Daily Press Conference (extract, with crosstalk eliminated)
Usaian State Dept, Jul 21 2014
Q: I’m wondering, first, if you have any reaction to the Malaysian prime minister’s announcement that they have gotten a deal with the rebels to turn over the black boxes, and the train with the bodies has apparently left. Is this a positive sign in your —
A: Well, if true, obviously, we think that there should be a full investigation, full access to the site. We can’t confirm independently these reports, but if true would be a step in the right direction. I would say this in no way legitimizes this person who has claimed leadership over this area, but we need access and his people control the area, so obviously this would be a step in the right direction. But we can’t at this point independently confirm either of the things you asked about.
Q: Okay. And then you are perhaps familiar with the briefing that the Russian defense ministry gave this morning in which they laid out satellite images or radar tracking images talking about a Ukrainian fighter plane that was apparently near the Malaysian airlines plane. They also asked questions, a series of questions to you, meaning the Usaian Government, to produce the documentation, the evidence that Jackass Kerry and Sam Power talked about but didn’t offer any forensic evidence, or at least intel evidence. How do you respond to that?
A: Well, a couple points. You saw Jackass yesterday speak very clearly about our assessment that this was an SA-11 fired from Russian-backed, separatist-controlled territory; that we know, we saw in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft that then they then took down once it became clear that it may have been a passenger airline. There is a preponderance of evidence at this point both sort of out there in the public domain and also from our information that points to the fact that there was a SA-11 launched from separatist-controlled territory. We assess, of course, that the Russian-backed separatists have this system, and one of the main reasons we have called for a full investigation is so we can get all the facts out there. So what I encourage the Russians to do at this point is to push the separatists that are backed by their government to allow access, to allow investigators who are in Ukraine waiting to go into that area right now, and that’s what I would call on Russia to do at this point.
Q: Right. But what they’re saying is that you should, they’ve put their what they have out on the table, or at least they say they have done that.
A: Well, I haven’t seen any of that. Again, we’ve made an assessment based on a broad range of information. We know this was fired from Russian-controlled territory. It is our assessment, very strong assessment this was an SA-11 that we know the Russian-backed separatists have. We, again, continue to gather more information and call on Russia to push the separatists to allow for a full investigation.
Q: How is it exactly that you know that it was fired from Russian, I mean from separatist-held territory?
A: Well, we have a great deal of information that Jackass laid out yesterday, and I can go back through some of it today. But we do know first that Russian-backed separatists were in possession of an SA-11 system as early as Monday Jul 14. This is from intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian Government.
Q: Well, is there anything other, is there stuff that’s other than social media that you’re talking —
A: Yes, absolutely. There is.
Q: Okay. So what is it that’s other than social media?
A: At this point, Matt, we’ve said what our assessment is, very strong assessment publicly. If there’s more information that that’s based on that we can share, we’re happy to do so. We’ll continue looking at that. But look, this is what we know as of right now. Based on open information which is basically common sense, right, we know where it was fired from, we know who has this weapon, backed up up by a host of information that we have gathered about who did this, where it came from, and what the weapon system was. So we’re just telling you what we know now. One of the reasons we’ve called on Russia to push the separatists it backs into an investigation is so we can get all the facts. Instead of holding press briefings and making statements, maybe the Russian Government should call on the separatists they support to allow an actual investigation. We don’t have leverage with the separatists. I would say the Russians do and they’re not using it. So let’s have them use it.
Q: But that’s what you’ve done. You’ve held press, well, Security Council meetings and going, I mean, it’s disputed, though. I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. What I’m asking, I mean, there are social, all you’re willing to present publicly that backs up your version of the story, which may well be the correct version of the story, but all you have —
A: “May well be.”
Q: Well, it may well be. But I don’t know because I haven’t seen your evidence that shows that the missile was launched from rebel-held territory. But the only thing you’re willing to put out publicly is the social media accounts, I mean the social media stuff.
A: That’s part of it.
Q: Right. But there are social media accounts that disputes that or that claims to present a different version. So are you saying —
A: What would that version be, Matt?
