve, I believe, spoken to standing by the information. It is correct that no individuals died during Occupy Wall Street. But these were decisions made by our Embassy there, and I would point you to them.

QUESTION: Jen, can you just clarify: You said that Secretary Kerry did speak with his counterpart, his Turkish counterpart this weekend.

MS. PSAKI: The Foreign Minister. He spoke mainly about Syria and the ongoing crisis there as part of their conversation.

QUESTION: Perhaps I misunderstood when I asked earlier about conversations that the Secretary had had with his counterparts. Were you just speaking about today when you said he hadn’t spoken with anyone but Hague? Is there anyone I missed?

MS. PSAKI: I think I was. I’m happy to get you all an update. I wasn’t meaning to be – he speaks with people all the time – with his counterparts all the time about Syria and a range of issues. So obviously --

QUESTION: Specific to Syria would be helpful.

MS. PSAKI: -- Hague today, and Davutoglu this weekend, and we’ll see if there are other calls that we can read out for all of you.

QUESTION: Jen, to clarify: Are you confident that these incidents, this protest, didn’t affect the relationship between U.S. and Turkey in terms of the dialogue with – on Syria, for example?

MS. PSAKI: We are confident. The Secretary has a great working relationship with Foreign Minister Davutoglu. They have been working very closely on coordinating and discussing options for how to best help the opposition. They see each other around the world at various conferences, and they speak frequently. So we’ll continue to work closely with them on that.

Okay, last one, Lalit.

QUESTION: Thank you. How do you see the terrorist attack on the Kabul International Airport – how --

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just – we condemn, of course, in the strongest terms the Taliban attack on the facilities in the vicinity of Kabul International Airport early Monday morning. We do note that the Afghanistan National Police led the successful operation to secure the airport with ISAF advisors in a mentoring role only.

QUESTION: But do – are you confident enough that given this major attack on the Kabul International Airport, Afghan national security forces are strong enough to protect the nations after 2014?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we felt it was, of course, positive that the Afghanistan National Police led the successful operation to secure the airport. And beyond that, we remain focused on working with our counterparts there to discuss a BSA and to discuss plans for post-2014 on how we can best coordinate on that front.

QUESTION: On BSA, do you have any timeline? Do you think what stage we are --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that for you. Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:32 p.m.)

DPB # 95

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
  • 43rd OAS General Assembly
• BAHRAIN
  • Human Rights
• SYRIA
  • John McCain Visit
  • UNDOF Peacekeeping Operations / Austrian Departure Plans
  • Regional Instability / Clashes in Golan Height / Israel-Syria Ceasefire
• ISRAEL / PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
  • Middle East Peace
• ASIA
  • Relationship with Asia
• CHINA
  • Meeting with Chinese President / Cybersecurity
• LIBYA
  • Rep. Issa's Subpoena for Benghazi Documents
  • Ambassador Pickering's Deposition
• EGYPT
  • FMF Funding / NGO Trial / U.S. National Security Interests / Waiver Authority
• BANGLADESH
  • Labor Safety
• MADAGASCAR
  • Political Crisis
• REGION
  • Lord's Resistance Army / Poaching
• ZIMBABWE
  • Upcoming Elections

The video is available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:12 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi everyone. Happy Friday. I have one item at the top, and then we’ll get to what’s on all of your minds.

This is a statement on the 43^rd OAS General Assembly meeting, which some of you attended. The United States welcomes the Declaration of Antigua, Guatemala, “For a Comprehensive Policy Against the World Drug Problem in the Americas,” adopted by consensus at the 43^rd General Assembly of the Organization of American States. This declaration reaffirms the commitment of the nations of the hemisphere to work in partnership to strengthen the rule of law, stem the flow of illegal drugs, and engage in best practices with regard to prevention, rehabilitation, and treatment of our citizens affected by drug addiction and abuse.

In addition, the United States also welcomes the election of the U.S. candidate James Cavallaro, professor at Stanford Law School, who will make a significant contribution to the independent and respected Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a founding pillar of the Western Hemisphere’s human rights architecture. The election of Professor Cavallaro, Jose de Jesus Orozco of Mexico, and Pablo de Tarso Vanucchi of Brazil is an affirmation of the core values of the OAS to promote and defend human rights in the Americas.

Finally, the United States is committed to supporting the Organization of American States and advancing its essential role as the hemisphere’s premier multilateral organization. We congratulate the Government of Guatemala for its successful hosting of the General Assembly and the leadership of the OAS for its work in supporting democracy, advancing hemispheric security, fostering development, and promoting and protecting human rights throughout the Americas.

With that --

QUESTION: You don’t have anything else?

MS. PSAKI: That is what I have at the top. I can keep talking if you would like.

QUESTION: No. I’m just curious if there’s no travel, no nothing like that to announce on a Friday?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any travel to announce --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- at this moment. As anything becomes finalized, I’m sure we’ll share that with all of you first.

QUESTION: All right. Can I just briefly, before people go on to other things, follow up on a question that I asked yesterday and you put out a readout of it, which was welcome but not surprisingly lacking in – completely lacking in substance, essentially, about the meeting with Bahrain.

The question that I asked, as you may recall, was whether the Secretary was going to raise the issue of Bahrain refusing to allow the UN Special Rapporteur in and also their refusal to allow other human rights monitors into the country. And I don’t see that addressed in either the readout that you guys put out, and it certainly wasn’t mentioned in the readout the Whitems House put out about the Vice President’s meeting. So can you answer that question now, please?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have much more to add for you, Matt. Human rights was, of course, discussed as part of the meeting, which is inferred in our readout. But in terms of whether that specific issue was raised, I don’t have anything further to add on it.

QUESTION: Is it possible to find out? Because this is an issue that has been one of great concern not just for the United States but for the UN. So it would be --

MS. PSAKI: I’m --

QUESTION: -- good to know if this is something that is being raised, this specific issue is being raised.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. I’m happy to look into it for you.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have nothing – nothing else.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Moving on to Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Senator McCain gave a very thorough speech toward the Middle East, but basically focusing on Syria, that is really quite contrary the rhetoric that is coming out of this Department or Secretary Kerry. I have two questions: Do you see – do you agree with him on the things that he suggested, such as a no-fly zone, a safe haven, destroying the air defenses, and so on? And second, was Secretary Kerry – I mean, we’ll go back to the question asked last week – did he coordinate with Secretary Kerry his visit into Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe I said at the time that we knew in advance of the visit that the Senator was going. I don’t have anything more to add on that. In terms of his remarks yesterday, I’m not sure. I’ll leave it to all of you to judge whether there was anything new in what he suggested. You’re familiar with our positions on all of those issues, and nothing has changed in that regard.

QUESTION: So on the issue of the visit into Syria, did he coordinate the meetings or anything – was he – in advance, with the Secretary with this Department, or anyone else --

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) at the White House, but it’s not a very --

MS. PSAKI: -- have anything more to add on it. We, of course, were aware of the visit in advance.

Jill.

QUESTION: Jen, we heard the President just a few minutes ago talking about the metadata issue. I know that this is kind of his issue, however, there is kind of an international component. Is the State Department getting any feedback from any diplomats from other countries, or any other form of feedback, questioning, comments from other countries about what’s going on? Because it apparently – as the President said – doesn’t target U.S. citizens, it targets others abroad.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any updates on that for you. I know that was asked yesterday. I would refer all of you – I know Jill has seen them, but – to the President’s remarks, which were pretty extensive on this issue, and as well as to the statement that ODNI issued last night that also addressed it, and would direct any questions to either of them.

