Mark C. Toner
2:14 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Hey, everybody, happy Monday. To those who were – spent last week in New York, welcome back. I hope you all had a good and restful weekend after all the fun of UNGA.
QUESTION: Well, that’s certainly one way of --
MR TONER: FUNGA, as we call it internally. (Laughter.) Sorry, it’s not mine.
QUESTION: Well, that could mean more than just fun. You actually imply that there’s a word that begins with F that begins --
MR TONER: Please, don’t bring it – (laughter) – don’t bring it in that direction, please, Matt.
Anyway, welcome to the State Department. I did want to note, as many of you saw, after a pretty grueling week, actually, in New York at the UN General Assembly, Secretary of State Kerry is in Valparaiso, Chile to participate in the second Our Ocean conference. As you know, we hosted the inaugural Our Ocean conference here in Washington, D.C., last year in June 2014, and this morning the Secretary highlighted the progress made on commitments from last year’s Our Ocean conference and will very soon announce a new series – a series of new initiatives as well as build on his call to action regarding a healthy and sustainable ocean.
Before I take your questions, I also wanted to note that on behalf of the U.S. Government, we’d like to extend our deepest condolences to the people of Guatemala for the devastation and loss of life caused by the landslide that struck Guatemala City on October 1st. The United States is coordinating closely with the Guatemalan Government to see what assistance might be required. We certainly commend the Guatemalan rescuers on their diligent efforts to respond to this terrible tragedy. The U.S. has a longstanding partnership with the Guatemalan Government on emergency response, and in fact, most – the hundreds of rescuers involved in the emergency response have been trained by our USAID Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance in search-and-rescue. And so it’s good to see those – that training now paying off in helping to save lives.
And with that, I’ll take your questions. Matt.
QUESTION: Right. I want to start in Afghanistan.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I realize that the Pentagon has already spoken to this --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- as has your colleague at the White House. And I do understand I’m coming at this with understanding that the State Department is probably somewhat limited and – well, first of all didn’t really have – play any role in what happened in Kunduz. But also because of the investigation that’s underway, I understand you’re going to – you’re not going to have much to say beyond what has already been said.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: But what I want to ask about is just Administration policy in general. So not that long ago – in fact, just a little over a year ago, in August of 2014 – Israel, during the Gaza conflict, was accused of and, in fact, did bomb a – an UNRWA school in Gaza that killed about 10 people – or did kill 10 people. At the time, this building – in fact, the spokeswoman – issued a statement that was very, very strong, saying, “The United States is appalled by today’s disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced people. The coordinates of the school, like all UN facilities in Gaza, have been repeatedly communicated to the Israeli Defense Forces. We once again stress that Israel must do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties. UN facilities, especially those sheltering civilians, must be protected and must not be used by bases from which to launch attacks.”
And then the sentence that’s key here, and this is what I want to ask about, it says, “The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.” And then it goes on to call for an investigation. So I just want to – let me see – is it Administration – still Administration policy that the suspicion that militants are operating nearby a site like this, which is a school, that that suspicion does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of innocent civilians? Is that still the Administration’s position?
MR TONER: Well, first of all, I just would like to add the State Department’s voice to what the President and Department of Defense have already said. We mourn, obviously, the loss of life at the Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz which occurred on October 3rd. It goes without saying these doctors perform heroic work throughout the world including in Afghanistan, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends, and colleagues of those affected by this tragic incident.
You’re asking about whether our policy has changed. We always take great care and we are very adamant about stating when we see elsewhere attacks in areas where there could be civilian casualties to avoid civilian casualties. That obviously stands. That’s – there’s no other, frankly, country or government that takes greater care to investigate incidents like this, to hold folks accountable, and to try to take every measure possible to avoid civilian casualties.
What we’re looking at right now in terms of what happened in Kunduz, the facts are still emerging. There’s, I think, now three investigations underway: one by the Department of Defense, one by Resolute Support, and I think one joint Afghan and U.S. investigation. So we’ll let those investigations run their course.
But generally, these are difficult situations. It was, I think – General Campbell spoke to this as well, saying that it was an active combat zone and just trying to put that in the framework that they were called into – that air strikes were called in, without necessarily even saying that these were the airstrikes that hit that hospital, because we don’t know yet. We’re still collecting the facts.
QUESTION: Well --
MR TONER: But in speaking to your – sorry, your specific question – I mean, of course, we take every measure possible and would encourage any government in the world to take any measure possible – every measure possible – every measure possible to avoid civilian casualties, even when that involves close-quarter combat.
