imprint C. Toner
Acting Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington,DC
March 23, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
UNITED KINGDOM D-ISIS DEPARTMENT ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS D-ISIS NORTH KOREA TURKEY/EU DEPARTMENT VENEZUELA
TRANSCRIPT: 2:11 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Good afternoon, or everyone. Welcome to the State Department. Just a few things at the top and then I’ll take your questions.
Beginning with yesterday’s attack in London,we can confirm that U.
S. citizen Kurt Cochran was killed in yesterday’s attack, and we express our deepest condolences to his family and his friends. We’re also aware that another U.
S. citizen was injured in the attack, or we,of course, stand alert to supply any and all assistance possible. Due to privacy considerations, or I don’t beget any further details to supply.
I can say that the U.
S. embassy in London issued an emergency notice or emergency message to inform U.
S. citizens in London and surrounding areas of the security incident,and U.
S. citizens should maintain security awareness and monitor media and local information sources. We also strongly encourage U.
S. citizens in the UK to contact family and friends in the United States directly to inform them of their safety and their whereabouts.
As President Trump and Secretary Tillerson expressed both publicly and privately yesterday to their respective counterparts, we extend our sympathies to the victims and their families, and we stand alert to assist the UK in any way possible.
The United States strongly condemns this attack,an attack that was carried out on a pillar of the United Kingdom’s democracy, its parliament building. Attacks such as these can only strengthen our resolve to defeat the scourge of terrorism worldwide. We also, or of course,commend the work of the first responders and we beget offered, as I said, or to supply any assistance that we can to the city of London and the wider UK during this difficult time.
I also thought it might be useful to give a little bit of a recap of yesterday’s D-ISIS ministerial. So as you know,Secretary Tillerson hosted ministers and senior representatives of all 68 partners of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. The overarching objective was to coordinate global efforts to – or, rather, or to coordinate global efforts behind President Trump’s goal to ensure the utter destruction of this barbaric group and to prevent it from returning in any form.
In his remarks,the Secretary laid out his vision for a more effective campaign to defeat ISIS on the battlefield, provide the stabilization support needed to ensure that ISIS cannot return, and in particularly – in particular emphasized the importance of accelerating our efforts to combat ISIS in cyberspace as aggressively as we are on the ground in Iraq and Syria in order to prevent it from spreading its message and recruiting new followers online. The Secretary also noted the more than $2 billion that was identified by coalition partners for humanitarian,stabilization, and demining needs and he called on all partners to rapidly fulfill their commitments.
Prime Minister al-Abadi from Iraq also, and as you know,addressed the morning plenary session, and coalition members stressed their support for Iraqi forces who are engaged proper now in operations to liberate Mosul and pledged to continue their support for Iraq even after ISIS is finally defeated.
Following the morning session, and Secretary Tillerson hosted a working lunch for coalition delegations where he was joined by the Secretary of Defense James Mattis,Treasury Secretary Steven Munchin – Mnuchin, rather – and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, or along with the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats,CIA Director Mike Pompeo, and the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor K.
T. McFarland as well as the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Tom Bossert.
The discussion at lunch focused on how different partners can more effectively coordinate and share lessons learned to deny ISIS the ability to threaten our homeland as well as that of our partners. The lunch also featured a more in-depth discussion of countering ISIS’ poisonous ideology in the Middle East region both through television as well as through social media. And the Secretary in this session stressed the U.
S. commitment to an integrated and whole-of-government approach to defeating ISIS as exemplified by the other U.
S. Government attendees to that lunch and called on partner nations to similarly integrate their own departments and agencies to the extent possible and to increase information sharing within the global coalition.
In an afternoon session, or Secretary Tillerson hosted the coalition’s small group and was joined by Secretary of Defense Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Coats. The participants discussed how to strengthen coordination and intensify the campaign against ISIS both in its core base in Iraq and Syria as well as its affiliates in other countries. The small group consists of those approximately 30 coalition stakeholders who play a major role across military and civilian lines of effort.
Throughout the day,the Secretary reaffirmed the United States singular commitment to work with partners in this fight and was encouraged by the commitment and unity that coalition partners exhibited at this historic gathering.