QUESTION: Can I follow it up?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: The information gathered through those systems – do you share those information with other countries, in particularly related to counterterrorism issues?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to get into any intel-related matters from the podium.

More on this, or back to Syria?

QUESTION: No. I’m going back to Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: So there has been skirmishes in the city of Quneitra, which is very close in the Golan Heights. Do you believe that is going to be another destabilizing factor into the whole Syrian issue? And one more question about the Russians offering to replace the Austrian troops, that they said they going to leave. Do you believe this is a good idea?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me take the second question first, if that’s okay. We fully support, of course, the efforts of the UN Secretary General and UNDAF peacekeeping operations to work with troop-contributing countries to ensure that UNDAF can continue to fulfill its mandate, and encourage all offers of support to be coordinated with the UN. The UN would, of course, be the entity that would make any and all decisions in that regard. And as we expressed yesterday – and let me just reiterate – this force, of course, plays a very important role there, and we are hopeful that the Austrians will not only coordinate with their departure plans, but also that other countries will be in touch in offering plans to replace those who are leaving.

QUESTION: But yourself, would you welcome the Russians being there instead of any other nationality?

MS. PSAKI: It’s not for us to determine that. This is a UN peacekeeping operation, so I would direct you to them.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MS. PSAKI: And I think I didn’t answer your first question, which was about the violence around the --

QUESTION: In the Golan Heights.

MS. PSAKI: So we spoke about this a little bit yesterday as well, but we’ve been very clear about our concerns, of course, about the regional instability caused by the crisis in Syria, and we note reports of clashes in the Golan Heights on June 6^th, when rebel forces briefly took the Syrian side of the disengagement zone, crossing over – crossing near Quneitra, as you just mentioned. We’re also aware of reports that Syrian forces fired four mortar shells on the opposition during their counterattack which struck on the Israeli side of the disengagement zone, and an additional mortar struck a UN engagement – disengagement observer force compound injuring two peacekeepers from India and the Philippines.

That’s just a summary of what, of course, has happened, but we continue to call on all parties to avoid any action that would jeopardize the long-held ceasefire between Israel and Syria, and urge all parties to abide by the 1974 Disengagement of Forces agreement, and we reiterate our continued ongoing support, of course, for the UNDOF forces there, as I just mentioned, and of course, are monitoring the events there very closely.

QUESTION: Jen, according to the UN spokesman now just on the wire, the Russians cannot be part of this deployment because it doesn’t allow for permanent Security Council members to contribute troops. So I guess that would be out of the question.

MS. PSAKI: That perhaps makes the question null, though it was a good question. But yes, that is their response, I suppose.

QUESTION: So we have sources out of the – from Ramallah saying that Secretary Kerry will be in the region or in that area next week. Can you confirm any of that?

MS. PSAKI: Let me take this and then just go back to see if anyone has any others on Syria, but we don’t have anything to announce at this point on travel. There have been reports, we understand, of course, throughout the week. And as I said earlier this week, and let me just reiterate, that the Secretary, when he was last there, said that tough choices need to be made. He remains deeply committed to playing any productive role the U.S. can play, but this is ultimately a decision for both the Israelis and the Palestinians to make, that they want to move back to the negotiating table. So while plans aren’t finalized or firmed up at this stage, he would go back if he felt it would even help take one step forward.

QUESTION: Jeez, why didn’t I get an extended answer to the question when I asked it five minutes ago?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I like her better, clearly. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Apparently so. Yesterday, you told me to go to Turkey where they’re tear gassing. Now you’re not answering --

MS. PSAKI: I’m just joking. I want to – she asked a more specific question, so I wanted to provide an update on – or an answer to her question.

QUESTION: On Syria. On this issue.

MS. PSAKI: Do we have any on Syria, just before we move on?

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the issue of the Palestinians --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- and such and so on, yesterday, Senator McCain suggested that perhaps the United States should assign the peace file, the peace process, the negotiated peace between Palestinians and Israelis to former President Bill Clinton. Is that an idea that is looked upon favorably in this Department?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of that. Of course, President Clinton has played a prominent role on a number of national, international events throughout his career and post-presidency career, but not something I’m aware of or I’m aware of being under consideration.

Let me just reiterate the larger point here, which is that this is between – this is up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to make the decision to move back to the negotiating table. And the Secretary has had, as we all know from trips we’ve all been on and trips you all have covered, countless conversations and meetings and phone calls. But it is ultimately up to both sides, regardless of who else is involved on the outside.

QUESTION: Well, the point that Senator McCain was making is that President Clinton was involved very thoroughly. He knows both sides. Both sides work with him very well and he has a lot of prestige. Would that be – wouldn’t that be a tremendous asset for Secretary Kerry’s efforts?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t think I have anything else further to add for you on that.

QUESTION: And then finally, it is alleged that this upcoming trip, if it happens, seeks to hold – to bring the Palestinians and the Israelis together. If this trip or this – takes place, would that be the aim of the trip, to bring them together for a meeting face-to-face?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I would just point you back to what I said. On trip plans, we’re not at a point where I have anything to announce for all of you. As soon as we do, or if we do, we’ll of course provide that information. And in terms of specific meetings, I just don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Jen, just a follow-up on this: On --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I want to follow up on this.

MS. PSAKI: On Middle East peace?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: On – actually, it’s related. Since Secretary Kerry took the office, he went to Middle East at least four times. It left the doubts that outsider think he doesn’t have the same interest on the rebalance to Asia policy as his predecessor had. What do you say about that?

MS. PSAKI: I would absolutely refute that. The Secretary spent a great deal of time in Asia on his trip when he was there.

QUESTION: Just the one time.

MS. PSAKI: I was on that trip, many of you were on that trip. He gave an important speech while he was there in Tokyo talking about how committed he was to continuing our – not only our relationship, but to continuing to grow that. There are a number of components of that, as you know – economic, security, I could run down the list. But I certainly wouldn’t point to trip numbers as an indication of that.

QUESTION: Where is the Secretary today? Could you remind us?

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary is in California, very important point. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, what’s he doing in California?

MS. PSAKI: He is meeting with the Chinese in California. This is an assist. Thank you, Matt. He is meeting as part of, of course, the President’s delegation to meet with the Chinese President in California. So that is another point of reference on how important our relationship with Asia --

QUESTION: So (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the White House has previewed this quite a great deal, so let me just give you kind of a quick overview of what they have said. This is, of course, the President’s trip, and the Secretary is attending as a member of the delegation. But they will be meeting over the next couple of days. This is – the discussions, they expect, will cover political, security, and economic issues. This is an opportunity for all of them to also get to know each other and continue to work on many of the key issues that we can work together on and raise issues where we have concerns.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up?

QUESTION: Let’s go back on --

QUESTION: Did the Secretary meet with the President when he was in Beijing?

MS. PSAKI: He did.

QUESTION: He did?

MS. PSAKI: He did. So the Secretary has met previously with the President as well.

QUESTION: So they’ve already gotten to know each other?

MS. PSAKI: They have already begun their relationship in these – in the Secretary’s position.

QUESTION: May I just follow, California trip, please?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There have been so many talks in the think tanks and also CEOs meeting President in the White House and coming here and all. My question is that ⁽¹⁾, how serious is this issue been going on for a long time as far as – I’ve been asking also for the last 10 years, maybe – as far as --

MS. PSAKI: Ten years of asking?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: That’s exhausting. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The China – Chinese --

QUESTION: Never gotten an answer. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I know. This is a lot of pressure, Goyal.