QUESTION: Right. I understand that and I understood --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But my question was not about the idea – and I’m not challenging the idea that you take – that the military makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties. What I’m most curious about is that this statement said the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes, which – and the military has said that it was called in because the Afghans asked for it. But MSF says that they had been given the coordinates much in the same way the IDF had been given the coordinates of the school in Rafah.
So the question is – and I realize this is under investigation. But the question is if – the question is: If the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes on a humanitarian facility for which the coordinates had been given, that it seems to have changed.
MR TONER: It’s just – look, Matt. I think it’s safe to say that this attack, this bombing, was not intentional. I can’t get into what may or may not have happened on the ground, whether the coordinates were known, whether they were acknowledged. It’s just too much speculation at this point.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: So you’ll hopefully give me a pass if we wait for the investigation to run its course.
QUESTION: Okay. That’s – and that’s fine. I understand it. But in the case of this – the Rafah situation, you called for a full and prompt investigation of this incident, as well as others like it.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: But that statement began by saying that the U.S. is appalled by the disgraceful shelling. That’s before an investigation even happened. So can you say now, knowing what you did, that you – that this shelling of this hospital was disgraceful and appalling?
MR TONER: Again, I would only just reiterate our sincere condolences to the victims of this attack and just again underscore the fact that we’re going to investigate this thoroughly. And as I said, once those investigations are complete, we’re going to take steps to – either to hold any responsible parties accountable or to take measures that avoid any kind of accident like this in the future.
QUESTION: All right. Last one
MR TONER: Yes, please.
QUESTION: This has nothing to do with that statement.
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: And on the diplomatic front, has there been any contact between you guys and the Afghans about this? Or is it being handled entirely military-to-military?
MR TONER: Unclear to me, but imagine on the – simply from our embassy to the Afghan Government, I would imagine there has been contact – not from the Secretary.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: Staying on Afghanistan. Does State have any comment on the Washington Post report that the Administration is considering whether to leave 3- to 5,000 troops in Afghanistan past the end of this year, the point at which President Obama had originally said that the United States would revert to a normal embassy presence in Afghanistan?
MR TONER: No, I just would say that no decision’s been made and I won’t go into internal deliberations before we have made that decision. Obviously, it’s something the President is looking at very closely, and he’ll determine the trajectory of our drawdown, obviously in consultation with his national security team and the commanders on the ground, of course.
Please.
QUESTION: Can we go to another topic?
MR TONER: Well, I don’t know --
QUESTION: Can we go to another topic?
MR TONER: Of – well, I don’t know what we’d --
QUESTION: Can we go to the Arabs – Palestinian-Israeli situation?
MR TONER: Of course, sure. Absolutely.
QUESTION: I wonder if you have any comment on the rising tensions and violence that we have witnessed in the last few days. Do you have any general comment on that?
MR TONER: Well, you saw we – as we put out a statement I think yesterday, we strongly condemn all acts of violence. We’re very concerned about mounting tensions in the West Bank and Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount area, and call on all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm and avoid escalating the situation.
QUESTION: Well, today the Israelis killed a 13-year-old boy. There has been a number – the number of casualties – Palestinian casualties is close to 500 in the last couple days, and I wanted to ask you: The Israelis announced today that they arrested five Palestinians for the killing of two settlers. Now, that came within 24 hours of the incident itself. Now, on the other hand, we have – we had 66 days elapse since the Dawabsheh attack, since the Duma attack, when the settlers attacked the Dawabsheh family and burned to death three members of the family – and the Israelis have done nothing really to bring those to justice. Now, all along you have stated that you have confidence in Israel, the ability to bring those responsible to justice. Do you still have that confidence although looking at this discrepancy?
MR TONER: First of all, to your broader question, look, we – as I just said, we remain deeply concerned about escalating tensions. We want to see all sides take affirmative steps to restore calm, absolutely. That’s our overall viewpoint on it.
And speaking in terms of the arrests that took place today, in terms of previous investigation, I’d have to refer you to the Israeli justice system and to the Israeli authorities to speak to the progress on that initial investigation. But we have confidence, as we’ve said before, in Israel’s judicial system, in its legal processes, to conduct a thorough and complete and accountable investigation – and transparent investigation. But I mean, clearly, as I said, we want to see a – just reduction in tensions on all sides.
QUESTION: Although it was – it has – the Israeli authorities have been able to swiftly arrest the Palestinians responsible, but no such thing on the settlers who have committed that crime 66 days ago on (inaudible).
