STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING
STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
A couple things to kick us off here. As you know, this morning we kicked off the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue and the U.S.-China Consultation on People-to- People Exchange.
This follows yesterday's strategic security dialogue with China, hosted by Deputy Secretary Blinken.
KIRBY: This morning, as you may have seen, our focus was on cooperation on climate change, which is a high priority in this bilateral relationship. This afternoon, we're engaging on a range of other bilateral, regional and global issues, including areas that have contributed to some tensions in the relationship.
To enhance cooperation in some areas and narrow our differences in others.
In addition, Deputy Secretary Blinken today hosted a special session on development assistance cooperation to expand collaboration in our efforts to combat disease and other threats to global health, promote sustainable development, and safeguard peace and stability.
I'd like to move on to an update on our visa system. The Bureau of Consular Affairs reports that the database responsible for handling biometric clearances has been rebuilt and is being retested -- I'm sorry, is being tested.
Thirty-three embassies and consulates, representing 66 percent of our normal capacity are now online and issuing visas, and we're working to restore full biometric data processing worldwide.
We issued more than 45,000 visas yesterday. Beijing along issued nearly 15,000 visas. Significant additional numbers will be issued as the backlog clears. And it's gonna take some time here for the backlog to clear, as we continue to work the fix.
Many posts are now rescheduling interviews. In some cases, interviews will be available as soon as the 24th. And then, again, we encourage people to check our Web site, travel.state.gov, for more information. And we'll keep updating you here, as we continue to work the problem.
Today we also want to congratulate the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the opening of its new field office in Seoul. And we thank the Republic of Korea for hosting this office. We are pleased that the new office will continue the excellent documentation work initiated by the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on the human rights situation in the DPRK. These efforts will lay the groundwork for bringing to account those responsible for atrocities in the DPRK, and we believe this is an important step forward in implementing the U.N. Commission of Inquiry recommendations.
With that, Brad?
QUESTION: Starting where you started off, on the strategic and economic dialogue.
KIRBY: Yes?
QUESTION: Can you confirm that the OPM hack was raised at -- yet in the discussions?
KIRBY: Well, I -- I can't confirm specifically that the breach at OPM was discussed, but I would point to what I said yesterday, which is that cyber security issues routinely come up. And, as I sort of alluded to in my opening statement, we certainly expect that cyber issues will be discussed -- have been discussed today and will continue to be discussed throughout the afternoon.
QUESTION: OK, but you don't know if this particular...
KIRBY: I do not.
QUESTION: ... grievous breach was...
KIRBY: I do not.
QUESTION: ... was brought up? OK.
QUESTION: (inaudible)
QUESTION: Can I go back to that --just an issue on the technical, on the visas?
KIRBY: Yes?
QUESTION: What exactly does one -- what do you mean by technical issues? I mean, what kinds of technical issues were these that caused such a -- such an outage?
KIRBY: Well, I think we talked about this a little bit before, Leslie (ph). It's a...
QUESTION: Which we did, but it's unclear.
KIRBY: It's a -- it's a hardware problem with the actual -- the physical database itself. So we're not talking about a software glitch, and that's why we're sure that this isn't the result of some kind of cyber security breach, it's a hardware problem.
And there's a backup database that we wanted to create a second copy of, so that, you know, you always don't want to have one working backup. And so, it took a while to re-create the backup system and then to test it.
And they were testing it methodically, you know, using a single post to see if it -- if they could insert the new hardware and that it would work properly, and in the early testing -- and we talked about this a little bit ago -- it didn't always work so well.
KIRBY: So, they had to go back and work technical fixes to the -- to the hardware itself.
They've done that now, we think to some degree of success, as I've pointed out, and visas are now starting to be issued.
One of the things that we wanted to do was as we got the system back on line and the hardware fixed, was to put it in place at some of the most -- of the busiest posts. So that's why I specifically mentioned Beijing, because so many visas are processed there at Beijing.
And, so far, again, it's going well. But it's a -- it's a hardware issue. And related specifically to the file itself, which just needed to be re-created and then tested.
QUESTION: Any idea when you think that all the embassies or more embassies will come online?