QUESTION: There was a number of issues I’ve been asking for the last 10 years. Some came true and some still hanging around. One is now the Chinese – I mean, so-called, what they said – stealing their U.S. secrets. What my question is: How serious the Department is taking this? And second, since U.S. has Fortune 500 companies in China producing almost everything there, how do they protect their secrets there? Are they a problem there, or what is the problem going on there?

MS. PSAKI: Well, maybe I can address your question today. We’ll see. I’ll ask you afterwards.

Cyber security is one of the Administration’s top priorities. It will certainly be on the agenda for this trip as the White House has previewed. We have long said that we are concerned about cyber intrusions emanating from China, from the President on down. This is an issue that has repeatedly been raised, and we believe at this critical time, of course, that the United States will do all it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private property.

So we’ll see. They’ll be discussing that over the next couple of days, and I’m sure that my colleagues at the White House will read that out for the folks covering.

QUESTION: So are you concerned – you say you’re concerned about cyber intrusions emanating from China. Are you concerned about cyber intrusions emanating from the United States?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, of --

QUESTION: Does the United States – is the United States Government concerned about its own intrusions into cyber space?

MS. PSAKI: Are you talking about our own – I’m not sure I’m totally following your question.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if there’s any consistency in the Administration’s position here, whereas, as the President just acknowledged, there are intrusions or monitoring going on – emanating from the United States on non-U.S. people. And you just said that you are concerned about cyber intrusions coming from China.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe the President spoke to this.

QUESTION: So it’s okay for you guys to do it, but it’s not okay for the Chinese to do it. Is that right?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I believe the President spoke pretty extensively to this in his remarks.

QUESTION: Exactly. Yes, he did.

MS. PSAKI: He did. I would point you to that. I was answering Goyal’s specific question about cyber security from China, which is what I was addressing.

QUESTION: Right. Exactly. But I’m – but I just want to make sure I understand this.

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything --

QUESTION: It’s okay when you guys do it, but it’s not okay when the Chinese do it. Is that the Administration’s position?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I’m not going to mix apples and oranges here on this issue.

QUESTION: I’m not sure I understand why it’s apples and oranges, but okay.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Let me go back to my question as well. Two points also I have: One, a number of Chinese nationals were arrested for spying or stealing U.S. trade secrets and defense related other issues. And how seriously that going on in the – between U.S. and China as far as these intruders – intrusion going on by these individuals working for the U.S. Government or in private sectors?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything more to add for you. Hopefully my first answer gave you a little something to bite into.

Go ahead, Jill.

QUESTION: And one more related quickly. An Indian national was arrested in New Jersey (inaudible) going on also stealing trade secrets, U.S. trade secrets. Anything on that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything on that for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Jill.

QUESTION: On Benghazi, the documents that Issa wants – Congressman Issa – what is the State Department going to do to answer his request?

MS. PSAKI: Thank you for the question. Consistent with our cooperative approach with Congress since September, we have been in the process of reviewing the relevant documents with the intention of having more to say on that later today. I’d remind everyone that a hundred pages of talking points related documents were already released weeks ago and also shared directly with the Congress. So from our perspective, the CIA led interagency process, through which these talking points were developed, has thoroughly been addressed publicly.

Nonetheless, through the course of the last two weeks since we received this request, we have invested countless additional man hours to review our records to see if there’s anything more to add and to address Mr. Issa’s latest subpoena directly. I don’t have any specifics on the timing or the volume at this time, but we’re in the process of processing and preparing the documents.

QUESTION: When you --

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: When you say, “countless hours,” that seems to imply that this is a great burden. I mean, how much of a burden is it on the State Department to do this?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s hard for me to classify that specifically. But just to keep in mind that this was a very extensive request over months and months of time encompassing – I don’t have a specific number for you – but countless documents about an issue that has already been litigated in public. So certainly it took man hours to review those documents.

QUESTION: My question was actually extremely similar. Once it’s done and you’ve compiled all this, can you find for us what the – because countless, in fact, unless it’s infinite, everything is countable.

MS. PSAKI: It is not infinite. I can --

QUESTION: Right. But everything is countable. So it would be interesting to know how many man hours it actually – how many --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- hours people were taken away from their normal task or whatever else they were doing to comply with this. And did I understand correctly that you are going to have something more to say about this later today?

MS. PSAKI: Yes. We’ll have an update on what we’ll be able to provide today.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just one more thing: Did – am I correct that Ambassador Pickering appeared at his – that was the private deposition the other day?

MS. PSAKI: He did on Monday. That’s right.

QUESTION: Did you guys have anything – I might have missed it, but was there any – did you all have anything to say about that at the time?

MS. PSAKI: We did not at the time. Let me just provide to you what I have available. He did complete his deposition earlier this week, I believe it was Monday. This was a closed door deposition. Unfortunately, we don’t have details because the committee did not allow State Department representatives to be present for this. And we had long called, of course, for an open hearing, something that Ambassador Pickering had been willing to do that wasn’t something that was agreed to. So unfortunately, I don’t have much of an update from here on what went down in that meeting.

QUESTION: Well, I thought it was agreed to. I thought just a date hadn’t been set for it. Do you know if – and I realize that Ambassador Pickering is a private individual now and he – representing the independent review board when he was there. But are you aware if there is still going to be, as we were led to believe, a public hearing at which he and perhaps Admiral Mullen might testify?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any date, as you know. They --

QUESTION: No, no. But is there an agreement to do so? Because I thought that was the deal.

MS. PSAKI: Well, they have both agreed to testify.

QUESTION: Right. No, but I thought that the committee had also said that they’d be --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any specific update on that side, nor do I have a date.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Though we’re happy to check on that for you.

QUESTION: All right. And then the last thing on this is that FOIA request from the RNC. Did --

MS. PSAKI: As of yesterday, and unfortunately I didn’t get an update today, we had not physically received the request. But I can check if that has changed today.

QUESTION: Change topic?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Egypt?

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Also yesterday Senator McCain suggested that all aid should be tied to the way Egypt behaves in conducting itself. And he said that we should not have a policy that is a Mubarak policy, as it was, or a Morsy policy; it ought to be Egypt policy to ensure that Egypt is moving along democratization.

Do you concur with that?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t seen the full context of the comments, so it’s hard for me to respond to that. Let me just reiterate what I said a couple of days ago, which is what our policy has been. There is – we have provided aid that we feel has been essential to our security to the Egyptian Government – to regional security, I should say. That is something that – a decision was made for that reason. I talked about this just a couple of days ago. That doesn’t mean we’re not concerned about the recent ruling in the NGO case. Of course we are, as we have expressed repeatedly this week. And that’s something we continue to press on in our conversations with the Egyptian Government.

QUESTION: But in principle, should things like this be tied to aid, as a matter of fact, to use as leverage for – in the case of the conviction of 43 individuals?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I’ve answered this the other day, in that there is aid that we have provided to Egypt on the basis of U.S. national security interests. That’s – that is something that we felt was important. That was carefully considered. One – let me give you one example. Of course, I mean, FMF financing, which may be what you’re referring to I believe, has helped – helps preserve important regional interests, such as maintaining access to the Suez Canal and the interdiction of weapons smuggling. And this is something that is, of course, carefully considered as we provide aid.

But let me reiterate another thing I’ve said this week, which is that actions like the ruling on the NGO law do make it difficult to make the case to members of Congress, as you’ve seen by many of their public statements, on the need to continue to approve this aid. That’s an issue that the Secretary has made the point of publicly and privately as well.