Q: Well, there are many, many theories. But you’re saying that all of those accounts —
A: Most of which are completely illogical, I would point out.
Q: Well, but all of the accounts that do not support your version of events are wrong, and all of the ones that do support it are right? Is that what you’re saying?
A: No. Look, we make assessments based on a variety of intelligence and a variety of information, some of which we can talk about publicly and some of which we can’t. And look, if you just take a step back, right, we need there to be an investigation so we can get all the facts, period. But on top of that, we have public information, which is of course the easiest for us to talk about, of the separatists bragging about having the system, bragging about the attack that took place, and then walking back from it when it became known that it was a passenger jet. I would ask people who don’t believe our assessment to say, “Okay, what other possible explanation could there be for that?” They defy logic, right?
Q: Well, I don’t know if it defies logic or not, but —
A: So when you start from a place of you have separatists out on, again this is the easiest piece of information for us to talk about, online bragging about it, start there and then work from there and work from all of the evidence we have that we are confident we know where it was fired from, we’re confident we know what it was, and it points in a certain direction. Again, we would encourage Russia to support an investigation if they don’t believe the facts.
Q: Right. It points in a certain direction, but I’m not sure it would stand up to an international investigation. Well, are you willing, if not at this moment in time now but soon, to put forward the intel that you say backs the claims that were made on social media? And in particular, it seems to me that Jackass was very definitive, as you were just now, at saying that you know for sure 100% —
A: I strongly disagree. I absolutely believe that it would. I didn’t say 100%. Nothing is 100% in any world, Matt. But go ahead. It is our assessment, very strong assessment.
Q: Okay, very strong assessment that the missile was fired from the rebel-held territory. And I mean, you can’t, there is no social media that I’m aware of that would lead to —
A: Well, at the time that MH17 flight dropped out of contact, we detected a surface-to-air missile launch from a separatist-controlled area in south-eastern Ukraine. Which we believe was an SA-11. What you want is the intelligence that underlies that? I’m just trying to clarify the question.
Q: Well, I mean, the Russians have challenged, I’m just saying the Russians have said, we’ve shown, we’ve put out our radar images which show this Ukrainian plane near, at least, well, they have said, why don’t you put out your —
A: Well, unfortunately, I don’t have original declassification authority, Matt. But look, we have endeavoured to make public as much information as possible. Obviously, if you’re dealing with an intelligence assessment in part, we are sometimes limited in what information we can share. That’s why I think you saw Jackass speak much more forward-leaning about why we believe this and how we believe it. Sometimes you can’t get into all the specifics. We endeavour to put as many out as possible. We’re continuing to see if we can do more. I will say that. I can’t promise you anything, but we’re continuing to see. And I would also say that the Russian Government has a long history during this conflict of misinformation and propaganda that they’ve put out, so I would take anything they say about this with a very large grain of salt.
Q: Well, okay. But I mean, the problem – are you committing now to at least doing, that the intel community is doing its best to declassify stuff that they can put out and at least end the conflicting claims put forward by both Usaia —
A: Well, I would say that the Administration in general is attempting to put out as much information as we can about what underlies our assessment. I would also say that these aren’t competing narratives from two equally credible sources here. The Russian Government has repeatedly put out misinformation and propaganda throughout this conflict in Ukraine, so I would caution you from saying that this is just two equally credible sources. Although you’re happy to report it that way. But I would take issue with it.
Q: Well, I mean, again, you might be right, but I don’t see how you can say that everything we say is right and everything the Russians say is a lie.
A: That’s not what I said.
Q: That’s exactly what you just said right now.
A: That’s not what I said. I said I would say that we are not two credible, equally credible parties when it comes to what we say publicly about the conflict in Ukraine.
Q: And your argument would be that Usaia is more credible than the Russians are, right? Is that what you’re —
A: I’m not even dignifying that question with a response.
Q: But you’re leaving that impression, Marie.
A: That we’re more credible? Yes. We don’t put out mass amounts of propaganda. We don’t put out misinformation about what’s happening there repeatedly over the course of this conflict, which I’ve spoken about from this podium day after day. Absolutely.