KIRBY: We'll do -- every day I think we're gonna be -- we expect to add more and more. And I will continue to update you here from the podium as we learn more, and feel free to check in as well on our own.
But, I mean, we're -- they're constantly adding new posts to the effort, as the system, you know, gets back online. And, again, I think tomorrow we'll hopefully be able to point to some more progress, as well.
There's -- look, I don't want to -- I don't want to be overly rosy here. We've got the fix in place. Things seem to be working. There's a big backlog. I mean, on average we process about 50,000, you know, a day, across the world. So there's a lot of -- there's a big backlog. It's gonna take awhile to clear that.
QUESTION: How big is that backlog? Can you...
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: I don't -- I don't have a good estimate, because it's -- again, we only estimate how many thousands per day. It varies from, as you would imagine, Brad, day to day. But it's significant. So, things are looking good. Progress is being made. Technicians are still hard at work.
And I will stress that it is a 24/7 process here that they're applying to the fixes. And it's just gonna take awhile. QUESTION: How old is this equipment? And does the age of the equipment and the need to have so many repairs to the hardware mean that this equipment should have been replaced? Is this a funding issue at the base of it?
KIRBY: I don't know that nature of the exact -- the hardware problem. I don't believe it has to do with age, but I don't have a -- I am not a technical expert. I don't know exactly what the glitch was, but again they worked the fix and things are looking good and we will continue to keep you updated.
QUESTION: One more. Do you know whether this is equipment that was acquired directly by the state department or was this acquired through a third party contractor who -- you know, a lot of them do these sort of services for the federal government?
KIRBY: I don't know. In terms of the original equipment I don't know. But as I said a couple of days ago we are employing the skills of public and private sector -- technicians and experts to help us fix it.
Are we going to have the -- done with the visa issue?
QUESTION: Yes we are done.
KIRBY: Go ahead Nicholas(ph).
QUESTION: Oh no, I am done.
QUESTION: I -- I -- I Just would like to go back to China, to China for a minute.
KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Could you tell us whether the human rights issues have been discussed this morning? And if yes, with what level of specificity or was this dialogue not the appropriate format for human rights?
KIRBY: This mornings focus was on climate. I think you saw some of the comments made in the sessions that we had this morning. This afternoon is really more about other global strategic issues.
I don't know specifically as we stand here after two o'clock whether human rights has been specifically addressed. But as I said yesterday we certainly expect over the course of these two days that issues of human rights, which is an issue we don't always agree with China on, will certainly be discussed. But I don't have a read out for you this afternoon of the talks.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
KIRBY: What?
QUESTION: (inaudible)
KIRBY: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: One of our colleagues , a -- Taylor (ph), wrote in the New -- Washington Times that the administration is under a lot of pressure from it's allies to extend that date.
Could you comment on this? I know this may be a White House -- better addressed to the White House but do you have any information there is pressure from, lets say from France or England.
KIRBY: I -- I -- the way i would answer it is that we are still focused on June 30th. And I am not aware of any external pressure being applied to us or anybody else to extend. We are still focused on June 30th.
QUESTION: Has -- has the topic come up, lets say by your allies, to say, perhaps we should consider extending?
KIRBY: I am not going to talk about -- diplomatic discussion in the context of the negotiations. Look I think, and I talked about this a little bit yesterday, that getting the right deal is better than the deadline itself.
Deadlines are good forcing functions, we still are driving towards June 30th and that's -- that's what everybody is , I think, focused on. But i am not going to talk about who inside the room is espousing different views.
QUESTION: And my last one was the prime ministers (inaudible) said yesterday that, "A good deal is better than a deadline." But today said that we might even be able to reach one even before the deadline.
Could you comment on that?
KIRBY: Again, I am not going to speculate about -- what is going on inside the negotiating room. But I -- I think that is not position that is incongruent with what we have been saying which is that we are still focused on getting the right deal and that the right deal is more important than the deadline right now. The focus that we are all applying, in terms of timing, is towards the end of this month.
QUESTION: So the -- the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , Bob Corker, said yesterday that the president should walk away -- step ways from the talks unless it secures anytime, anywhere access. And about two weeks ago Jack Luves (ph) at a conference (inaudible) post and he said, "Any deal must ensure a comprehensive and robust monitoring and inspection anywhere and everywhere the IOEA (ph) has reason to go."