QUESTION: Can I just ask on this issue – I mean, there seems – I think there seems to be a little bit of confusion about this. There was one report yesterday that referred to this as a secret gift to the Egyptians. Can you explain – or if you can’t, take the question – about how much, if any, assistance to Egypt is actually – you are actually obligated to give them under the Camp David agreements and how – and what exactly the law can – I mean, is all of this money that was approved more than a month ago or almost a month ago, is all of that subject to the Congressional restrictions, or is some of it – even if there are restrictions, does some of it have to go anyway to uphold your treaty obligations?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me touch on one part of this, and then I will answer as much as I can and will – also happy to get you kind of the more legal requirements answer. But – so the reference you were referring to I believe was the May 10^th FMF funding that was about a month ago that we decided to move – exercise our waiver authority on. So on May 10^th, just to give everybody a quick summary here, the Secretary, having determined it was in the U.S. national security interest, Secretary Kerry exercised his waiver authority requiring a certification on Egypt’s democratic transition prior to obligation of FY 2013 FMF for Egypt. I mentioned what FMF does, of course. But information was provided as part of a standard process of notifying Congress and notifying Capitol Hill, and that is how it was transferred, which is typically what happens.

In terms of whether there is legal requirements, let me just quickly see if I have anything helpful on that, and if not we’ll get that back to you. Let’s see. We may have to just look a little more closely into that for you, Matt. And we can get everybody around a summary of what’s legally required.

QUESTION: There was an allegation, perhaps in that report, that the Secretary hadn’t actually fulfilled his complete obligations by notifying everybody who had to be notified in Congress about this gift. Is that correct with – does that comply with what your understanding of the --

MS. PSAKI: It was processed through standard Congressional notification, something that we do, of course, on a regular basis from this building. And I’m not aware of anything that was out of the ordinary.

QUESTION: There was nothing secret about it then, as the report suggested?

MS. PSAKI: No. Well, it was provided – the information was provided as a standard process of notifying Congress. Things don’t always stay secret when that happens, but --

QUESTION: Jen, I’m following up what Matt was saying. Does that money also include the 250 million that the Secretary pledged in his trip to Cairo recently?

MS. PSAKI: I’ll just have to --

QUESTION: Or was that budget support? Because now it’s all getting fuzzy, right?

MS. PSAKI: It is getting a little fuzzy. We do have information and a breakdown on this to clarify any confusion. I’m happy to get that around to folks in terms of what we’ve announced and what we’ve provided.

Egypt.

QUESTION: Yes, I have a question – yeah, Egypt. I’m just follow up the questions were asked about Egypt. First, is this related to the Fiscal Year 13 or 14?

MS. PSAKI: I believe that was 2013. It was 2013 FMF funding.

QUESTION: Okay. And then when you say --

MS. PSAKI: FY 2013 I should say, to be specific.

QUESTION: -- yes – which is – and then mainly it’s focusing on the military aid, right?

MS. PSAKI: That is military aid. Yes, exactly.

QUESTION: Yeah. The question is it’s not a matter of it’s like waivered or it’s not like legal process, it’s the political impact, I mean, which is like it’s not to make a comment more than to try to figure out how, which is like Senator Patrick Leahy once he said why we are offering to Egypt blank checks to do whatever they want to, as long as our national interest is fitting whatever they are doing. Do you have any – not justification of this – explanation so a layman can understand why especially it’s coming now when this week is like for the NGOs and all these things are happening? Is this kind of a reward, rewarding what’s going on in Egypt?

MS. PSAKI: Not at all. First of all, the timing doesn’t confirm that. The timing of the NGO trial announcement, of course – which is unrelated to this – but was after this was notified to Congress. But I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that they’re related. Let me just reiterate again: This is funding that it was determined to be in the U.S. national security interest to provide. And our decision to issue the waiver and continue our military assistance to Egypt is one that was also critical to security of the region, in addition to our own security.

So for example, our military insistence^[1] includes programs – and maybe this will help answer your question – that help stop the movement of illicit goods across borders, counter terrorism, provide security transfit^[2] ships through the Suez and increase security in the Sinai, and FMS supports joint training that builds strong military-to-military ties and is something that, as I mentioned, we feel has a significant national security component of it.

QUESTION: So I mean, there is another thing which I was wondering if you had the chance, I mean, in this building to read the verdict of the NGO trial, which is simply saying in one of the words is that this NGO’s aims are to undermine Egypt national security and lay out a sectarian political map that serves U.S. and Israeli interests. And it is one of the sentences. It was like 10 sentences. I mean --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’re combining two things at once, because I just outlined the FMF funding and why we feel it’s important to provide it – a broad range of national security and regional security issues. We’ve been also very clear about our concerns about the NGO – the finding in the NGO or the conviction in the NGO trial and what message that sends. Those are broad concerns. I don’t know that I need to reiterate those today, but there are broad national security concerns and regional security concerns unrelated to the issues that you raise. And that’s the reason why we’ve provided that funding.

But again, there are decisions that are made on a very regular basis that Congress has a very powerful role in. And they have spoken about this, so I’d point you to their comments as well.

QUESTION: I’m trying to understand what’s going on more than – figure out, I mean, it’s --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I’m trying because when I’m trying to put these issues together, I’m not trying for my own interest. As a matter of fact, the Secretary, when he was on the Hill, he put these issues broadly together, and the congressmen or senators were asking question in a bigger picture, which is in the last six months – it’s not even related to this week – how it was – things were going on related to governance and whether related to inclusiveness, whether it’s democratic reform. So it’s – it is the whole issue. If these things are not going properly, is this rewarding process or awarding process, is it fitting or helping it, or hurting it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I would just refute the notion it’s a rewarding or awarding process when it’s in part about our own U.S. national security interests and regional security and stability over in that area as well. Of course, we review funding all the time, as does Congress, but I just don’t have anything new or any update on that for you. And I would point you to the fact that the Secretary has raised our concerns about the conviction in the NGO case as recently as just two days ago when he spoke with the Foreign Minister, and he raised it also with the President when he met with him about two weeks ago. So it’s something that we raise – I shouldn’t say – he didn’t raise the conviction. That was before it. But the issues with human rights, I should say.

QUESTION: Jen?

MS. PSAKI: Also on Egypt?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Actually, one of the NGO staffers who was convicted is currently in the U.S. and he asked to meet with Secretary Kerry. Are you aware of that or do you know if he is going to meet with anyone --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of that request. I’m happy to look more closely into it for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Please.

QUESTION: Bangladesh?

MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Egypt? Oh, on Egypt? No? Okay.

QUESTION: Bangladesh.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: There was a hearing yesterday in the Senate Labor Committee and they were talking about the safety of – in Bangladesh as far as U.S. companies doing business in Bangladesh, including Walmart. My question is that are you in touch with the Bangladesh Government? There were some delegations here also meeting U.S.-Bangladesh delegations. So what kind of help or how U.S. is going to help Bangladesh now in the future as far as their factories are concerned or losses took place like, of course, among those things?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the United States actively engages at the highest levels – with the highest levels of the Government of Bangladesh, exporters, and buyers on these issues. Just a few weeks ago, Under Secretary Sherman had extensive discussions in Bangladesh on these issues. Ambassador Mozena regularly engages with the Bangladeshi – Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association and has pressed them also on these issues. So it’s something we are in regular contact with, we are discussing and thinking about in the building, and we’ll continue to focus on.

QUESTION: Is there any special request or special instructions from the Congress or from the Senate committee as far as these hearings are concerned?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the committees on that.

Did you have another one?

QUESTION: I have a change of subject.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Just to Africa. I asked yesterday about Madagascar, and I was wondering if it had crossed your radar. And then I was also following up on behalf of colleagues here that had asked about the Lord’s Resistance Army --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and elephant poaching.