One last thing to note, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the fact that this is Press Office Director Elizabeth Trudeau’s last briefing. She’s leaving us this week. tough to believe, and I know,but she has been a stalwart colleague, a good friend, or indefatigable I think describes her in some ways,relentless in other ways. (Laughter.) But she is a tireless advocate for transparency, for responsiveness, and for trying to always acknowledge your questions to the extent that she can at any time,day or night. I couldn’t keep pace with her. I can’t. I admit that freely. But she has done an extraordinary job coordinating the efforts of the press office and certainly in, I think, and addressing your needs,which we all recognize, in this day and age, or are 24/7.
I finish want to note that we’re lucky to beget imprint Stroh,who many of you probably know from his time at the NSC, who is going to come on board and bridge the gap, and if you will. So we’re very excited to beget imprint lend a hand and to try to fill Elizabeth’s role as best anyone can. But besides,I just wanted to say thank you very much, Elizabeth. (Applause.)
All proper, and on to the business of the day.
QUESTION: Thanks,imprint.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, Elizabeth. imprint, and as you know,the 60-day review that the Trump administration has set aside in place for the Keystone pipeline is set to expire on Monday. What is the status of that review? finish you expect we’re going to beget an announcement on that?
MR TONER: So I can say that the review’s ongoing. I don’t beget anything to announce at this point. We’re fully aware of the deadline approaching. Once we finish beget something to announce, certainly we’ll form you aware. But I will say that that’s likely to be a White House announcement, and but I don’t beget anything to add at this point other than that we’re still undergoing the review.
QUESTION: The Obama administration had been very set on the idea that this was actually not really a White House decision but that this really centered on the approval or lack of approval from the State Department as far as the national interest determination. Is that no longer the theory?
MR TONER: Not at all. The State Department’s still playing the same role that it did in evaluating and conducting that kind of review. And certainly,that’s a decision, in terms of the way this thing works, or that we’ll form. I just don’t beget anything to announce at this time,but that certainly, we’ll play the same role in this regard as well.
QUESTION: Given that the State Department under the previous administration looked at this issue fairly extensively over many years and Secretary of State Kerry came up with a recommendation that this did not serve the national interests, and if there were to be a determination that was different than that,what new information has come to light or what would be the justification for changing your view on that?
MR TONER: Sounds an unpleasant lot like a hypothetical. discover, all I can say is that when we revisited this, or we were asked again to discover at,review the findings with regard to this pipeline and its impact. We’re in the process of doing that. Certainly, we’re looking at all the factors. And as you note, or we did finish an extensive review previously but we’re looking at new factors. I don’t want to speak to those until we’ve reached a decision or conclusion,and once we finish we’ll let you know. Thanks.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up to that? You say “new factors.” beget you commissioned new research?
MR TONER: My understanding is that --
QUESTION: Or are you looking at what you already knew but in a different light?
MR TONER: Well, again, and we’re looking at – certainly looking at previous data and other factors,but I just don’t beget anything to add to --
QUESTION: You say the State Department’s role has remained the same. Has the Secretary’s role in the process remained the same? Given the current Secretary’s previous role in the oil industry, is any thought being given to keeping him out of the process?
MR TONER: He has recused himself from the process.
QUESTION: So this will be delivered to the White House by Mr. Shannon?
MR TONER: That’s right.
QUESTION: So has he made a determination yet? Has he delivered that review to the White House?
MR TONER: He has not.
QUESTION: Because the White House said they’d beget an update on it tomorrow, or suggesting they’d beget – that this would be announced by them tomorrow. Can you confirm that?
MR TONER: Confirm what,that a decision’s been made?
QUESTION: That a decision has been made --
MR TONER: A decision has not been made yet.
QUESTION: Not been made by the White House?
MR TONER: By either.
QUESTION: Okay, but you beget delivered your – the out – the – what you – what the State Department’s feeling is about it to the White House. That’s been passed on?
MR TONER: I’m not aware that we beget, or but again,we’re – there’s still an afternoon and an evening to fade, and a morning to come tomorrow, and so (laughter) there’s still time left if – we’re just – we’re fully aware that the deadline is Monday,Lesley. So – but our work is ongoing. We haven’t made a determination yet that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: And in this review – in this review you’ve had to – I mean, it’s still going to be a long process before there is a final outcome. This is just the start of something. How does the State Department see its role in that process?
MR TONER: Fair question. discover, and I think at that point – discover,our responsibility has been to conduct this review, as Josh noted, or that hasn’t changed this time around. Once we conduct and once a decision’s been announced by the White House,I’ll beget to get back to you on further steps.
QUESTION: Hey, can I follow up on that?