Q: The problem with that is is that all of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 was propaganda and misleading information that was put out by Usaia.
A: Okay, Matt, I’m sure that’s a tempting historical analogy to make, but it in no way impacts at all how we are doing this assessment or what we’re doing. And maybe someday you’ll finally stop using that as a straw man all the time.
Q: Well Marie, one of the big things is showing evidence. I mean, in court or anywhere, and I think that’s what Matt’s saying, is show the evidence, independent evidence of what you got in intel. I mean, the Russians said today that they did not deliver any SA, you’ve seen it, Buk missile system. I mean, is there evidence that you have seen, not what the Ukrainians or anything online has shown, but it’s something that Usaia has got evidence, that the Russians supplied this to them?
A: This specific system?
Q: Yeah.
A: So, a few points. And again, I agree that evidence is important and we are attempting to put out there as much as possible. I do think that’s why you saw Jackass and me today going much further in why we say why we believe what we say. And I know it’s frustrating. Believe me, we try to get as much out there as possible. And for some reason, sometimes we can’t. Look, I think it still remains to be seen, right, how the pro-Russian separatists got whatever, the SA-11, the specific one, I’m not assigning culpability there, but we know that there have been legions of young men crossing the Russian border with very sophisticated weaponry. This would not happen without at least the acquiescence or the support of the Russian Government. These are complicated systems, right, that it takes training on. We know that the Russian Government’s been training the pro-Russian separatists. We know, period, that what’s happening in eastern Ukraine would not be happening without the support of the Russian Government. So we need a full investigation to determine exactly where the SA-11 came from, but we know that the pro-Russian separatists have many of the weapons they have, have the training they have, and have the support they have because of the Russian Government.
Q: They could have stolen it from the Ukrainian —
Q: Does Usaia, did Usaia actually have – independently noticed that a Ukrainian warplane was the in the vicinity of the Malaysia —
A: I don’t know if I can confirm those reports. I don’t even know if that’s true. I’m happy to check on it. Yes.
Q: Could they have stolen it from the Ukrainian military? I mean, the Ukrainian military has the same system, correct?
A: Again, as I just said, I think we’re still… Part of the reason we want to do an investigation is to determine the origins of the SA-11 system that we believe was used here. But regardless, it was fired from a pro-Russian separatist area. We know that these pro-Russian separatists have shot down planes throughout this conflict, other planes, Ukrainian military planes, they’ve bragged about it online, using a variety of systems. So this fits into a certain pattern we’ve seen here, but I would underscore this is why we need an investigation that’s not impeded, where there’s full access. You heard the Pres speak about it this morning, and that’s the best way to get all of the facts, is for there to be an investigation.
Q: Is the fact that the Malaysian Government, if it’s true they cut that deal with the separatists, does that in any way sort of elevate the separatists into a sort of legitimate status, and what —
A: Well, as I just made clear, it does not give them any legitimacy, but they control the area and we want – our biggest concern at this moment is for the loved ones of those lost on that plane to be able to have their loved ones return home with dignity. It’s insulting that the separatists are not allowing them to do so.
Q: And the other part of that question: Do you think that the Malaysian Government in a way did not coordinate with you and the other international parties by doing that on their own, so to speak?
A: I don’t have any analysis of that to do. As I said, this doesn’t in any way confer legitimacy on the so-called leader there, but it is the truth that his fighters do control the territory, and our biggest concern right now is getting the remains of those lost on the plane, and allowing access for an investigation.
Q: First, to follow up on this notion of the disclosure potentially of some of our intelligence information or product by way of satisfying the world’s questions about this affair. Perhaps the more apt analogy than 2002-2003 is Adlai Stevenson at the UN, where we had a very serious charge that the Soviet Union at that time had installed missiles on Cuba, and we shared our photographic reconnaissance by way of making that point. Is that the kind of thing you say the Administration’s considering doing here to satisfy the world’s questions about this?