So, can you respond to Bob Corker and say, in fact, that is our standard. We reflect the same standard?
KIRBY: I think I would say the same -- the same thing that we've been saying to the American people throughout this process, and that is that any deal must provide the access that IAEA inspectors need to verify Iran's compliance with the ultimate deal that's reached.
We are still -- we are still in the negotiating phase on what that final deal is gonna look like. I'm not going to speculate about the details therein.
But everybody, including the Iranian delegation, back in Lausanne, agreed that the IAEA will and must have the access it needs to verify compliance.
QUESTION: And they also agreed in Lausanne, and I'm also quoting, that all past U.N. Security Council resolutions on the nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneously with the completion by Iran of all these issues, including PMD and transparency.
So, between these two things, the bill that just passed through the Iranian parliament explicitly rejects those two provisions. Do you not have a comment on that at all?
KIRBY: Well, we -- I did. And we commented on this yesterday. And these are -- we're aware that the Iranian parliament approved a bill concerning the nuclear talks and any final deal. Our understanding is that this bill now would still need the final approval from the Guardian Council. We're going to let the Iranians manage and speak to their own legislative process.
For us, nothing's changed about what's necessary for a final deal, which includes access and transparency that will meet our bottom lines.
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: Nothing's changed about that.
QUESTION: Do you discourage the Guardian Council from passing it?
And I will also note that in the past when Congress has been reviewing legislation, the Iranians did not hold back from commenting on our legislation.
KIRBY: Well, as I said, we're going to let the Iranians manage their own process. It's been very clear what our expectations are, and that is a great ringtone. Is that yours Justin? Terrific.
QUESTION: Yeah, sorry.
KIRBY: Actually, well -- well-timed for the completion of my answer. With that, I'll give the next one to you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Yeah no, still on Iran, your colleague at the White House today said that there will be ongoing differences of opinion after potential -- if you get a final deal. Doesn't that call into question the whole notion of a final agreement? Shouldn't that be a -- you know, a shared text, and there should be no dispute of what is in the deal when you have one?
KIRBY: Look, we've always said that there is going to -- there have been many voices in this process up to now, and there will continue to be many voices in the process, even when a deal is reached. And again, we're focused right now Brad on -- on that final deal, and -- and getting that inked. And it's got to be the right deal. It's got to be a good deal for our national security interests. And that's -- that's where our focus is right now.
QUESTION: Doesn't a good and a right deal imply that it is...
KIRBY: It certainly would imply that all parties...
QUESTION: ... indisputed -- indisputed deal?
KIRBY: It certainly would imply, obviously, not just imply, it would mean that all parties actually are in agreement on the essential elements of the deal.
But that doesn't mean that voices of dissent are going to stop. And we understand that. But we're focused on getting the -- the right deal here.
QUESTION: Just one more on this. Do you expect from the U.S. side or really from any of the parties at the table that implementation would begin theoretically if a deal was reached by June 30th, before Congress weighs in as is mandated by the...
KIRBY: I'm just not going to get ahead on timelines and specifics right now. Again, we've got a team negotiating on this. And I don't want to -- I don't think it's helpful or productive for us to get in the middle of that right now.
OK, that's it for Iran. We're moving on.
QUESTION: Very quickly. It is conceivable to sign a multi-state deal or does it have to be all the...
KIRBY: I'm not going to hypothesize. Next.
QUESTION: Thank you, Admiral.
We can still call you that.
So, I want to go to the hostage review. Have we talked -- did we talk about that already? I was a little late.
KIRBY: That's right, you were late, so you wouldn't know?
I did, yes. We covered it in a fulsome manner, and I think we're just going to move on to the next issue now.
QUESTION: Did you really cover it?
KIRBY: No, go ahead.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: All right. Sorry, OK.
So my question is if families from now on are going to be negotiating with hostage takers, with terrorists, with some form of U.S. assistance, would that not represent a significant shift in policy for the United States?
