Daily Press Briefing (excerpts)
Marie Harf, Deputy Spokesperson, State Dept, Jun 25 2014
Q: Is it at all concerning to you that you seem to be on the same side now as not only the Iranians, but Pres Assad?
A: In what way?
Q: In terms of all of you, you are helping Maliki to defend and to push back ISIL.
A: We’re helping the Iraqi Government.
Q: Well, correct. Maliki is shorthand for the Iraqi Government. So are the Syrians apparently, militarily, with these air strikes, and so are the Iranians. Is this problematic at all?
A: Well, I think there’s a couple issues all tied up in that question. First, we know that ISIL is a threat to the entire region, including to Iran. We know that, we’ve talked about that over the past few weeks in this room and elsewhere on that front. But to be clear, one of the, if not the main, reason ISIL has been allowed to grow in strength is because of the Assad regime, because of the climate they’ve created in Syria. And it’s been a direct result of that. So look, our interests in Iraq are to have as quickly as possible an inclusive government formed that can create a path forward and to help the Iraqi Government push back on ISIL. In terms of these strikes, we obviously are aware of these reports. I don’t have any reason to dispute them at this point and, more broadly though, underscore the point that the solution to the threat confronting Iraq is not the intervention of the Assad regime, which, again, really allowed ISIL to drive into Iraq in the first place. But it’s the kind of solutions we’ve been talking about over the past few days.
Q: But he’s actually doing something that may have an immediate impact on the ground in Iraq.
A: Well, everything he’s done over the past several years has led to this point where we are where ISIL is threatening Iraq. So again, I can’t underscore enough the culpability lying with the Assad regime for creating this climate that could allow ISIL to flourish.
Q: Well, two things. One is that for the past several years, as you have pointed out, the Assad regime as well as the Russians have been saying that this is a fight against terrorism. Is that what it is? Were they right the whole time?
A: I think the Assad regime has used that term very loosely to define a whole number of opposition members, including the moderate opposition that we support. So we’ve been very clear there’s a terrorist element, Nusra and ISIS, inside Syria that we think is a threat and we have been working to help other countries in the region confront. But when the Assad regime uses the word terrorist, it’s been my understanding that they’ve used it very differently. They’ve used it as an excuse to crack down on their own people and indeed the moderate opposition.
Q: Okay. And I have one question on the Syrians pursuing ISIL. Now, you’re saying that the Syrian regime was culpable in the creating of ISIL?
A: In creating the climate that has led to ISIL to flourish and indeed to cross over from Syria into Iraq.
Q: How so? Could you explain that?
A: I mean they’ve created a huge security vacuum. They’ve instigated a civil war in their own country, attacked their own people, led to a breakdown in security where groups like Nusra and groups like ISIS and ISIL have been able to flourish.
Q: But to my understanding, they have been at the receiving end of the regime of these groups that have infiltrated into Syria many times through the support of some neighboring countries.
A: Well, in terms of ISIL, what we’ve said in their support is we don’t have any evidence that foreign governments are supporting them. We know there’s some possibility of funding from private citizens in other countries, and obviously, we take that very seriously.
Q: And lastly, can you confirm that actually the Syrian air force did strike?
A: As I’ve said, I’m aware of those reports.
Q: Okay. They denied it.
A: I have no reason to dispute them, but I can’t confirm them.
Q: Marie, if the State Dept is open to Russian and Iranian intervention in Iraq in a nonsectarian manner, why not open to —
A: I definitely didn’t say that. I don’t think I said we’re open to Iranian intervention in Iraq. I have said that Iran could play a constructive role in promoting an inclusive government in Iraq, as all of its neighbors should do.
Q: Okay. Now how about Russia?
A: Anyone who has leverage with the different parties in Iraq should use it to push for an inclusive government to be formed very quickly.
Q: So that includes Iran?
A: Look, if they’re willing to act constructively here, all of the neighbors.
Q: So why not Syria?
A: Well, again, everything we’ve seen from the Assad regime over the past several years has been pointed towards the fact that they have led to the security situation where this group could flourish. They have killed their own people. They have allowed groups like ISIL to perpetrate attacks in Syria and now cross over into Iraq. So I think Syria’s a very different situation.
Q: Marie, do you have any guidance on why Jackass is going to Saudi Arabia?
A: Because he’s going to meet with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia.
Q: And I know that they’ve asked Jackass this question about Iran, that it is directing surveillance drones over Iraq and sending military equipment and supplies to Baghdad. Can you confirm these reports, especially that NYT quoted a Usaian official on this?