A: I would actually compare it to a more recent event, which is when we talked about the chemical weapons use in Syria. That’s something I lived through, so I know more acutely than Adlai Stevenson’s activities at the UN. But on that, there were a lot of questions, and we attempted to, as the days went on, make more information available until we got to a point where we basically put out an intelligence assessment, not… We didn’t put out every piece of information, but we were able to get as much out there. That’s what we’re trying to do right now. Obviously, it’s always a balance.
Q: Some sort of white paper, as we saw in the Syrian conflict?
A: I have no idea what that would look like, but we’re trying to put as much information out as possible.
Q: The reason I ask this is because Jackass himself seemed to me to be rather forward-leaning in his discussion publicly of intelligence product, in a way that was inconsistent with the repeated statements we get from podiums like this that we cannot discuss sources and methods. So, for example, he stated, “We ourselves tracked the imagery of the launch of this surface-to-air missile. We have the trajectory recorded. We have the intercepts of their conversations. We know this from voice identification. We have a video.” It seems to me that, having displayed so much of that information across the country on various channels yesterday, the Administration should be quite prepared to back that up.
A: It’s in no way inconsistent. I think the balance we always try to strike is when we can put as much information out publicly without threat to sources and methods. Many times we can’t. That’s not just something we say because it’s fun to say. Having worked in the intelligence community, it is a fact. But in cases like this, in cases like Syria’s chemical weapons, we endeavour to put as much out as possible when we can do so. And that’s why I was making the point that he was quite forward-leaning yesterday, because we believe it’s important.
Q: I just want to make sure. So you’re saying that the information that Jackass, the imagery, all that kind, that this is stuff that you’re going to provide to the investigators?
A: I did not say that, Matt. I said that we endeavour to make as much public as we can.
Q: But whether or not it’s made public, you will give them to the investigation team, right?
A: Well, the Dutch are leading the investigation. We’re obviously a part of it, as are other countries as well. I don’t have anything to preview for what we’ll provide to them, but we’ve said we’ll cooperate as much as we can. Jackass stated during his round of interviews yesterday, in particular with Fox News, “It’s been seriously compromised,” speaking of the investigation. Jackass is a former prosecutor. As a former prosecutor, it seems to me he should know that when he says a given investigation has been seriously compromised, that the faith that the world may have in the final product of this investigation is also going to be seriously compromised. I would take it a step further, and I would say at this point, because of the lack of access, we are very concerned. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a future for this investigation; that if investigators are allowed in today, tomorrow, in the coming days with full, unfettered access, they can do an investigation. Look, there’s a lot of technical expertise out there in terms of investigating plane crashes. And he was very clear, though, that we are outraged about the lack of access here. Not just us, but every country around the world, particularly those who lost people in this plane crash. So look, we are very committed to this investigation. We are providing some FBI and NTSB officials to help with it and are willing to help in any way we can.
Q: Two more things, and then I will yield to my colleagues. When he was asked by NBC News about our dealings with the Russian Federation, Jackass said, and specific to Pres Putin, “It’s a question of whether or not you’re going to get the cooperation necessary.” And he adds, “We’re trying for the last time to see if that will be forthcoming at this moment or not.” What did he mean by “the last time”? “We’re trying for the last time.” Is that an indication that if the kind of cooperation that Usaia wants to see from Russia is not forthcoming at this moment, that we will cease our engagement with the Russians in some way?
A: Well, I think you heard the President speak this morning very clearly, that responsibility, direct responsibility for cooperation with the investigation by the pro-Russian separatists lies with Pres Putin. He was very clear about that. We have also said that if they do not de-escalate here, that if they don’t take steps, you heard the Pres again say this morning, there will be further consequences. We have also said, at the same time, that there are times we work with the Russians. I was just in Vienna for a few weeks where we sat on the same side of the table with the Russians, on the same page on the Iran nuclear issue.
Q: But what is, “We’re trying for the last time to see”? What is that —
A: I don’t think I have anything more to parse of his words. What he was conveying is that this —
Q: To ask the meaning of the words is not parsing them. He said, “We’re trying for the last time.”