KIRBY: Justin, I'm simply not going to get ahead of an announcement that the president hasn't made yet. I mean, look, you've heard my colleague at the White House speak to this today. And this is -- this was an important review process that -- that we all believe will help the inter-agency coordinate and communicate better as well as communicate with the families in taking their concerns into consideration.
But I'm simply not going to get ahead of policy decisions that haven't been announced yet.
QUESTION: Can you say what -- what, as you understand it, the problems were that needed fixing within this review?
KIRBY: Well, I think we've talked broadly about this when the -- when the review was announced, that -- that everybody realizes that first of all, the taking of hostages is a problem that continues, and in some cases has increased, particularly when you're dealing now with a group like ISIL, which in and of itself would naturally call for the U.S. government to take a look at our own procedures. And the degree to which we're always trying to improve, the degree to which perhaps we can improve inter-agency coordination, as well as taking into account some of the concerns expressed by families over the -- over the last several years.
QUESTION: Unless someone else has something on this, I wanted to ask just one last one about the emails that were released by the committee earlier this week, and wondering.
Yesterday you said that some of them were repeated, some of the Blumenthal emails were emails that you had already provided to the committee, were there any emails in there that you hadn't provided to the committee that in retrospect, you feel you ought to have provided given the parameters that were outlined from Trey Gowdy originally?
KIRBY: Sure, we're still going through those emails. Specifically, the ones that Mr. Blumenthal provided to the committee. As I said yesterday, we do believe that some of them were already provided by the State Department, having been provided by former Secretary Clinton to us. So we know that there is some overlap, but we're still going through them, and I don't have an update on -- on how many that it would take.
QUESTION: It wasn't that many emails. It was maybe 60 or so. I mean, how long does it take this bill to -- I went through them pretty fast. Maybe I'm faster than the entire State Department? Is that what you're suggesting? That every reporter in this town can go through them faster...
KIRBY: I'm not suggesting, actually. I'm saying we're still...
QUESTION: ... than the entire weight of this department?
KIRBY: ... we're still going through them.
QUESTION: To do what?
KIRBY: We're still going through the emails to see if there were some that we didn't have originally before sending over to the select committee. And I also remind you Brad, I mean, what we provided was specifically to meet the request of Benghazi-related material. We're still going through that.
QUESTION: You feel still that you met that request, right? You see no indication from these emails that you did not in every way meet that request?
KIRBY: That's correct.
Next. Yeah, in the back there.
QUESTION: I've got two questions.
One, as far as this U.S.-China Strategic Dialogue is concerned, if I may go back, last -- recently you also had a dialogue with the U.S. and Pakistan, and the foreign secretary was here.
My question is that have you discussed as far as the nuclear issues and the $46 billion deal between China and Pakistan, if this not in the interests of U.S. interests or U.S. jobs creation? KIRBY: I'm not aware of that particular issue arising today, Goyle (ph), to be honest with you.
Again, the talks are just beginning. It just started today. And I think at the end, you know, there'll be a press conference and I think we'll be able to have a more fulsome readout of all the items that were discussed.
QUESTION: Second, as far as India-Pakistan is concerned, tensions are on the rise, not going down. My question is here that yesterday at the Atlantic Council Brigadier Aaron Sadler (ph) was speaking, and he said that there is a proxy war going on between the two countries, but especially by Pakistan into India, as far as Kashmir issue is concerned.
But, of course, Pakistan is blaming India the war is against Pakistan and Baluchistan (ph) and all that.
My question, a number of terrorists are still there, wanted by India in the Mumbai attack, and they're openly giving statements, including last week in Musharaff (ph), General Musharaff (ph) also said that with the other terrorist groups that they will use nuclear weapons against India.
My question is, do you feel that Pakistan's nuclear program is safe and out of the terrorist hands?
KIRBY: Let me tackle this a couple of ways. First, you heard Secretary Kerry talk to this -- to this very issue when he -- when we piped him into the briefing room about the -- his concerns about tensions between India and Pakistan right now and our continued belief that both sides need to work these issues out peaceably and on their own.
And I'm not -- certainly not going to talk about intelligence issues here at the -- at the podium, but our expectation continues to be that -- you know, that Pakistan will be a responsible stakeholder on security issues, in particular, you know, the nuclear issue.