A: Well, I can’t confirm the specifics in those reports. What we’ve said is what I just said, that anyone in the region shouldn’t do anything that might exacerbate sectarian divisions, that would fuel extremism inside Iraq. And look, we know Iran and Iraq are neighbors with close ties, and again, believe Iran could play a constructive role if it’s helping to send the same message to the Iraqi Government that we’re sending. So I think —
Q: Well, the question would be: Do you think that the provision of military equipment by Iran and their flying surveillance drones over, would that exacerbate sectarian tensions?
A: Again, I can’t confirm those reports, one way or the other.
Q: I’m not asking you to confirm them.
A: Right. And so I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical, or whether one thing would exacerbate tensions or not. As I’ve said, no country in the region should do anything to exacerbate those tensions.
Q: Well, but if you don’t explain what would be bad in your view, how do you expect people to know what it is they shouldn’t do?
A: Again, Matt, I just don’t have anything more for you on what Iran is or isn’t doing inside Iraq.
Q: But do you think that Iran doing the same thing that Usaia is doing would exacerbate sectarian tensions?
A: I’m just not going to do any more analysis on what Iran might be doing.
Q: So you’re saying it’s okay —
A: I’m not saying anything. You’re trying to put words in my mouth. I’m just not going to comment on this one any further.
Q: No, I’m trying to find out what the Usaian position is, in terms of Iranian intervention in Iraq.
A: If there’s more to share with you, Matt, I’m happy to see if we can share it.
Q: Well, it’s happening, and you —
A: Well, I can’t confirm those reports.
Q: Well, it doesn’t matter whether you can confirm them or not. It’s happening.
A: Okay.
Q: And I want to know if Usaia thinks that what Iran is doing, not asking you what they’re doing, but if Usaia thinks that Iran, whatever it is they’re doing, is helpful or harmful. And I don’t know why it is that you guys can’t come out and say that. How are the Iranians supposed to know, not that they would listen to you in the first place, but how are they supposed to know whether you think that helping them by flying surveillance drones is a bad thing?
A: Matt, I just don’t have any more analysis to do on what Iran may or may not be doing inside Iraq. If there’s more to share at some point, I’m happy to.
Q: One more on Iraq and Syria. Is Usaia in contact or in communication with the Syrian regime about the situation in Iraq?
A: Not to my knowledge, but I’m happy to check.
Q: Will Usaia ask the Iraqi Government if they asked the Syrian regime to launch the air strikes against the terrorists?
A: I’m sure there are conversations happening on the ground. I think the Government of Iraq is probably best positioned to speak about this, but let me see if there’s more we can get you on that.
Q: Just one follow-up on Jackass’ travel. If he’s already meeting with his Saudi counterpart in Paris, why does have to go to Saudi Arabia to meet the King?
A: I think he thinks it’s important to brief King Abdullah on his visit to Iraq, on what he saw on the ground, on the conversations he had. Obviously, King Abdullah is a leader of incredible importance when it comes to regional issues and cares very deeply about the situation in Iraq. They share the concerns we have about ISIL and the threat it poses to the region, so looking to engage with the King in addition to the foreign minister.
Q: Back a little while ago, you mentioned something about funding. Or you said there was no evidence the governments in the Gulf – the Arab —
A: Are funding ISIL?
Q: Right. That there’s no evidence that they were, but you said you were aware that there was funding from some private people.
A: We said we’re aware of reports that there is. But on the funding piece, much of ISIL’s funding actually comes from criminal activity, kidnappings, stealing money from banks, things like we’ve seen in Iraq. So much of their funding actually comes from that kind of activity.
Q: Did Usaia at any point express concern to Gulf countries that they may have been encouraging or allowing money from their private citizens to flow to —
A: Certainly we discuss terrorist financing and funding with partners in the region all the time. I’m not familiar with specific conversations we’ve had, but again, no evidence that governments are doing this kind of thing.
Q: Right, right. Apart from governments.
A: Yeah.
Q: Quick follow-up. You agree that you have one enemy in common, you, the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, in ISIL. Do you agree with that?
A: I agree that ISIL is a threat to the entire region.
Q: But you do share enmity, overlapping.
A: That doesn’t mean, Said, we have overlapping strategic interests just because we have a common enemy. Those are two different things.
Q: Good. Ukraine. You will have seen that there was a four-way phone call this afternoon between President Hollande, Chancellor Merkel, President Poroshenko and President Putin. I don’t presume that you were listening in on the call, although since Chancellor Merkel was on it, maybe you were. (Laughter.)
A: I think we made very clear we don’t do that. I just want to know what language they all spoke. (Laughter.)
Q: What do you make of it, because there have been various readouts of it from each government. I’m just wondering if you can give us —
A: Our folks are still looking at them. We don’t have any analysis to do on it now, but we will shortly.