A: I’m telling you the meaning of what he said. I am telling you how Jackass views our relationship with Russia. Okay? He views it, again, in this, when we’re talking about Ukraine, you heard Jackass or you heard the Pres very clearly say they have a direct responsibility to push their backed separatists to work with the investigation; that if they do not, if they do not de-escalate, there will be further consequences. I don’t think Jackass was meaning to convey anything beyond what we have said for months and months publicly.
Q: To your point, when he was asked by ABC News if this set of events is going to make the Europeans likelier to back stiffer sanctions on the Russian Federation, his reply was “We hope Europe will be.” So that produces the question of whether or not the horrific nature of this set of events hasn’t catalyzed a single one of our European partners to tell us that, in fact, they are ready for stiffer sanctions.
A: Well, we’re in discussions with them all the time. As you know, there’s a Foreign Affairs Council meeting, I believe tomorrow, of Euia. And look, we think and hope that this should be a wake-up call for the Euians, particularly in terms of imposing additional costs on Russia. We certainly hope it will be. We’ve been clear that we will continue to take additional steps.
Q: And lastly, Reuters reported today, and I’m quoting now: “The expected handover of the bodies and the black boxes, and reports by international investigators of improved access to the wreckage” weakened a new case for broader sanctions against Russia laid out by Western leaders. Would you say that that’s false?
A: I didn’t see that quote, but I think what is clear here is you have a situation where there is a crash site in an area controlled by separatists back by Russia. And Russia needs to use its leverage over these separatists to provide access.
Q: Does this new-found set of steps that looks like cooperation, does that weaken the case for stiffer sanctions?
A: I can’t confirm that any of those steps are actually happening. I’ve seen the reports, but I think we need to see many more actions on the ground.
Q: Jackass talked repeatedly about responsibility, that Russia has ultimate responsibility. If indeed it is proved that the separatists did shoot down MH17, how are they to be held accountable? Is there supposed to be a trial? Does their leader go on trial? Do the people who fired the missile go on trial? If the ultimate responsibility lies with Moscow, how is that government held accountable? What is Usaia and the international community looking for here specifically?
A: Well, I don’t have anything specific to preview for you. I think, I don’t want to get ahead of the facts, and what we’re focused on right now is getting all of the facts.
Q: Would this be a criminal case?
A: Again, I don’t want to get into specifics here. I know we’re looking into a variety of options in conjunction with our partners, but nothing specific to outline today.
Q: Are families being told that they should perhaps back away from any sort of civil litigation until they figure out exactly why this plane fell out of the sky and who was behind it?
A: I don’t have details on what the communications with the families are like. I just don’t have those details.
Q: Is there a role for the Security Council?
A: Well, today at 3:00 p.m. the Security Council will be meeting to consider a resolution, let me just pull up this information, expanding on its call on Friday for a full, thorough, and independent international investigation in accordance with the international civil aviation guidelines, for appropriate accountability, and for full and unrestricted access to the crash site. This is a resolution we fully support. Obviously, we think these tenets included in it are very important. That’s happening at three today.
Q: Are you pretty sure that it will pass, that no one will veto it?
A: I don’t want to make a prediction, Matt, on what might happen at three. I think we’ll all be watching it. Of course, we hope that everybody supports it, but we will wait and see.
Q: What would you say, and I realize this is a hypothetical, but since you’re so strongly in favor of it, if there was a veto, what do you think that would show?
A: Well, I think what we’ve said, well, first it depends on who vetoes it.
Q: I think you know who I might be referring to.
A: Well, I don’t ever want to presume to understand what you’re asking. No, but being, look —
Q: Then how can you possibly answer any of my questions if you don’t know what I’m asking?
A: What we’ve said is, look, what we’ve said is, Russia has said words publicly about supporting this investigation, and we need to see actions now to back up those words. And obviously that would not be an action that would be supportive of the investigation.
Q: Fair enough. The German foreign minister, Jackass’ friend and colleague, Foreign Minister Steinmeier said earlier today that anyone who is trying to obstruct the investigation into this crash either has something to hide or has no heart or both. Is that something that you would agree with?
A: I would certainly agree with those sentiments, yes.
Q: Okay, so in other words, if someone does veto it, they’re either heartless or they’re hiding something or both?