MR TONER: I’m aware of the time lapse. Both crimes were reprehensible. I can only point you in the direction of the Israeli authorities to speak to that discrepancy.
QUESTION: Now, let me stay on the Palestinian topic.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the speech given by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas the other day, where he said that they will – basically sort of he’s frozen the agreements with Israel. First of all, do you take him seriously? Do you take him at his word that he will do that? And second, if he does so, what – how will that impact what other relations you have with him in terms of aid and others and so on?
MR TONER: Well, again, I’m not going to speculate about his – the language that he used. I think I would just say that it’s critical going forward that both Israelis and Palestinians abide by their commitments and take concrete actions to reverse current trends and demonstrate meaningful progress toward a two-state solution and creating a two-state reality on the ground, which is something that we all want to see happen.
Please.
QUESTION: While we’re in this neighborhood, can I ask --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I understand that the attack last week in which the two Israeli – the couple were killed, the shooting incident that --
MR TONER: In the – right. Right, yeah.
QUESTION: -- in the West Bank – yeah. I understand that the husband is – was in fact an American citizen. Is that correct?
MR TONER: That is correct. We can confirm – his name was Eitam – Eitam – forgive me if I’m mispronouncing that name – Simon Henkin, who was killed in the West Bank on October 2nd, and he was a U.S. citizen. We obviously express our condolences to his family.
QUESTION: Can you – well, given the fact that you now – that this gives you more than just a passing interest in this person as someone whose protection as a – falls under a class of people, an American citizen, whose protection or safety abroad is the State Department’s primary responsibility --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- what have you heard back in terms from – either the Palestinians or the Israelis about the investigation into his murder?
MR TONER: Well, we’re – sure. I don’t have much updated information to offer. I can only say that we’re obviously in close contact with the Israeli authorities about the investigation into the murder, and obviously we’re going to – for the sake of his family and loved ones, we’re going to continue to follow this case very closely.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: You’re in touch with the Israelis, but are you in touch with the Palestinians?
MR TONER: I would assume so. I’ll check on that.
QUESTION: Within the same context or on the same issue, Mark --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure, Said. Yeah.
QUESTION: -- the defense – the Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said sometime back, maybe 10 days ago or so, that they do know who the perpetrators of the Dawabsheh crime may – who they are, but they don’t want to compromise any intelligence assets or issues in the settlements and so on. First of all, are you aware of that?
MR TONER: I’m not aware of those comments and I wouldn’t attempt to parse them or explain them.
QUESTION: Okay. And in fact, there are also suggestions that these settlers may have been also American citizens as well. Can you find out about that? Could you --
MR TONER: The settlers? I’m sorry.
QUESTION: The settlers that have committed these – the attack on Duma.
MR TONER: I’ve seen no such speculation.
QUESTION: Well, the Israeli reports have said that they were – they’re just saying --
MR TONER: Again, I would – again, that just – I would just have to refer you to the Israeli authorities on that.
QUESTION: Can you --
MR TONER: We don’t – yeah, please.
QUESTION: All right. Can you confirm the number of American settlers in the West Bank – something like 60,000? Could you confirm that?
MR TONER: Yeah, we – we’re not often forthcoming with – because we don’t ask, obviously, American citizens who live abroad to register. So it’s often hard for us to come up with the exact figures, if we can get that.
QUESTION: But you do ask for --
MR TONER: We ask – I’m sorry, I’m sorry.
QUESTION: You don’t require them to register.
MR TONER: Sorry, yeah, I apologize. Thank you for that. We encourage them to register so we can contact them, but we don’t require them. And so – sorry, I lost my train of thought. So I don’t know that we have an exact figure. I can try to look into that and see if I can get that for you.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: Just two questions on Syria and Iraq.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: The first one: The Kurdish groups in Syria and both in Iraq – the Iraqi Kurdish president has issued a statement. They both welcome the presence of the airstrikes by Russian – by Russia in Syria. Aren’t you concerned that some of your very best partners are now welcoming the Russian airstrikes?
MR TONER: Well, again, we have great respect for the Iraqi Kurds in the fight that they’re waging against ISIL in Iraq. Our position on Russian airstrikes, I think, has been made painfully clear over the last four or five days since the very first airstrikes were carried out. We said many times that we would welcome a constructive role for Russia if it takes the fight to ISIL. Thus far, we’ve not seen that that’s the case. We’ve seen no indication that they’re actually hitting ISIL targets – ISIL targets.
QUESTION: Is it constructive if --
MR TONER: Please, go ahead, sir.