Q: But the mere fact that this call took place —
A: We said dialogue is important.
Q: You think that it’s a good thing?
A: We do think dialogue, particularly between Poroshenko and President Putin, is important.
Q: There are numerous, well, at least two, probably more by now, about new sanctions being prepared by both the Administration and Euia ahead of this Euia summit that’s coming up tomorrow and —
A: The European Council, I think, meets Friday. And sanctions will be one topic discussed among many there.
Q: Right. Can you say, are you close to an agreement with the Europeans on doing this, and are you concerned at all that President Putin’s announcement yesterday and then the move today by the state council, or whatever it’s called, the upper chamber to revoke —
A: Yes, which is not the Duma. I was incorrect yesterday when I said that. It is the Russian Federation Council.
Q: the Federation Council to revoke the use of force authorization, that that would have an effect on whether or not the Europeans would be more of less enthusiastic about going for new sanctions?
A: Well, we are working intensively with our European partners. As I said, they have a meeting on Friday where this will be one of the topics discussed. And we are judging every single day on a daily basis progress or backsliding. Yes, this was a good step in terms of the revocation of the law, but as you heard Jackass say, it could be put back on very quickly. What we have said is we need to see Russia secure its border, stop the flow of fighters and weapons into Ukraine, and call on separatists to lay down their arms and release the OSCE hostages (what? – RB). So those are the important actions we’re looking for, and we will continue to judge Russia by those actions. We have additional sanctions ready to go. We’re continuing to talk to the Europeans, and if we’re going to impose them at some point, we will do so. They can be done very quickly.
Q: When you say that you’re judging every single day, what’s your judgment today?
A: You want me to do another analogy yesterday with steps forward and backwards?
Q: I mean, in response (Inaudible) fighters crossing —
A: Yes. So again, we welcome the Federation Council’s decision to repeal the resolution authorizing the use of Russian military force in Ukraine. The repeal is a step in the right direction. We, though, are aware that a number of Russian combat units have deployed to locations close to the Ukrainian border. This is not in keeping with the Russian intent to de-escalate the situation. We have seen Russia take some steps, again, including by revoking the resolution. But we really need Russia to do more. So today we’ve seen some tiny steps, but much, much more needs to be done.
Q: So you do think that the Russian intent is to de-escalate?
A: Well, they’ve said it is. But their actions have not backed up those words.
Q: Just so we’re clear, you said we have seen a number of Russian combat forces deployed near the border with Ukraine. Is that in the last 24 hours, or is that in reference to the massing over the last —
A: It’s my understanding that that’s ongoing, but let me check with our folks and see.
Q: Okay. And any more on materiel either being readied to cross the border or crossing the border?
A: Nothing new. Nothing new on that.
Q: So is it continuing?
A: That’s my understanding, yeah.
Q: Yesterday I think that in one of my questions I misstated what the Usaian position might be regarding – we were talking about Iraq, and then I tried to segue into Ukraine, talking about what kind of government that you would like to see in Ukraine. What —
A: I think I may have misspoke here a little bit.
Q: Well, I misspoke as well, because I was the one that kind of said – but I just want to know, what is the Administration’s position on what an acceptable, inclusive, fair, representative-of-everyone government would be in Ukraine?
A: Yes, yes. And I think we both got tangled up over words. So what we understand is that Pres Poroshenko has offered greater decentralization of authorities, and that’s the word I should’ve used. He’s not talking about creating what we would call a federal structure. So what that looks like is obviously up to the people of Ukraine to decide, but as part of his peace plan he’s talked about decentralization. What that looks like they’re talking about internally right now. But I think there was some confusion, particularly in the Russian press, about what I said in terms of the word “federal,” which has a very different context in Iraq and a very different context in Usaia. So I want to be very clear that’s not what he’s offering or what we would support in Ukraine.
Q: Right. Well, I’m interested in what he’s offering, but I also want to know what Usaia would think is a good idea.
A: We support greater decentralization that all of the Ukrainian people agree to.
Q: Can you explain, though, or is that for the Ukrainians to decide, how much decentralization —
A: Yeah, it’s for the Ukrainians to decide.
Q: But you’re not looking for – it could be its own model. It’s not something that’s modeled on, say, what we have, or what Brazil has, or what Iraq had or may have in the future.
A: It’s up to them to decide what that looks like.
Q: It’s a Ukrainian model, all right.
A: But I know that particularly the word “federal” is a particularly loaded one in the Russia-Ukraine context, and I want to make clear that’s not what we support there.
Q: All right. And then you will be familiar, I think, maybe, with the comments that the NATO Sec-Gen made today. Are you familiar with them?