QUESTION: If I could do one more quickly, sir, as far as trafficking is concerned and human trafficking and child labor and child trafficking in India and also many countries around the globe, including South Asia and China, Mr. Karasaparti (ph) was speaking last week at the Lincoln Memorial, and he spoke at a number of occasions and events in Washington and met a number of law makers on the Hill.
Question is that as far as child labor, child trafficking, is concerned, if the secretary or the U.S. Department of State has any question, are talking to those governments that using little children to make the big things selling around the globe?
KIRBY: Well, we -- I think we talked about this last week, and I don't think my answer today is going to be any different. Obviously, this is a -- this is a concern that we have around the world, the issue of child labor and certainly human trafficking.
And it's something that we are constantly talking to our friends and partners about. It's a -- it's a significant concern.
Look, we're seeing, you know -- you know, migration issues in the Mediterranean, coming from North Africa up to Southern Europe. I mean, it's out in the Asia Pacific.
I mean, these are -- these are not insignificant problems. Our positions or our stance on them have not changed. And we're gonna continue to work this just as hard as we can.
But I don't have anything specifically on that.
Let's go to something else.
QUESTION: North Korea.
KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is there a U.S. reaction the North Korean governments decision to sentence two South Korean men, who were allegedly Christian missionaries, to a life time sentence of hard labor?
KIRBY: Well I haven't seen that report. So before I make a -- make a statement about it let me go and take a look -- take a look at that before we -- we issue a statement about that.
QUESTION: (inaudible) In South Korea yesterday. And further improvement of North Korean (inaudible). And the government of North Korea politically provocated against the South Korean (inaudible).
KIRBY: We have seen the threatening comments made by North Korean officials regarding this -- this field office that is being set up. And obviously we -- certainly -- deep concerns about those comments. And -- just reiterate that they do nothing to help the security and stability on the Korean peninsula.
So, I mean, seen them. Obviously we take -- take deep issue with that reaction to this. This office is all about trying to help -- potentially down the road help hold those accountable -- those responsible for human rights violations in the north. That is a good thing. Again we welcome the stand-up of this office and -- and it is in nobodies interest to -- to do anything to interfere with that work. Certainly not the interest of the North Korean people.
QUESTION: The war against ISIS?
KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: OK. Today the desert (ph) -- or the supreme leader in Tehran (ph) (inaudible) after meeting with the Syrian interior minister said that there is going to be a meeting in Baghdad between Iraq, Iran and Syria to consolidate efforts against ISIS.
Would you object to including the Syrian government in this process?
KIRBY: I think I would put this in the same area that we talked about when we talked about Prime Minister Abadi traveling to Tehran. It is understandable. And it's not the first time, by the way, that -- that Iraqi leaders have met, excuse me, with Assad regime leaders. But it -- we understand this is a sovereign country. We have to keep reminding ourselves, I find, to remind everybody that Iraq is sovereign. Prime Minister Abadi is the prime minister of a sovereign nation, and we should expect that he's going to have discussions and meetings and outreach with neighbors in the Middle East, particularly immediate neighbors.
And so that's the rubric under which we understand this meeting is occurring.
QUESTION: So you don't object let's say to cooperation between Syria, Iraq, and Tehran in fighting the same enemy that you are fighting?
KIRBY: We have -- our position hasn't changed. Assad regime has lost legitimacy, has to go. And I think it's important to remember in the context of this or any other meeting that it's largely because of Assad that ISIL has been able to flourish and grow and operate and sustain itself inside Syria.
And so I think it's important to remember that nothing's changed about -- nothing's changed about our view on that.
But we also understand that Prime Minister Abadi has obligations, security obligations, that he himself and the Iraqi people hold to be important, and if he's having meetings with neighboring nations, the leaders of neighboring nations in concert with that, well that's -- that's certainly his prerogative.
QUESTION: If you're saying that Assad is the source of all this terrorism, then I mean, or the main cause or you know, continues to be a source of -- of this terrorism, I mean, how are you really going to go after ISIS without a strategy to get rid of Assad?
KIRBY: Well, I didn't say that Assad is the main reason why ISIL exists.