QUESTION: Is it constructive if Russia supports the Kurds in Syria or the Kurds in Iraq?
MR TONER: Is it constructive if – it’s constructive if --
QUESTION: Militarily?
MR TONER: It’s constructive if Russia wants to, as I said, live up to what it’s saying, live up to its words with action, which is – it says it wants to take the fight to ISIL. We’ve not seen that thus far. Frankly, what we’ve seen thus far is that Russia’s decision to undertake military action in Syria and intervene in that civil war that’s taking place between Assad and the moderate Syrian opposition – frankly, we consider it a strategic mistake. If they are serious about taking the fight to ISIL, then, as I said, we can find a role – or we can see a role for them to play constructively, certainly within the context of de-conflicting any action that they may be taking against some of the targets that we’re also hitting.
Our primary purpose here is to support those groups in northern Syria – Kurds, Arabs, others – who are waging successful attacks against ISIL, dislodging them from some key strongholds and frankly clearing ISIL out of that territory. That remains our focus. We’re part of a 60-some-odd member coalition doing that. If Russia wants to play in that sphere, then we would see a role for them, but we don’t see that yet.
Please.
QUESTION: Could you comment on a report in The New York Times that the United States is coordinating with Turkey to open another front in northwestern Syria, and perhaps even get closer to where the Russians are bombing? Could you comment on that?
MR TONER: No, I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to confirm those reports. I mean, obviously, we’ve been working with some of these groups in northern Syria for some time, continuing to provide them support – both the Department of State, nonlethal assistance, DOD, train and equip. We’re going to continue those efforts, but I’m not in a position to really speak to those reports in The New York Times.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) you said – you’re going to continue that? I thought there was a pause or some kind of a hiatus in the train and equip program because it was so – it was not --
MR TONER: I think that they’ve – they’re looking at --
QUESTION: Is that over? This is probably better asked to the Pentagon.
MR TONER: No, I’m not clear on that, actually, but I would refer you to the Department of Defense. My understanding was that they’re looking at how to rejigger it, improve it, but --
QUESTION: All right. And then I hesitate to ask this here, but – rather than have a colleague ask at the Pentagon, but you just said that, in response to an earlier question with – about Russia about de-confliction on targets that we may also be hitting. Are you aware of any shared targets that --
MR TONER: No, that’s – sorry if I was unclear about that point.
QUESTION: So --
MR TONER: We’re trying to hit ISIL targets. We’ve not see that Russia is doing that yet.
QUESTION: So then what is de-confliction?
MR TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: You just don’t want planes running into each other? Is that – is that what it is?
MR TONER: I mean, we want to avoid those kinds of tragic incidents, yes. And certainly, that’s – on a really tactical level, yes, that’s one of the concerns.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: But also there’s other concerns as well in this battle space. I don’t really want to speak to it in my capacity, but – yeah.
QUESTION: But would it also involve Russian airstrikes against targets that you do not believe are ISIL or al-Qaida affiliates? Does that also fall under the de-confliction idea, or is this something that’s kind of not – better to ask the Pentagon?
MR TONER: No, I mean, I would say – I mean, that’s – look, that’s been made abundantly clear both in the political sphere as well as in the tactical level. We don’t want to see Russia hitting some of the Syrian opposition forces that we believe they’ve struck.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, does de-confliction also go to Russian planes flying into Turkish airspace, something like that?
MR TONER: Yes, that certainly involves that.
QUESTION: So in terms of that specific incident, again realizing that this might be better directed at the Pentagon, has there been any diplomatic activity other than just what the NATO statement, which I think we’ve all seen, with the Russians – between the U.S. and the Russians about this incident or these – this – these incidents?
MR TONER: So I did try to check on this before. There’s been no follow-up to the de-confliction – I hate that word, but to the efforts at – to de-conflict that started – began last week, I think on Thursday. There’s been no follow-up to that, but obviously we made clear our concerns about this --
QUESTION: No, I’m not talking --
MR TONER: -- in the NAC – right, in the NATO --
QUESTION: Right. No, I’m talking about aside from NATO and aside from --
MR TONER: Right. Not that I’m aware of, no.
QUESTION: -- the de-confliction talks, you don’t know if there’s been any contact, direct contact, between you and the Russians?
MR TONER: Direct contact, no. I don’t believe so.
QUESTION: Because the Secretary spoke about how the Turkish foreign minister called him on Saturday, I think he said, after the first incident.
MR TONER: That’s right, that’s right.