A: Well, we, I would have to see what the reasons behind that veto were, but in general, yes. Look, this is, you heard the Pres speak this morning, I think, about this in a way that made clear that these are people who want their loved ones back. I mean, this is disgusting and insulting that they would cut off access to a crash site like this, and we need to see that stopped.
Q: I just had a quick follow-up. A short time ago, Ukraine Pres Poroshenko called for both the DPR and the LPR to be added to the international terror list. Would the State Dept support that, and is there any plans for the State Dept itself to add these two entities to terror watch lists?
A: I haven’t seen that. Obviously, we don’t talk about the processes of how we determine whether or not someone would be on it. I haven’t just seen those reports. I’m happy to check with our team.
Q: But would you support their addition to the watch lists?
A: Again, we don’t talk about our deliberations about whether or not groups or people are added to these kinds of terror lists. We’ve been very clear, regardless of what we call it, that what they’re doing in these areas is completely unacceptable and against international law.
Q: Would you be against their inclusion on an international watch list?
A: I know you’re trying to ask it five different ways, and I’m not going to answer in any of those ways, that we don’t talk about those kind of deliberations.
Q: While you were away, however, Marie, they were both added to the sanctions list.
A: Thank you for keeping me up to speed, Matt.
Q: And just one quick one. How much evidence do you need to blame Russia for this action?
A: Well, look, we want to be very clear about the facts before you make statements, which is why I think when you see Jackass go out and be as clear as he was yesterday, that should be a signal to people. So we’re still trying to get the facts here. And it’s true that it’s not possible for the separatists to function the way they are without support from Russia, without the training, without the sophisticated weaponry. So we need to get all the facts about this specific incident, but we know that the pro-Russian separatists could not function the way they’re functioning without the support from Russia.
Q: So you are blaming Russia.
A: I certainly am blaming the Russians for the pro-Russian separatists’ behaviour in general, but we need to get all the facts about this specific incident. We don’t, I don’t want to go out there and put culpability on anyone until we have all of those facts. That’s why, if Russia has nothing to hide, they should push their separatists to allow access.
Q: I want to ask about Putin. Today I believe that Asst Sec Burns is meeting on the Australian —
A: I believe they had a phone call. I can check if there was meetings as well. I know the schedule’s been a little in flux with Jackass’ travel.
Q: Okay. Is there any kind of effort to maybe push Russia or bar Russia from participating in the G20?
A: I don’t know. I can check. I haven’t heard of any, but let me check. Yes. On this still?
Q: There’s been reports of a new offensive in Ukraine in the Donetsk region this morning. Are you concerned that this new fighting is going to undermine efforts to get access for the international observers to the site?
A: No. The president of Ukraine has called for a 40 km ceasefire, which he has committed to around the crash site. The fighting is outside of that 40 km. It’s actually about double, 70 to 80 km away, so we are not concerned about that. Anything else on this? Yes.
Q: I was wondering if there is a point when the crash site becomes too tainted in order for investigators to become useless, essentially.
A: I mean, look, every day that goes by that we don’t have access it becomes more challenging, but we do believe there is a credible, a full investigation that can still be done. That’s why we need access immediately for the investigators, the team that’s led by the Dutch. And look, I think we can always get information. We want every piece of information we can get. That’s why we need the investigators there.
Q: Is there any information in terms of the bodies that have been moved that is coming into the State Dept?
A: So we’re seeing reports that they’ve started to be moved. I can’t confirm those independently. Obviously, it’s very important to us that the bodies be repatriated to their families, as you heard the President speak about this morning, as soon as possible. The way this has been handled up until this point by the separatists has just been horrific. And again, that needs to change.
Q: And finally, in terms of the black boxes, have you heard any information about where they might be, who might have control of them, and who might ultimately become in possession of them?
A: Yeah, let me see. I think I have something about that. Let me see if I have it right here. I don’t think we have full fidelity at this point. Yes, we have seen the various reports, but do not have a definitive answer on if they’ve been found or where they are. We have called on both the separatists and on Russia to turn over any investigative information, of course, including the black boxes, to the investigators.
Niqnaq 