QUESTION: Basically put it at his feet that you know, ISIS was able to flourish. And you just said...
KIRBY: I did, yes.
QUESTION: ... that ISIS was able to flourish...
KIRBY: Absolutely, it's been able to. One of the reasons it has been able to flourish inside Syria is that the Assad regime has lost all legitimacy. They are -- they are not -- they've large -- large swathes of ungoverned space inside Syria that ISIL has been able to take advantage of and to exploit.
The -- the mission against ISIL, the coalition mission, is against ISIL. Separate and distinct from that, nothing has changed about our long-standing belief that the Assad regime's lost legitimacy and needs to go. We've also said repeatedly and consistently that there's not going to be a military solution to that issue. That what needs to happen is a negotiated political settlement.
QUESTION: Is there any movement on that?
KIRBY: It's -- it's you know, we've talked about this the other day, Elyce. We continue to work at this. This is a tough problem in a very complicated area. Everybody understands that. But that's what really needs to happen here. It's not going to be sold militarily.
QUESTION: Yeah, I just -- follow up on a research point. I mean, you are -- the argument of this administration all along has been that Assad is a magnet for terrorists. And so I don't understand the logic behind this. If he's the magnet for terrorists, should we allow the terrorists to (inaudible) is that the logic behind saying that?
Because you know sir, if he must go, so it's whatever, you know, this magnet analogy?
KIRBY: Are you saying that what we're saying by the fact that...
QUESTION: I'm saying that by virtue of being there, he attracts terrorists. So they go on because he's there. If he was no longer there, they will not go in. Is that the logic?
KIRBY: I don't -- no, I wouldn't subscribe to that. What I'm saying is that nobody's turning a blind eye to ISIL's use of Syrian territory to further its own ambitions. Not at all.
And nobody's turning a blind eye to the atrocities that the Assad regime continues to -- to propagate against its own people.
But the answer to ISIL is we believe continues to be a coalition effort supported by the U.S. military, but also the militaries of other nations, and four other lines of effort, which include trying to help get a moderate opposition trained and equipped to go in the field against ISIL on the ground in Syria.
The solution against -- the solution against -- please let me finish, the solution against Assad, we continue to believe, is not going to be done militarily or through that same kind of effort, but rather one over -- through a political settlement.
It's tough. Nobody said that this is going to be solved overnight. It's going to -- it's going to take some time.
But that's -- that's the policy that we continue to espouse and the policy we continue to try to implement.
Yep?
QUESTION: But when you have the political dialog with the Assad regime without a change the military balance on the ground? KIRBY: Again, the change in regime, we want to see done through other than military means. We don't believe there's a military solution to the Assad regime. And we -- I -- we said this repeatedly, the issue militarily in Syria, at least for the United States, and I'm not going to speak for the Defense Department, but it is through -- is about going after ISIL.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, I think one of the first things he said when he came into office was that you needed to change Assad's calculus in order for him to want to come to the table.
Is that still that position? Because the military efforts really on the ground right now have nothing to do with changing this calculus. Or do you see, you know, losses that he's having on the ground which incidentally have nothing to do with you as possibly his calculus changing?
KIRBY: I think we still -- obviously, yes, we believe that his calculas has to change. There is no question about that. And his regime is coming under more and more attack. And we have seen signs of the weakening of his grip. But again the answer here is a political one not a military one.
QUESTION: You said that there is no military solutions and at the same time there is no political solution on the horizon. In the end what is the solution to this situation?
KIRBY: Look, you want me to solve the whole Syria crisis right up here and I am not going to do that.
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: What I am trying to tell you is -- what I am trying to tell you is there is a lot of energy applied to this. Senator Kerry talks to particularly Foreign Minister Ryan Roth (ph) about this all the time. I think everybody understands there needs to be a political settlement to this. That is not going to be achieved -- rarely every is in human history, easily or quickly.
But it is not something that -- to convey that we have taken our eye off of it, or that we are not focused on it would be-- would be false. it is just going to take soem time and I am not going to be able to solve it for you here in the 45 minutes -- 25 minutes that I have left.
Yes?