QUESTION: So you’re not aware of anything since then?
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: So Mark, are you saying to the best of your knowledge they have not spoken about the Russian flights into Turkish airspace?
MR TONER: To my knowledge, no. Now again, I don’t know if our embassy in Moscow has approached the Russian Government. To my knowledge, that has not happened between DOD, but again, to my knowledge. I’m not aware of any --
QUESTION: I mean between Kerry and Lavrov.
MR TONER: Not to my knowledge, no; they haven’t spoken.
Please.
QUESTION: Mark, on the same topic. Do you have the same concerns of Russian cooperation with the Iraqi, like Russia targeting ISIS in Iraq like you have in Syria, or it is different story? Because they have a cooperation in Baghdad. That’s what the Prime Minister Abadi said, like for sharing intelligence.
MR TONER: Yeah, sharing intelligence. But I frankly haven’t seen them actually voice any kind of willingness to actually hit ISIL targets in Iraq. Frankly, that’s a question better asked of the Iraqi Government and how they would feel about actually active Russian attacks in that space.
QUESTION: Right, but they authorized, they welcomed – actually both regional government of – Kurdish Regional Government, also Baghdad. But what is your concern? Do you have the same thing, or you think if Iraqis is not concerned so you’re fine with that?
MR TONER: Well, it’s a sovereign country. They can certainly make those kinds of decisions. Our concern, again, is we’re active in that same space. We’re obviously working, closely advising the Iraqi military we believe with some success over the past year, certainly, to take the fight to ISIL in Iraq. So I can’t really speak to any hypothetical role that Russia may play in that struggle.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, one more on that last one.
MR TONER: Please go ahead, yeah.
QUESTION: You have many forces in Iraq that you are cooperating with – I think the Iraqi Government, Sunnis, and the Kurds. And the recent month is the Kurdish officials, they were concerned about the amount of ammunitions and also the weapons they have received from the United States, it’s really decreased to not – they have not received the share that they – was provided by Pentagon to them.
MR TONER: You’re speaking about --
QUESTION: The train and equip program.
MR TONER: No, no, no, but which group in particular?
QUESTION: The Kurdish group in Iraq, not in Syria. So one of the Kurdish official – I think the chancellor of the council of – security council of Kurdistan – he said that we have not received anything from United States since May. So --
MR TONER: I’m not aware of any lapse in our efforts to supply them. I’d have to check on that. And frankly, it might be a better – question better directed to the Department of Defense.
QUESTION: So I asked the Department of Defense the same issue.
MR TONER: There you go. What did they say? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, they said that’s – that we have sent everything to Baghdad, but that’s for the diplomatic mission.
MR TONER: Well, that is – I mean, that is a critical element of our effort there. We’ve said – we’ve been pretty adamant about the fact that command and control rests with the Iraqi Government. That said, we’ve seen a real effort on the – part of the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi military, and frankly, no lapse in getting that equipment, ammunition, whatever, supplies out to those who need it. So I honestly can’t speak to this particular case. I just don’t have the --
QUESTION: What do you – do you mean, like, those who needs – that they are fighting? You mean maybe they are sending more to Sunnis because they are fighting extensive – in Peshmerga front lines --
MR TONER: We have – again, I – we’ve made that very clear. And frankly, we believe that it is indeed the case where the Iraqi Government is doing a good job at disseminating those supplies to those who are actually fighting the fight against ISIL – Kurds, Sunnis, whoever. Some of these local forces on the ground that are quite effective. I’ve just seen nothing; I don’t know. I can’t speak to any lapse in supply or equipping the Kurdish forces. I just don’t --
QUESTION: Right. Will you take it that seriously, that – these concerns by the Kurdish official, that they are not getting anything from Baghdad?
MR TONER: I mean, obviously, we would – we would obviously take something like that – a comment like that with concern. I just said I don’t have any information about it. I can look into it, but I don’t have anything to – I don’t have any facts or any figures here to refute that.
Please go ahead, Michael. Michael, and then back to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Foreign Minister Lavrov said Russia’s willing to work with the Free Syrian Army, and he asked Secretary Kerry for information on FSA contacts. Is the Secretary working – is the State Department going to give that information? And – again, is the U.S. willing – welcoming Russia to work with these, the Free Syrian Army – communicate with them directly, work with them directly?