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me do Madagascar first since that was your question. The United States continues to support the Southern African Development Community’s efforts to mediate a solution to the political crisis in Madagascar. We call on the country’s political leaders to work toward free, fair, and internationally recognized elections that restore democratic rule, and for free, fair, and independent elections to be held. Both political and technical issues need to be addressed, including full implementation of the September 2011 Southern African Development Community’s roadmap.

And on poaching, the United States continues to provide cross-cutting support for regional efforts to end the threat posed by the LRA and address the consequences of the LRA’s atrocities. We are aware of credible reports that the LRA is involved in wildlife trafficking and ivory smuggling, although the extent of that involvement remains unclear.

Last month, the UN Security Council encouraged the UN and AU to work together to investigate the LRA’s logistical networks and possible sources of military support and illicit financing, including alleged involvement in elephant poaching and related smuggling.

QUESTION: I have – I’ve just got one more other one on Zimbabwe.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: And Mugabe has said he’s going to hold elections by July. And as you know, given the history of violence and regional instability that has happened around elections in Zimbabwe, I was wondering if you believe that this is the time to go forward on those elections given also the complaints by the opposition that reforms to ensure a fair vote aren’t in place.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. The United States sincerely hopes Zimbabwe will hold peaceful, credible presidential and parliamentary elections this year. We believe the credibility of these elections would be enhanced if a broad range of international monitors led by the Southern African Development Community, SADC as it is known, were accredited to observe. This would help to verify that the elections are truly representative of the will of the Zimbabwean people.

QUESTION: You can say “SADC.”

MS. PSAKI: SADC? All right, SADC it is.

QUESTION: Can I ask you one question about if there’s any update on Venezuela and the dialogue that was announced?

MS. PSAKI: There’s not an update on a scheduled meeting, which is, I believe, the question you asked yesterday.

QUESTION: Well, it’s more than a meeting. It’s a plan. They were going to come together with a plan to sketch out a series of --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an update on that, either. Matt was asking about a specific meeting yesterday --

QUESTION: Hold on.

MS. PSAKI: -- which is why I said that, but --

QUESTION: No, I mean, the beginning of this – I mean, I presume the beginning of the dialogue was the Secretary’s meeting with the Foreign Minister.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But I mean, but he did mention that there was going to be an ongoing and continuous, or continual --

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: -- dialogue with the aim of restoring or at least improving relations. So we’re just – I think the question is --

MS. PSAKI: Is, “What is the update?”

QUESTION: -- can you update us when --

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy --

QUESTION: -- or is there any update, and can you when there is?

MS. PSAKI: I am happy to update all of you when there is an update to provide. And of course, he just got back from his trip two days ago.

QUESTION: Jen, could I go back to Syria for a minute?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: On the issue of chemical weapons?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on that, or has that --

MS. PSAKI: I do not.

QUESTION: -- or has that been relegated, sort of, to never-never land, like all the other allegations before it?

MS. PSAKI: Wow. You’re very feisty today.

QUESTION: No, I’m not, frankly. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: It is an issue that --

QUESTION: It’s Friday.

MS. PSAKI: -- the President, the Secretary, the Administration remains focused on. We are, of course, doing due diligence on working with our allies, determining the facts, and I don’t have anything new for you today. And I’m just teasing you and giving you a hard time.

QUESTION: That’s all right.

MS. PSAKI: I think we’re going to wrap this up here with the lovely lady in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you. Getting back to China and cyber security.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I know that Mr. Kerry is part of the White House delegation, but from State’s perspective, is there any specific good outcome or outcome that you are looking for?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, these meetings this upcoming weekend will be – this will be at the top of the agenda, one of the important agenda items, as the White House has discussed in advance of the meetings. The Secretary announced in April that we’ll also be continuing to talk about this at July at the S&ED – during the S&ED conversations. So I expect that will be part of the next step in the process. But the plan is to continue to discuss and coordinate, and that is a positive step forward.

Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m.)

DPB #94

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• SYRIA
  • Continued Evaluation of Potential Chemical Weapons Use
  • Fighting in Qusayr / Concern Over Influx of Foreign Fighters
  • Golan Heights / Concern For Regional Stability / Austrian Withdrawal
  • Geneva 2 Conference
• D.P.R.K.
  • Talks With South Korea
• TURKEY
  • Continue to Urge Calm / Supportive of Peaceful Protests
  • Secretary Kerry's Conversation with Foreign Minister Davutoglu
• EGYPT
  • Court Convictions / Secretary Kerry's Conversation with Foreign Minister Amr / Secretary Kerry's Conversation with Congress
• VENEZUELA
  • Establishing More Constructive Relationship

The video is available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:29 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS. PSAKI: Welcome back, Matt, and anyone else who was on the trip in here, if anyone else was. I don’t have anything at the top, so let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Right. Well, Mrs. Psaki --

MS. PSAKI: Yes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I thought it might be --

MS. PSAKI: My husband wouldn’t like that one. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I thought it might be fun and instructive to have a complete rehash of your discussion about Syria policy yesterday. But assuming --

MS. PSAKI: Great.

QUESTION: But assuming that your answers to the questions that you were asked yesterday will not have changed --

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: All right. That’s a good assumption. I wanted to ask you specifically about some things that the Secretary said yesterday in Guatemala.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: And these are, I think, relatively easy questions to answer. He said that he had specifically asked Foreign Minister Fabius to send – to pass along the evidence that they had collected and all the information about it surrounding chain of custody. And he said that he thought that it might have even arrived here yesterday while he was in Guatemala. Can you say if the U.S., if the government, has received this information from the French?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: And if so, what do you make of it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, thank you for your question. We have received – and I believe in that same context of the comment that Matt’s referring to, the Secretary said it may already be sitting in Washington.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: So in fact, it was.

QUESTION: Oh, it was here yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: Exactly.

QUESTION: So it arrived yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have the exact timing, but I can confirm for you that we have received, of course, the information from the French. We’ve talked about this a little bit over the past couple of days. We, of course, do work closely with our allies and sharing information, like the French, around the potential use of CW, of chemical weapons, in Syria. We will take a close look at this, just like we take a close look at any information that’s provided. And we always recommend that any country provide information as well to the UN for their full investigation.

We’re not going to evaluate it or litigate it in public, but I will just reiterate that we are still looking into finalizing the facts, looking into confirming the facts, and we don’t want to get ahead of our confirmation of any of that.

QUESTION: Well, do you know, has the information that you got from the French been reviewed, or is that ongoing?

MS. PSAKI: I would say it’s more accurate to say it’s ongoing. I don’t know if the Secretary himself has had an opportunity to look at that information quite yet.

QUESTION: But is this something that you will take and then make a judgment yourself as to whether you think that the information that they have given you is enough?

MS. PSAKI: I would not --

QUESTION: Or not?

MS. PSAKI: I would not suggest that we will take one country’s packet of information or evaluation and make an evaluation of that in public or make an – our own evaluation based solely on that. There are a number of factors. Of course, we’re working with our allies, including the French, to evaluate all the information. We’re doing our own due diligence on this as well. We’re encouraging the UN to continue their process. But I would not expect that there will be a public evaluation of information we received from the French or any other country.

QUESTION: All right. Well, does that mean that if it’s good enough for the French, it’s not necessarily good enough for you?

MS. PSAKI: Not at all. What I was suggesting – we take every country – every country’s information that is provided and shared, just like I’m sure they take ours and evaluate that as a part of the overall look into CW use.