QUESTION: Could I just -- this issue. Last week speech by (inaudible) siad that Turkeys intelligence suggest that ISIS and Syrian regime represented a (inaudible) and coordinating operations against FSA.
Do you think there is any cooperation between ISIS and the Asad regime?
KIRBY: I have seen no evidence of cooperation between ISIL and the Asad Regime. I have seen no indication of that.
Yes?
QUESTION: To Israel? Yesterday you said that you were interested in receipt of the UN Gaza report, have you gotten a change to take a look at it?
KIRBY: I think we talked about this yesterday as well. Were you here yesterday?
QUESTION: I was not.
KIRBY: Yes, see.
QUESTION: But I read the -- I read the transcript, and you said that...
KIRBY: So, what...
QUESTION: ... you hadn't.
KIRBY: Well, right. We just got it yesterday. Certainly we're reading it. But as I also said yesterday, we challenge the very mechanism which created it. And so, we're not going to have a readout of this; we're not going to have rebuttal to it. We're certainly gonna read it, as we read all U.N. reports, but we challenge the very foundation upon which this report was written, and we don't believe that there's a call or a need for any further Security Council work on this.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: In that case, I take it that you reject using this report in an referral to the International Criminal Court.
KIRBY: We do not support any further U.N., you know, work on this report.
QUESTION: You just welcomed a similar effort for Korea. You just welcomed it, a U.N. human rights inquiry effort for Korea. Why would you (inaudible) reject...
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: Because we -- because we -- because we've long said, and you know that we reject the basis under which this particular commission of inquiry was established because of the very clear bias against Israel in it.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: You approve of Israel investigating itself?
Do you approve that Israel should conduct it's own inquiry...
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: It's not our place to -- it's not our place to approve or disapprove.
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: We -- the United States investigates itself all the time, on all kinds of things.
QUESTION: Do you trust Israel's mechanism to investigate itself?
KIRBY: I'm not gonna make a comment about a specific investigation.
QUESTION: You said that this report has an obvious bias and the committee that set it up has an obvious bias against Israel. But the findings cited both -- potential war crimes by both Israel and Hamas. So are you saying that you just reject the ones against Israel and not -- and kind of approve of the ones against Hamas?
KIRBY: I'm saying that we object to the report...
QUESTION: The entire report?
KIRBY: ... to the -- to the foundation upon which the commission was established and therefore the product that resulted from that work.
QUESTION: OK.
KIRBY: Because we object to the foundation itself, we're not going to take it apart and do a point-by-point rebuttal or support for the report.
QUESTION: So you reject the report out of hand, including the criticisms against the -- against Hamas...
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: We're not gonna do...
QUESTION: ... which you have basically said that...
KIRBY: We're not gonna do an analysis of the report and we don't believe that any further action in the U.N. is required on it.
QUESTION: The conclusion was rather squirmy of this report in that it didn't say with certitude that war crimes were committed by either side.
Do you disagree with the notion that Israel may have committed war crimes?
KIRBY: We've -- and I said this yesterday -- we certainly made known at the time our concerns about the use of force in that particular conflict and urged restraint on both sides.
And that's where I'd leave it.
QUESTION: You also welcomed Israeli investigations into their own conduct after the conflict. If you didn't think that there was anything that at least warranted looking into, why would you have supported that investigation?
KIRBY: We said that we had concerns about the use of force on both sides. And for one party to say, we're gonna go take a look at that I think I don't know why we wouldn't welcome that.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, have all of your concerns then now been alleviated or dismissed?
KIRBY: I'm not -- I don't have a particular comment on that right now, Brad. Again, I would just say, we made -- we made known our position at the time.
QUESTION: Here's my problem, is that you had these concerns at the time. The Israelis have looked into it and they have found nothing that they did wrong. You haven't said whether you agree with that or disagree with that.
Now, you have a U.N. report that you don't like the foundation, but it essentially says what you were thinking several months ago, that Israel may have done something wrong, it may not have done something wrong, yet you are opposed to that.
I don't know what's happened in between that leads you now to say -- well you -- I don't even -- your not even saying your concerns have been alleviated, so where are you? You just forgot about them or what?
KIRBY: Well, your sarcastic tone not withstanding --
QUESTION: That was not sarcastic.