MR TONER: Well, I’m unclear – I mean, if we’re talking about – look, widening the lens here or taking a step back, I don’t know particularly what – if they discussed that or whether contacts have been shared. As you know from last week, they met many times up in New York, all – almost all of it on Syria; certainly other issues, but primarily on Syria, and trying to work through what our primary goal on the diplomatic front is, which is trying to move towards a political process that leads to an inclusive representative government. Because, as we’ve often stated, our strong belief – as is, frankly, Russia’s and the rest of the international community’s stated belief – that there’s no military solution to what’s happening now in Syria. We need to move towards a political process according to the Geneva communique.
Now, where we differ on this, as you all know, is that we believe ultimately that can’t – the end result of that can’t be with Assad still in power. We disagree with the Russian Government on that, but we’re talking about it and we’re trying to come to a solution on that. Because really that’s – we talked a lot about this, the Secretary did last week, about there’s an opportunity here, people are seized with this issue, people see that this fighting has gone on long enough. Certainly, we have areas of agreement with Russia. We recognize the threat that ISIL poses for the region. We recognize the need for a secular, unified Syria moving forward. We recognize the need for a political process. We disagree on the end result of that or what that looks like at the end result.
But – sorry, just to answer your question, I just don’t have any specific details on the contacts with the FSA, as you said. But go ahead.
QUESTION: But more specifically --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- FSA leader told us from the Euphrates Volcano that they would welcome Russian assistance, Russian weaponry. They’re a combination of YPG fighters and Free Syrian Army fighters. Have you heard --
MR TONER: I haven’t heard those comments. Again, we’ve been very clear about the fact that if Russia’s serious about taking the fight to ISIL, we would view that as a constructive role. I can’t speak to any specific actions they might take in terms of supply and equipping. Certainly, we’ve been trying to do that for some months now, continue to do that as well.
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Move to Iraq for a second. Yesterday, the Iraqi Government decided to open a green zone, the international zone, where the embassy is. Are you – do you have any security concerns that – now it is open for the first time in 12 years?
MR TONER: Well, as you noted, we are – we have been aware for some time that the Government of Iraq intended to ease, I think is how we put it – not lift entirely – restrictions for public traffic transiting the international zone, the so-called Green Zone, in Baghdad. Clearly, we work closely with the Government of Iraq on security issues, and they’ve kept us up to date on their plans regarding the international zone and easing the restrictions there. We have repeatedly voiced our concerns over the easing of these restrictions. We’re obviously monitoring the security conditions very closely as this easing takes places, these actions take place, and are going to continue to adjust our security posture as needed.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: Can I – the Kunduz strike real quickly?
MR TONER: Sure thing, yeah.
QUESTION: The Syrian --
MR TONER: Oh, let’s stay on Syria, then we’ll – I promise I’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Sure, sure.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: You said you support YPG. I mean, they have a separatist idea for Syria. Are you not concerned about this?
MR TONER: Again, we’ve been through this multiple times. We delineate between the YPG and the PKK that we view as a foreign terrorist organization; we designate it as such. The YPG has effectively waged war on ISIL. We’ve seen nothing to date that suggests that they’re looking to gain or hold territory. Obviously, we’re in consultation with them, as well as other groups on the ground in northern Syria, as they conduct operations against ISIL.
Please go ahead, sir.
QUESTION: But the coalition said – the National Coalition of Syria said that they are kicking Arab out of their – the area they dominated. I mean, they protested that to you.
MR TONER: I’ve not seen those comments, sir. I would have to see them, look at them, read them. What we have always urged – sorry – urged on the ground is that as areas of northern Syria are liberated by these forces, that we see stability return, that we see an inclusive government in place – and by “inclusive” I mean all ethnicities and all religions.
Please.
QUESTION: Same topic?
MR TONER: Okay. Let’s stay on Syria, and then I promise I’ll get back to Kunduz.
QUESTION: Two quick questions. One is that – just to follow up on the YPG question, are you aware of the – many of the PKK militants joining the YPG? If you are, do you think this kind of makes more blurry about the separation between the YPG and PKK?
MR TONER: Sure. I’m – sorry, just to make sure I – am I aware of elements of the PKK joining with the YPG?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: I’m not, so it’s hard for me to answer that question. We’ve always seen a clear separation between the two – excuse me. It’s unclear whether these individuals, if that were to happen – whether they renounced their affiliation. I just don’t know. I don’t have enough information about it. We obviously view, as I just said, the PKK as a terrorist organization.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Let’s let him finish, and then I’ll --
QUESTION: In light of today’s Russian incursion into Syrian airspace --
QUESTION: Turkey.
MR TONER: In Turkish airspace.