QUESTION: Jen, on this --

QUESTION: But they – but the French in particular took a look at your information back in 2002 and concluded that it was not reliable, correct? So I guess the point of the question that I asked the Secretary yesterday is that I don’t understand, when the biggest skeptic of – the country that was one of the biggest – among your allies, was one of the biggest skeptics of the intel on Iraq leading up to the Iraq war now has said that it is satisfied that it has conclusive intel that chemical weapons were used, I guess – are you suspicious that the French might be trying to, I don’t know, push you into doing something, push you into saying that --

MS. PSAKI: Not at --

QUESTION: -- that the redline has been crossed?

MS. PSAKI: Not at all what I’m suggesting. The President has been very clear, as has the Secretary, that it is a redline. They’ve reiterated that a number of times. We’re doing our own process of evaluating the facts. And each case is different, so I wouldn’t – we, of course, have learned from, as I’ve talked about from up here from the podium, events from 10 years ago in Iraq, and we want to check every box and dot every i.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: And when we are firm with the facts, I’m sure we’ll be able to provide more information.

QUESTION: The Secretary said yesterday, when I was in Guatemala as well, trying to – saying that they are collecting this evidence to make sure that people are held accountable for these atrocities. I guess it would lead to something bigger. He also said that – that they’re collecting them to make a judgment. How soon was their judgment? I mean, this kind of evidence can build, but beyond that, I mean, if some of your reviewing of it has found that there is – that these facts are true, I mean, how much time do you then need to really – to move on this?

MS. PSAKI: We’re not putting a deadline on it. What is most important is that we feel firm with the facts. So just to dial back a little bit to where we started here – not where we started, but recent events, I should say – the President and the Secretary were clear back in April when this letter went to Congress that we were seeking credible and corroborated facts to build on the assessment made by our intelligence community. Beyond that, we have been working both with our allies and sharing information where appropriate. We’ve been continuing to push for a UN investigation and push for the Syrian regime to let them into the country. And we’re working on multiple, multiple facets in order to determine the facts here. But we’re not going to get ahead of where we are in the process, and unfortunately, I can’t give you a timeline of when that will be concluded.

QUESTION: Jen, the Arab diplomatic sources that the French were really befuddled, if not shocked, by your skepticism on the evidence presented. Is that true? Could you --

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just reiterate what the Secretary actually said, which was that he looks forward to, of course, reviewing the information, it may be sitting in Washington, which, of course, it was. He was on a trip, as you know, which Matt and others were on him – with him on. And so he wasn’t expressing skepticism. He had not yet reviewed any of the information.

But beyond that, as I said yesterday and the day before, we’re not going to evaluate or give an analysis of information in a public forum.

QUESTION: So did you tell the French that you are looking into this, into the veracity of the evidence presented, and once you analyze this, that you will take certain actions?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you back to what I just stated, which is that back in April the President and the Secretary made clear that we were looking for credible and corroborated facts. Part of that process is working with our allies, including the French, to share information on all sides, and encourage and continue to encourage and push a UN investigation. When we have a conclusion, we will make a conclusion, but we’re not there yet.

QUESTION: And lastly --

MS. PSAKI: But I wouldn’t over-read into the French. And Foreign Minister Fabius is a very close friend and a working partner of the Secretary. They talk frequently about Syria and a number of issues, and so I wouldn’t over-read into what the Secretary said when, clearly, we were – we had not yet looked in – looked specifically at the information.

QUESTION: And lastly, just one last thing on this issue, the evidence that the French collected, is it your understanding, based on soil samples or blood samples, or what is it?

MS. PSAKI: I would send you to the French for more specifics --

QUESTION: Okay. But you’re looking --

MS. PSAKI: -- on what they’re comfortable --

QUESTION: -- at the evidence and the data?

MS. PSAKI: -- what they’re comfortable sharing.

Dana.

QUESTION: Is there any connection or are there concerns about the timeline being timed to the situation on the ground? For example, as you said, you’re waiting to sort of cross all your Is and – dot all your Is and cross all your Ts.

MS. PSAKI: I may have said the wrong thing right there, Nicole.

QUESTION: No, I said the wrong –

QUESTION: If you cross an E, doesn’t it become a T?

QUESTION: I said the wrong --

MS. PSAKI: It becomes a T, so that’s where it gets confusing.

QUESTION: Right. Is there a concern that time may be running out? I mean, you saw what happened in Qusayr, and there are reports that the regime really could overtake Aleppo. Does that affect your timeline at all for what kind of conclusions and what kind of action the United States is thinking about taking in regards to Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, chemical weapons use is a redline, as the President and the Secretary have stated. But in terms of decisions that will be made by the President and his evaluation of all options, there’s a number of factors that go into that. That’s for him to make that decision. Of course, the influence of Hezbollah, the events on the ground, all of these are factors that everybody takes a close look at. But in terms of evaluating CW use, we can’t expedite that and what our final facts and our final findings are, despite what’s happening on the ground and our concerns about the influx of foreign fighters and what’s happened in places like Qusayr.

QUESTION: Would you say that an additional redline or an additional concern would be if, for example, with the help of Hezbollah fighters and basically Iran, the regime is able to overtake Aleppo and basically, it becomes a stronghold not just for Assad but for Iran? What kind of concern do you have about that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get ahead of where we are. Of course, we are concerned, as we’ve said many times, about the influx of foreign fighters, about Hezbollah’s ability to help the regime make movements on the ground. But I’ve been in this business long enough not to draw any redlines for anyone, certainly not people far above me on the food chain, so I’m going to avoid doing that.

QUESTION: That’s a quick study since you’ve only been in this business for about a month. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Right. Well, in this collective business, Matt, so maybe a month is long enough to know not to do that.

Syria? More on Syria? Go ahead.

QUESTION: I would like to know if any other countries except France shared this kind of intelligence information with you about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. Brits made similar accusations with regards to the regime. Did you ask them to provide this kind of info to you? And also, are you exchanging anything of that sort with the Russians?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, let me first say broadly with our allies around the world, we have talked publicly, as the Secretary has, about our plans to share information with them. I don’t have any update on where that’s specifically been shared, and I’m not – I don’t think I will.

With the Russians, we have agreed – and the Secretary and the Foreign Minister spoke about this when they were in Moscow just a couple of weeks ago – on plans to share information on this front and that they plan to do that in the near term.

QUESTION: Jen, the French claim that sarin gas was used repeatedly many times, not only once. Now, the evidence they presented to you, is that – does that pertain to one use or more than one use?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I would point you to the French to talk about the specifics of their findings and information that they’ve shared.

QUESTION: Do you have an update on the situation in al-Qusayr city? I mean, there are some reports that the Syrian regime didn’t take over all of the city.

MS. PSAKI: I do, and thank you for your question. We have seen, of course, the reports, as we all have over the last couple of days, and it appears that Hezbollah has been aided – has aided – aided by regime forces, I should say, has achieved some success in Qusayr. We remain doubtful in – with the regime’s ability to reassert military, and more importantly, political control over the entirety of the Syrian territory.

And let me just remind everyone that we must not lose sight of the significant progress the armed opposition has made over the past two years when faced with tremendously disproportionate force, including scuds, attack helicopters, heavy artillery, barrel and cluster bombs, and potentially chemical weapons use from the regime and its proxies. But the events in Qusayr remain an example, a significant example, of the influx of foreign fighters, the influence of Hezbollah, and the impact that that has had on the ground in Syria.

QUESTION: Sorry. When you – your reference to the Syrian territory back halfway through that --

MS. PSAKI: Entirety of Syria, the country.