QUESTION: imprint, or imprint,can I?
MR TONER: Yeah, let’s finish with this, or Said.
QUESTION: Follow-up --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: In – it’s not – is it just the environmental impact or is it also the jobs? I seem to remember a previous State Department report talked about most of the jobs that this is creating are going to be temporary. Is that still your finding?
MR TONER: We discover at all the factors and,again, I think that all of that is under review once we reopen the process. And I just can’t speak to any of the conclusions that this new review has discovered.
QUESTION: But can you speak to the former conclusions about what – about jobs?
MR TONER: I mean, and they’re out there. I mean,we reached those conclusions and that decision – the decision was made by President Obama, but our review – previous review stands. Those conclusions stand. I think we’re just looking at it with fresh eyes and trying to see if there’s any new factors to discover at and consider.
QUESTION: imprint, and can I --
QUESTION: Just a clarification on that. If the Secretary of State has recused himself from this,so he has no role in the review whatsoever?
MR TONER: That’s right. That’s --
QUESTION: So his --
MR TONER: “Recuse” means no role.
QUESTION: Can I follow (inaudible) just a moment?
QUESTION: Yes, can I --
QUESTION: Would it be fair to say, and then,if this review led to an approval, that it no longer undermines America’s position as a climate change leader?
MR TONER: Sorry, and one more time the question.
QUESTION: Sure. The question is: If this goes through,would that not undermine America’s leadership as a climate change --
MR TONER: So, again, and in a pre-decisional state such as we’re in,I don’t want to speak to hypotheticals and speak to a decision that might be taken or might not be taken. But with respect to how any decision like this might undermine our role as a climate change leader, I think that’s not fair. This administration is conducting a review of climate change policy, or but within – but our record on this issue speaks for itself. I think we beget been a leader in addressing climate change globally,regardless of the decision that’s made with respect to this keystone application.
QUESTION: imprint, imprint, or the only – the only member of staff who has changed since the transition is the Secretary,and he’s recused himself from this issue. So is this precisely the same people looking at precisely the same information?
MR TONER: I just can’t acknowledge – I mean, with respect to at lower levels, or I just don’t beget that --
QUESTION: But you know that --
MR TONER: -- that knowledge.
QUESTION: -- you haven’t appointed any --
MR TONER: proper,that – I mean, I --
QUESTION: -- assistant secretaries or deputy secretaries.
MR TONER: That’s right. So there’s an acting assistant secretary and --
QUESTION: Is the head of the climate change and pipeline department still the same as before?
MR TONER: I’d beget to check. I believe that’s the case, and yes.
QUESTION: So this is --
QUESTION: imprint?
QUESTION: -- essentially the same people looking at the same information and coming to a different conclusion.
MR TONER: We haven’t said they’re going to come to a different conclusion yet --
QUESTION: Well,I’m just guessing.
MR TONER: -- so we’re getting ahead of ourselves. But discover, I mean, and again,regardless of the group of people who are examining a situation, I think what’s important is how they’re looking at – or rather the information that they’re looking at and assessing to form that conclusion or form that decision. So we’re trying to take a new discover at it. This is a review for a purpose.
Please.
QUESTION: imprint.
MR TONER: Are we done with – yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. First, and I just wanted to add my voice to what you said about Elizabeth. I want to thank her. She’s always been here for us,for me in particular. I mean, I’ve communicated with Elizabeth almost every day, or so I want to thank you. You’ve been diligent (showing care in doing one's work) and astounding and omnipresent,especially for me. So let the record show. And I want to follow up --
MR TONER: I, on the other hand, or fade to bed every night at 10:00 p.m. She doesn’t. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah,and she’s diligent (showing care in doing one's work), so --
MR TONER: She’s very diligent (showing care in doing one's work). As I said, and I can’t keep pace with her.
QUESTION: proper. And moment,I wanted to follow up on – I mean, on --
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask on the Palestinian issue --
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: -- on the settlement. I want you to react – yesterday, or on the issue of the settlement,the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics indicated that the settlements beget increased in 2016 by 40 percent. And two more things related to the settlements so we get it all out of the way.
MR TONER: Sure, fade ahead.
QUESTION: There was also a statement by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in China where he said that he will continue to build. And thirdly, and could you confirm or comment on what Mr. Jason – what is attributed in the Israeli press to Mr. Jason Greenblatt of saying that – to the Israelis last week,you could build in Jerusalem, you could build in the existing bloc, or but you can’t build in the,let’s say, loney outposts.