QUESTION: Russian incursion into Turkish, yes. Do you think the ISIL-free zone in the – in north of Syria by the Turkey border – now the plans to create that territory is more – or harder than before?
MR TONER: Well, first of all, as Matt and I just touched on or I touched on with Matt, is this incursion into Turkish airspace has demonstrated the importance of consultation and restraint in shaping an international response. Frankly, we view this incursion as reckless, and it’s dangerous, provocative, and it can cause accidents and miscalculation and risks the safety of airmen and airwomen in Turkey and elsewhere. So we would have serious concerns about that.
As to the creation of – sorry – a zone or a no-fly zone or whatever we call it, we’ve been pretty clear about the fact that we don’t think it’s necessary and we don’t think it’s feasible on the ground. It involves a lot of logistical support that we don’t have in place right now to maintain such a venture.
QUESTION: But you agreed with Turkey to remove ISIL elements from that area by the Turkish border. Is that still the understanding?
MR TONER: Well, of course. That absolutely has not changed at all. I mean, we are in close consultations with Turkey. We just differ on the need for a no-fly zone. And as I said, they entail a set of logistical questions – how to enforce it, what it needs in terms of equipment, support, et cetera. DOD would be much more able to answer some of those details and what it involves, but we just don’t support it. That said, we have been very clear about the need to work with Turkey on securing its border. That’s absolutely one of our priorities.
Please, sir, yeah.
QUESTION: Mark, sorry, I wasn’t going to – but again, something you said --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- makes this question occur to me, which is the fact that you say that the incursion illustrates the need or underscores the need for there to be some conversation between Russia and others who are active in that area.
MR TONER: Correct, operating in that airspace, yeah.
QUESTION: Does that mean – can you – does that mean the Administration would be willing to reopen the NATO-Russia dialogue that was suspended because of Crimea and the situation in Ukraine with those issues – i.e. Ukraine and Crimea – still being unresolved?
MR TONER: No, what I think we’re – sorry. What I think we’re talking about here in this case is what we’ve talked about all the time when we’ve been talking – when we’ve been speaking of de-conflicting. This is really --
QUESTION: So it’s just the de-confliction?
MR TONER: Yeah, it’s at a very tactical level, not this high-level – more high-level military talks.
QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, if I may.
MR TONER: Yeah, no worries. Sorry.
QUESTION: The – so MSF is calling for an independent investigation of this incident by a neutral international body. Is that something the Administration would support?
MR TONER: Well, we’ve got three investigations underway. Certainly, we’ve got our own DOD-led investigation. We obviously strongly believe that can be a very transparent and accountable investigation. Let’s let these three investigations run their course and see what the results are.
I would say – and I know the White House spoke about this earlier – we have reached out to some of the leadership in Medecins Sans Frontieres to express our condolences over this tragic incident. But as to whether there needs to be an independent fourth investigation, we’re satisfied, I think, at this point that enough investigations are underway that we’ll get to the truth.
QUESTION: You don’t think that with the U.S., which is – which has an interest in how this investigation proceeds and what the outcome is, and being involved in all three investigations somehow affects the legitimacy of it?
MR TONER: I mean, frankly, I think we’ve proven over time that we can investigate incidents like these – like this, and as I said, hold anyone accountable who needs to be held accountable, and do it in such a way that’s transparent and, I think, credible.
QUESTION: Just along those lines --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- MSF has said that this is a clear presumption of a war crime that’s been committed here. Some have suggested that the ICC take it up. Is it a safe bet that the U.S. would vote against/veto any attempt in the Security Council to bring this incident for – up for an ICC investigation?
MR TONER: I don’t want to answer a hypothetical. On the war crime question itself, we’re just not there yet, and I don’t want to prejudge any outcome of any investigation.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: What do you mean, “We’re just not there yet”?
MR TONER: I mean we’re conducting investigations, we’re looking at this very closely, and we’re going to, as multiple folks have said including the President over the weekend – that we’re going to hold those accountable and it’s going to be a credible investigation.
QUESTION: Does that mean --
QUESTION: So it’s conceivable to you that this could have been a war crime?
MR TONER: I said we’re not – we’re letting the investigations run their course.
QUESTION: Well, regardless of whether or not you --
MR TONER: I’m not going to – I’m not even – yeah, please, Matt.
QUESTION: No, but I want to --
MR TONER: Sure, go ahead. Sorry.
QUESTION: Is it not – I mean, it’s always been assumed, I think – and I just want to know if this assumption is still safe – that the U.S. would oppose an attempt to refer an incident involving U.S. troops to the International Criminal Court.