A: Which ones specifically?
Q: At one point he said that NATO has tried for the past 20 years to work with Russia, but they have broken the rules and eroded trust. That was Rasmussen. Does the Administration agree with that?
A: I think we would certainly agree with that. We’ve said very clearly that what they have done in Ukraine is in violation of international law, they have broken the rules, and that it has eroded trust. When they’re sending tanks and RPGs over a border into a sovereign state, I don’t know how it could do anything but, quite frankly.
Q: Okay. But he seemed to be talking about the last two decades, that they’ve been doing this the entire time. Are you agreeing with him over – in the course of the – just in terms of Georgia and Ukraine?
A: I’m talking about recently. I’m talking about recently. Look, more broadly speaking, I guess I can speak for this Administration, it has been a complicated relationship. There have been times we’ve been able to work together, whether it’s on New START, whether it’s on the resupply lines into Afghanistan, other issues, Iran being one, the nuclear issue, but there have been places where it’s been much more challenging.
Q: Well, I’m wondering if you agree with what the Sec-Gen said.
A: And I didn’t see them in context, so I don’t want to —
Q: Right. Well, I mean, it was a context talking about Ukraine and talking about the strained relations between NATO specifically and Russia.
A: Russia, over Ukraine.
Q: Well, not just over Ukraine. I mean, he’s talking about 20 years. So I assume he’s talking about Georgia as well. I’m assuming he’s talking about other things.
A: Yeah. I mean, we’re all aware of the tough history here.
Q: But what I’m wondering is if you agree with that, if you can’t also see Russian complaints that NATO may have acted in the same way, would you reject that?
A: Reject out of hand, absolutely. The difference here is that any activity we’ve done to shore up our NATO partners, any actions we’ve taken have been to defend our partners and to defend sovereign countries. What Russia did was very different. Invading neighboring countries, sovereign states, there’s just not an equivalence here.
Q: Right. But from their perspective, going back many years, NATO and Usaia in particular as the main ‘ally’ in NATO, has done equally, well, maybe not equally, but has done provocative things, at least provocative to them. It’s expanded into their backyard, it’s —
A: We’ve been very clear that expansion is not intended at all to be a provocative step. So we would disagree with their characterization of it.
Q: But just because you say so doesn’t mean that that’s the way they see it, right? And so, I mean, if you’re trying to find a common understanding here, I’m not sure. You say you’re trying to find a common understanding and to cooperate with them, but at the same time you completely reject out of hand all of their arguments that are very similar to what the NATO Sec-Gen said about them.
A: Well, no, I think they’re drastically different situations. But that’s why, as we’ve expanded NATO, we’ve talked to the Russians about it. When we’ve talked about other issues like missile defense, we have talked to them about it. We know their position, but we have consistently tried to make it very clear to them that it’s not directed at them.
Q: Yeah, but, see, every time you’ve done a NATO expansion or done a missile defense, they’ve said no, no, no, don’t do it, it’s a bad idea, and you say, well, sorry, thanks for telling us, but —
A: Right. We’re not going to not do things that are in our national security interest because the Russians don’t like them. But we do think it’s important to make clear to them what our intentions are, and that’s very different. Talking about missile defense is very different than invading a sovereign country. So I think if they see them equally in some way, that’s just delusional.
Q: So everything that you say and do is right and everything that they say and do is wrong? I mean —
A: I’m saying everything we do in terms of NATO reinforcement and reassurance, including missile defense, we make very clear to them, transparently, is not aimed at being provocative at Russia.
Q: Right. I understand that you tell them that, but they clearly —
A: Whether or not they choose to believe that is their decision. I think the world can see —
Q: So it’s their fault, then. Right?
A: Well, I think the world can see the blatant differences between missile defense designed to not confront Russia and invading a sovereign country.
Q: Can you think of one time where you have gone to the Russians and said, okay, we want to do X, Y, and Z, and you have actually taken their concerns on board?
A: Well, we certainly take their concerns on board and have discussions with them. That doesn’t mean we’re going to change —
Q: Before rejecting them.
A: It doesn’t mean we’re going to change what we think is in our national security interest to do.
Q: Okay. So your argument is that Usaia and NATO do what is in the national interests of its members and NATO’s interests, and what Russia does that they think is in their interest, that what NATO does is good and that what Russia does in pursuit of what it thinks —
A: What NATO does to protect its own sovereign territory is in our interest. What Russia has done is invade another sovereign territory. I’m not sure how that could be in Russia’s interest.
Q: Okay. All right. Thank you.
A: Anything else? Good? Thanks, guys.
Niqnaq 