QUESTION: The entirety of it, so not necessarily Qusayr itself?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. I was saying Syria as --

QUESTION: So you think that they could hold or could take – but the entire country, you don’t think that that’s --

MS. PSAKI: Right. That they have made progress, of course, in Qusayr. We – as a result of the reasons I just outlined. But I was just making a broader point.

QUESTION: Did you say the regime use of chemical weapons before in your statement now?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe so.

QUESTION: The use of scud and helicopters and chemical weapons, you said?

MS. PSAKI: No, I don’t – helicopters, heavy artillery, barrel and cluster bombs. I did not say chemical weapons. Something we’re still determining, though nice try. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just on the regime’s ability to regain all control, fighting today along the Golan Heights, the reports are that the opposition took some and then the regime took it back. Do you see that as – I mean, are they going to be able to hold that site as well, that one? And have you talked to your Israeli allies about that in particular being of particular concern to them?

MS. PSAKI: We do. We do note the reports of clashes overnight in the Golan Heights that you just referred to, where the regime fired four mortar shells that struck Israeli territory. We’ve been very clear about our concerns over regional instability caused by the crisis in Syria. This is of course another example of that, and we continue to call upon all parties to avoid any action that would jeopardize the long-held ceasefire between Israel and Syria.

In terms of specific contacts with Israel today, I don’t have any specific update for you on that.

QUESTION: Well, if you’re calling on all parties to maintain regional stability, does the opposition’s attempts to take that area, does that help destabilize the region?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve long said – I mean, there are a lot of complicated issues around the Golan Heights, as you all know, but that any effort to take this fight out of Syria into neighboring areas is of concern to us, just as the influx of foreign fighters is of concern to us as well.

QUESTION: So are you urging the opposition to not try to contest that territory?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not aware of specific conversations on this specific case, but we have urged them not to take the fight into areas like Lebanon and other areas outside of Syria.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Austrians pulling out?

QUESTION: Contention.

MS. PSAKI: We do. We would broadly refer, of course, to the statements today from Austrian officials. I’ll just remind everyone that Austrian forces have served with distinction in UNDOF since its beginning in 1974, and we thank them first for their efforts to preserve peace. We’ve asked the Austrians to work with the UN on the timing of their withdrawal in order for the UN to find a replacement for these forces, and I would refer you to the UN for any specific update on the status of that.

QUESTION: Jen, you spoke of the territory of Syria. I know from this podium it was made clear time and again that you recognize the coalition politically but not legally, and it was an issue of territory. Does this remain the case? Will there come a time where the opposition or the rebels control enough territory for you to recognize them legally?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get ahead of where we are in the process right now, which you’re very familiar with because we speak about frequently, it seems, in here.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the trilateral meetings in Geneva and to the issue of Geneva 2 in general?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: The position of the Russians, as far as I understand it, is the opposition should table a unified, single delegation for Geneva 2. What do you think about this? Do you hold a similar position? Do you think they need to – can win the one and only delegation or just a number of – any number of divided groups?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure the full context of that. So let me just state what our positions is, which is: We’re working with the opposition. We have long said, and let me repeat again today, we believe they need to be more united and that will strengthen them as a group. In terms of who will participate from the opposition, that’s something that will be determined over the course of the next couple of weeks, and will be something that the United States discusses with them, the UN discusses with them, as well.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: Wait. Just --

MS. PSAKI: Sir, go ahead.

QUESTION: I just want to check.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: So there isn’t any – there’s nothing new in terms of the planning for this hypothetical conference that might occur sometime in the near or far future?

MS. PSAKI: The conference that will occur, Matt.

QUESTION: That will? It definitely will?

MS. PSAKI: It will.

QUESTION: At some point in --

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Is there any progress to report?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I went through this a little bit yesterday.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Since yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Since yesterday? Not a new update since yesterday.

QUESTION: Yes, and what was the biggest sticking point? Why the plans collapsed to hold a conference in June? Why you decided to postpone until July? What’s the biggest problem at this point?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t call it a problem as much as us working with – making sure the conference takes place in the most conducive environment to using it as an opportunity to move towards a political transition. And so we’ve talked about one of the factors here is the opposition electing leadership and working with that leadership to determine who should participate and attend from the opposition. That’s something they’re working on. But as you know, it has not been concluded yet. So that, of course, is a factor. They’ll meet again in just a couple of weeks. I should say the UN, the U.S., and the Russian representatives will meet again in just a few weeks and continue to work towards setting a date and agenda and determining participation.

Syria? Or another topic?

QUESTION: No, Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Syria, Lebanon.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you see any special – do you have any special concern about Lebanon being – without a real government being – the army not being ready for any overspill from Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are very concerned, and we’ve talked about this a lot in here, but about Hezbollah and about the impact that not only their influx into Syria but the influx of the fighting into Lebanon has had. We have long respected, of course, the sovereignty of Lebanon and believe that the overflow and the impact on regional stability is something that is of great concern and is something that everybody in the world is taking a close look at.

QUESTION: Jen, sorry about my impatience. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Not at all. No, you’re not that impatient.

QUESTION: North Korea.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Let me ask you about Korea. North Korea agreed hold talks with South Korea on their economic project. I think you have some response to that.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. So we have seen, of course, those reports. We welcome news that South Korea and North Korea have agreed to talks on the Kaesong Industrial Complex and other issues. We support and have always supported improved inter-Korean relationships, and we will continue our close coordination with our allies and partners in the region.

As you know, they’re still working towards these talks, and I don’t want to get ahead of the outcome.

QUESTION: Let me follow up on that.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you think that such a move in Korea, between the two Koreas, will help the United States efforts to bring North Korea back to the nuclear talks?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I would caution you against combining all of the issues here. North Korea and South Korea are going to get together. They’ve indicated they will get together, and I would send you to both of them on updates on that, to discuss the industrial complex and other issues. But there remain a number of steps that the North Koreans need to take, including abiding by their international obligations, by the 2005 joint statement, in order to have further discussion. And we of course, as always, encourage them to do just that.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Glyn Davies has said in public that North Korea would shift their strategy to seek engagement with the individual countries to try to exploit the differences in each of the respective national positions. Is this case an example of that? How do you relate this, for example, to North Korea and Japanese engagement?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I’m completely following your question, to be honest. Can you just restate or maybe paraphrase what you’re asking? If this – if the talks between South Korea and North Korea are – they’re talks they’ve said they will participate in reflective of something else, or --

QUESTION: Do you think that North Korea is trying to engage South Korea to try to exploit the situation and divide the Six-Party partners, I guess?

MS. PSAKI: I can’t speculate on North Koreans’ motivations. That would be hard for me to do. But I can just reiterate that we remain committed to the Six-Party Talks, and that’s where our focus is, and we have regular contact and engagement on that. And I don’t think that’s something that would be impactful in our direction.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: My question is about --

QUESTION: Wait, hold on. Impactful?

MS. PSAKI: Well, efforts to use this.

QUESTION: In other words, if the North Koreans were trying to split the Six Parties, this wouldn’t work for you, this wouldn’t affect that?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. I was trying to follow the question.

QUESTION: Gotcha. I just --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: My question is about North Korea and China. After North Korea’s Kim Jong-un’s special envoy visited China recently, China indicated that it would send $200 million aid in food and oil, and as a condition of this aid, China has requested North Korea to rejoin the Six-Party Talk. So could you please give a comment on that? Does the United States – U.S. Government see this offer is good or bad?

MS. PSAKI: I just haven’t taken a close look at the offer. I’m not familiar with all of the details, so I would send you to the Chinese for that. We, of course, are in regular contact and regular conversation, but I don’t have any update for you on this specific report.