MR TONER: That’s --
QUESTION: I mean, as it’s – as it was being formed, you guys ran around signing these Article 98 --
MR TONER: That’s a perfectly sound assumption.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: I just didn’t want to --
QUESTION: So – right. So regardless or not whether it was or whether it might be a war crime, you would oppose an ICC investigation?
MR TONER: I think that’s a safe bet, yes.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: Turkey. Mark, have you seen the pictures and the reports on the Turkish police that were dragging the body of a Kurdish man in one of the Kurdish cities? The Turkish police vehicle was dragging the body of one of the men. It has been circulated in the social media.
MR TONER: No, I apologize. I’ve not seen – I apologize. I’ve not seen those pictures or photos.
QUESTION: But do you have any updates on the conflict and the militarization of some of the Kurdish cities in Turkey, or you are not paying attention to what’s going on there?
MR TONER: I don’t – I wouldn’t say we’re not paying attention. I’m certainly --
QUESTION: It’s all over.
MR TONER: I’ve been in New York the last week, have been focused on other things. I personally am not aware of this. I am sure our folks in the Bureau of European Affairs are very much aware of this, and if we have any response I’ll get that for you. Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Turkey.
MR TONER: Go ahead, sir, and then you.
QUESTION: It’s a different topic.
MR TONER: Oh. Do you want to just do a quick Turkey, and then I’ll come back to you?
QUESTION: Sure.
MR TONER: Please, sir.
QUESTION: Thank you. Mark, since you have briefing here last time for about 10 days ago, there is a – one of the most well-known journalists in Turkey got beaten up in front of his house in Turkey, and many human rights organizations are protesting. So far Mr. President Erdogan has not condemned the incident. Today, there is another major newspaper’s head resigned in Turkey, citing some of the pressure on the newspaper. I was wondering if you have anything more on the press freedom issues in Turkey.
MR TONER: Sure. You’re talking, I think, about the attack on Ahmet Hakan.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Yeah, Turkish journalist. We’re obviously deeply disturbed by this brutal attack. We urge Turkish authorities to investigate thoroughly and to prosecute the perpetrators in accordance with Turkish law. And more broadly, we call on Turkey to respect the media freedoms and the due process protections that are enshrined in the Turkish constitution as well as in its OSCE commitments.
QUESTION: That’s pretty much what the embassy said at the time of the attack, is it not? Or did – does what you just said go --
MR TONER: The – our embassy?
QUESTION: Yes, your embassy.
MR TONER: I hope it’s – I hope it is. I hope we’re consistent.
QUESTION: Well, they put out some kind of a comment.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I just wanted to know – you’re not aware of that – what you just said – is changed?
MR TONER: I don’t think so. I think our – no, I think our reactions are the same.
QUESTION: The president and prime minister condemned attack. How do you see these comments?
MR TONER: I’m sorry. The --
QUESTION: Turkish president and prime minister condemned the attack.
MR TONER: They condemned the attack.
QUESTION: Yeah, they condemned it.
MR TONER: I mean, we obviously condemn it as well. We are – as I said, we’re deeply disturbed by any attack on any journalist around the world, Turkey or elsewhere.
Please.
QUESTION: Yeah. So this morning there was, as you know, an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Obviously, USTR has the lead --
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: But do you have anything to tell us about what Secretary Kerry or others in the building will be doing going forward to get it through the domestic review process?
MR TONER: Well, obviously, this is something the Secretary has enthusiastically supported and worked very hard to see realized. You saw the statement that he --
QUESTION: He was tweeting about it earlier.
MR TONER: Yes, he was indeed. And so – and fitting that he’s in Chile when this announcement came. Obviously, USTR has the lead on this, but we’re in a stage now once the – once we get the text and can make it public, that we’re going to make the case to Congress to review and consider the document and to support this document. We’ve said multiple times, many times, that this is really a breakthrough agreement. It’s going to make standards across the board in terms of trade, global trade. It’s going to set a new standard, rather, and also take up many next-generation issues.
So no specific timeline. We’re going to work effectively – the Secretary is going to work effectively to make the case to Congress now to pass it.
QUESTION: Does it give you pause, though, that many people in Congress have already issued statements, including prominent Republicans who supported TPA, that they’re – that they have reservations about the agreement?
MR TONER: Well, as we saw with the JCPOA, that’s no reason to – not to keep pushing and to meet the challenge head on. We strongly believe this is the right agreement going forward, and we’re going to make that case.
Is that it? Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)
DPB # 163