KIRBY: Yes, it was. We have made very clear what our issues were at the time about the use of force. And we made very clear to the Israeli government, our concerns about what was happening in that conflict. We -- we have an ongoing dialogue with the government of Israel on all these sorts of matters. That dialogue continued and continues.
I am not going to declare here from the podium final resolution one way or the other. What I will tell you is again we -- we -- we find and believe that bias against Israel that established the mechanism for the commission of inquiry into this particular conflict. And because of that we don't believe that the resulting report requires any further action, should not go any further in the security counsel.
QUESTION: Sir, is it justified to say at the time, yes you did make your views known. But you also called for Israel to investigate the incidents and --
KIRBY: I -- I -- I think I have dealt with this as best I can. I don't have a comment on the Israeli investigation.
Yes?
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. There are -- challenges by the Israeli that at least 15 targets resulting in the death on 416 persons, mainly civilians, had no military value whatsoever.
Would that constitute a war crime in your opinion?
KIRBY: I have no comment on that.
QUESTION: (inaudible) will be the first prime minister to reject Israel in 60 years of history, And yesterday on Capital Hill under the leadership of Congressman Ami Bera and Congressman Crowley, they passed a resolution, U.S., India, Israel cooperation. Any comments on that and what this will do?
KIRBY: I don't -- I haven't seen those reports. I'm afraid I don't have anything for you.
QUESTION: Can we change regions, Venezuela? The opposition leader has ended a hunger strike.
KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any comment on this? Do you still call for his release?
KIRBY: I would say that we do note that Mr. Lopez ended his hunger strike today, on its 30th day. We welcome this decision, which Mr. Lopez made following the announcement by Venezuelan electoral authorities setting a December 6th date for the date of legislative elections.
Mr. Lopez is a man of physical and moral courage who has chosen a path of civil nonviolent resistance to pursue his political objectives. He's an important political leader who can play a significant role in the Democratic dialogue necessary to overcome the political disputes that beset Venezuela.
We're glad that he has ended his strike, his hunger strike, and urge Venezuelan authorities to permit him access to doctors of his choosing as he recovers from this ordeal.
QUESTION: A question on Yemen.
Today a Web site in Yemen claimed that Iran smuggled $9 billion of counterfeit dollars into the Houthi to give them (inaudible). Do you have any comment on that?
KIRBY: I haven't seen that exact report, Said, but obviously we've long made known our concerns about Iranian support to the Houthis.
And, once again, we'd continue to stress our strong support for the U.N.-led process that is trying to get to a sense of political resolution there. That is the right answer for the Yemeni people.
QUESTION: That would be a breach of international laws and norms, to smuggle in counterfeit money, wouldn't it? A major thing?
KIRBY: It would. There are Security Council resolutions that prevent support of that kind.
But, again, I haven't seen the report, so I can't comment to the veracity of it.
You guys have the advantage of your iPhones up here, and I don't.
Yes?
QUESTION: I want to ask a question about the human rights issues again.
Secretary Kerry will release annual human rights report on Thursday, next Thursday. Do you know how many countries involved, the annual report on H.R. practices?
KIRBY: You're right, we are going to release the human rights report on Thursday. Secretary Kerry will participate in that. I'm not gonna get ahead of the announcement.
I've got time for just a couple more.
QUESTION: Anything on Ebola (inaudible)? There are eight new cases, seven of them in the past week.
KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Any...
KIRBY: I've not seen those reports.
QUESTION: Do you know whether the U.S. government is making any plans to renew its efforts to help countries in West Africa, seeing as how this may be becoming a problem again?
KIRBY: I'm not aware of any new plans. We've stayed engaged with governments down there. Although there's not the significant military presence that was there before, we certainly have stayed engaged on this issue.
I'm not aware of anything new to announce or new plans in that regard.
Last one?
QUESTION: Will you take the question?
KIRBY: I can take the question, sure, but I'm just not aware of anything.
Yes?
QUESTION: A very quick one on Cuba. Any update on the reopening of the embassies?
KIRBY: Nope. Teams continue to talk about this. And, again, I think things are moving in a very positive direction, but I don't have any update on the schedule.
Thanks, everybody.
END