QUESTION: So which mean the United States didn’t hear anything about this before?

MS. PSAKI: Not what I’m inferring. I don’t specifically myself have any update on these reports. I’m happy to look more closely into them, and if there’s anything more to add, I’m happy to get that back to you.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: I have two quick questions on North and South Korea.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: South Korean newspapers reported that Robert King met with North Korea’s Ri Yong-ho in Berlin at the end of May. Do you know if that’s the case?

MS. PSAKI: I believe that’s a false report. I’ll have to check on that specifically for you, but I did hear that this morning, so --

QUESTION: Okay. And I have another one. Do you have a readout on Countryman’s visit to South Korea? He, I think – believe he was there on the 3^rd and 4^th.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t specifically have one myself. I’m not sure if we put one out. We’re happy to look into that as well for you.

QUESTION: Jen, where is Robert King and then? The report said that he met North Koreans in Berlin. So he’s in Washington, DC?

MS. PSAKI: Where does he live, or where does he --

QUESTION: Where he is in now.

MS. PSAKI: Where is he now?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not – I don’t know --

QUESTION: He’s traveling?

MS. PSAKI: -- his exact location at this particular moment, but we have seen those reports and my understanding is that they’re incorrect.

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. PSAKI: Oh, did you have another one on --

QUESTION: No. Turkey.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Turkey? Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. How do you take the last comments of Prime Minister Erdogan accusing terrorist organization to be behind the anti-government protest? And do you have informations on the seven foreigners who have been detained by the Turkish police, including one American in Ankara?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more information on reports of Americans being detained. Though this was not your question, I know some have asked me this, so let me just take this opportunity – that there were reports – some reports yesterday of four individuals with diplomatic passports. That is incorrect, just to confirm that for everybody.

In terms of – broadly on Turkey, and we’ve talked about this also a bit over the last couple of days, our focus is continuing to urge calm in the country. A number of government officials have done that and we have seen and commended their efforts to do that. We remain supportive, of course, of peaceful protest and of freedom of speech that individuals are exerting in the country, and just would encourage any official there to refrain from unhelpful rhetoric and unhelpful comments that will not help calm the actions that are happening in Turkey.

QUESTION: Follow-up on that?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Erdogan reportedly said that there are terrorists among the protesters, some of which are the same people who attacked U.S. Embassy in Ankara in February. Do you agree with that assessment?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’ve seen the comments. I don’t have any further – anything further to add to that.

QUESTION: Because the White House had said that those are ordinary people just protesting.

MS. PSAKI: We have – as have we, as have we from here.

QUESTION: As have you.

MS. PSAKI: As have we from here.

QUESTION: Sorry --

MS. PSAKI: But again, we don’t have – there’s no reason for us to confirm or believe that, but we here are watching the events happening. Our focus has been encouraging the citizens who are participating in peaceful protests and using their freedom of speech, their freedom of speech rights, to do just that.

QUESTION: So your official position is that these are ordinary citizens asking for their rights, and not terrorists?

MS. PSAKI: I believe what we said was the vast majority of these individuals are ordinary citizens who are exercising their rights, freedom of speech. That’s what they’ve been doing. There are, of course, events that are happening on the ground. I just don’t have any further level of specificity and I don’t want to analyze every comment when I don’t have more information to provide to all of you.

QUESTION: Just one more. Foreign Minister Davutoglu said in response to Secretary Kerry’s remarks that Turkey is not a second-class democracy. Do you have any comments on that? Would you like to classify Turkey’s democracy as a first-class or a second-class?

MS. PSAKI: We spoke about this quite a bit yesterday, so I would point you to those comments. Let me briefly reiterate that the Secretary and the Foreign Minister have a very positive working relationship. They work closely on a number of issues, including the ongoing crisis in Syria. They did speak the other day, and the Secretary remains concerned, as we all have been, about some reports and incidents that are happening on the ground. That, of course, was expressed, as he’s expressed publicly. But he also encouraged calm, which he’s done publicly as well. So we certainly – but I would refer you, beyond that, to comments I made about this just yesterday.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Erdogan was welcomed very warmly here last month. Does the Administration – does the State Department, still feel as close to Prime Minister Erdogan as it did on May 16^th?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t think we’ve ever been in the business of classifying the closeness, but Turkey remains a close NATO ally, remains a close partner on a number of issues, including Syria. We work closely with government officials up and down the ranks in Turkey. We have a very robust presence in the country and will continue to do just that.

QUESTION: Just last one. Do you feel like the U.S. shares the same values of democracy and human rights as the current leadership in Turkey? Do you feel like you have the same values?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I can speak to what our values are, and I would point you to times where we have raised concerns, including in conversations, in meetings, about certain issues around human rights with Turkey. And that remains the case still today.

QUESTION: You said that you would encourage any official not to engage in rhetoric that could inflame the situation, or words to that effect, that’s correct?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you believe that there have been officials who have been making comments that – or engaging in rhetoric that are making the situation worse?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t --

QUESTION: And if so, which officials and which comments would you point to as being the problem?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, a number of the comments that have been raised here today. I can’t speak to whether those have specifically prompted or motivated protesters to take more action. I would send you to them and encourage you to take a trip to Turkey and talk to all of them, of course. But broadly speaking, there are some officials who have encouraged calm and who have made public statements doing just that. There are others, who have been referenced here today, who have not.

QUESTION: Okay. So that would be --

MS. PSAKI: So we hope that they will all be in the same pool --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- of encouraging calm.

QUESTION: But – and I just want to put a fine point that the comments that were referenced here in this briefing were from Foreign Minister Davutoglu and from Prime Minister Erdogan.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So those are the ones that you think are unhelpful?

MS. PSAKI: No, well, Foreign Minister Davutoglu, the question regarding that was about a phone call that the Secretary made.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I think you’re very familiar with the Prime Minister’s comments. I don’t think I have to add anything further to that.

QUESTION: Right. Would you – how would you like to characterize the tenor of that phone call that the Secretary had with his colleague, the Foreign Minister? Was it warm and fuzzy, or was it more terse and businesslike?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know that any foreign ministers would like their calls described as warm and fuzzy, Matt, so --

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. It sounds like they are with some, but you don’t want to characterize this call? In – was it businesslike and frank, or was it two old friends slapping each other on the back over the phone?

MS. PSAKI: (Laughter.) Well, I would say none of those descriptions is accurate. We did a readout of the call, as I know you received on the road. But let me just reiterate that for everybody. The call was focused in part on Syria, their ongoing cooperation and coordination on that – our ongoing, I should say, with Turkey, and also about the events happening in Turkey. And the Foreign Minister provided an update on what was happening on the ground and efforts to calm the situation on the ground. And the Secretary reiterated what he has said publicly. So in terms of the tone of the call, I would not read too much into the comments. They have a very good working relationship.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: They speak regularly --

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: -- and I’m sure they’ll have a warm greeting next time they see each other.

QUESTION: Right. And just one last thing on Turkey, and apologies if you have – this has been asked and answered before, but am I correct in thinking that the U.S. does not take a position on what started this, which is essentially what appears to be a local zoning issue?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think it would be accurate for us to not – take a position or not take a position.

QUESTION: No, you don’t.

MS. PSAKI: We’ve all seen the reports of what --

QUESTION: You don’t have a position on the – what instigated this, beginning, that started this.

MS. PSAKI: I would just say that’s maybe a formal name for it. We’ve all seen the reports that seem pretty consistent that this was over a zoning issue. So I haven’t seen refutes of that, but --

QUESTION: No, no, no, no, no. But you don’t take a position in that – in the dispute, do you?