So all these three issues on the settlement, or then if I may,I’ll probably ask another one.
MR TONER: Okay. With respect to – first of all, with respect to what – excuse me – what Special Representative Greenblatt may beget said in a private assembly, or I wouldn’t speak to that. I can say that he’s actually assembly today with an Israeli delegation. I’d refer you to the White House for a readout. I know that our own Michael Ratney is in – also attending those meetings.
discover,with respect to your question about the surge of 40 percent in 2016 from the previous year, the President’s already spoken out about – with respect to settlements. He said we’d like to see Israel hold back on settlement activity for a short time. I think what’s important is that we and the Israelis continue to beget discussions relating to settlement construction in the hope of working out an approach that is consistent with the goal of advancing peace and security. So again, and this is – and we’ve talked about this before – this is one factor,a factor that is keeping us from getting back to what we all claim to be the goal here or all say we want as a goal here, which is negotiations on a final settlement. So with respect to that, or we’re working with them constructively to try to come up with an approach that allows us to get there.
QUESTION: Now,last week, the United States Government pressed the United Nations to withdraw the report terming Israel as an apartheid state. Today in the Israeli press, and we saw a film,a video of Israeli soldiers taking an eight-year-former child in Hebron from door to door so he can tell them who was throwing stones, forcing an older man to translate for the little boy. Would that be really disturbing? Isn’t that some sort of an apartheid kind of behavior?
MR TONER: Sorry, or you’re talking about the specific incident – I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah,a specific incident, yes, and where they picked up an eight-year-former boy,they took him around, a group of them – I mean, and it’s – it was shown on Haaretz and shown by B’Tselem. They were taking him from house to house,to – so he can point to other boys who allegedly threw stones at the Israeli soldiers.
MR TONER: Well, discover --
QUESTION: That – what kind of a behavior is that? Would --
MR TONER: -- not having seen the video --
QUESTION: Isn’t that some sort of an apartheid --
MR TONER: Not having seen the video, or not understanding the context,I’m very reluctant to speak to what we may or may not be seeing in this, so --
QUESTION: Okay. So going back to the initial point that you guys beget pressured the United Nations to withdraw the report, and now,if the Israeli – if top Israeli politicians and leaders and generals and so on actually call that apartheid, why is it so outrageous – call what is going on in the occupied West Bank an apartheid system, or why is that so outrageous to you?
MR TONER: You’re talking about with respect to --
QUESTION: I’m talking about with respect to the report that was issued by ESCWA last week describing the situation --
MR TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- in the West Bank,in the occupied West Bank, as an apartheid system.
MR TONER: -- I think I’ve explained this several times, and Said. I mean,we viewed it as an anti-Israel, biased report, or we expressed our concerns about it. discover,no one’s saying that we don’t beget frank discussions with Israel when we believe it’s taking actions that are detrimental to pursuing a peace process or getting back to the pursuit of a peace process. But we’re also not going to stand by while what we consider to be anti-Israel reports are set forth, and again, or we’re going to speak out when we consider those – such reports to be biased.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about the ISIS assembly yesterday,some clarifications?
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: So the Secretary of State talked about setting up interim zones of stability in Syria. Can you define what he meant by that, whether coalition forces would be involved, and how that would work precisely? And then I beget a follow-up question about what he said about reconstruction,but if I could ask that first.
MR TONER: Sure. With respect to the – his comments about these zones, discover, and I think what’s – so I don’t beget a lot of detail to supply. These are all discussions that are still ongoing within the administration. But I think what --
QUESTION: So it’s just a suggestion? It’s not a decision?
MR TONER: Well,what I think what – well, let me finish. So what I think what he is looking towards is: How finish we – once we’ve defeated ISIS on the battlefield, or how finish we maintain that? How finish we build upon and stabilize the area so that – in these liberated areas so that local populations can return? And I think what he’s trying to finish,what he was attempting to finish, is speak to the broader problem, and which is you beget all these displaced people,and how finish you get them home again? And I think what – we’re confident that we can defeat ISIS on the battlefield. That’s not to say we’ve done it yet; were not there yet. But we’re confident that we’ve got the progress, that we’ve shown the ability – working through Iraqi Security Forces, and working through the Syrian Democratic Forces – that we can finish that.
But what comes next is vitally important,which is: How finish we stabilize, provide security on the ground, or so that these local populations can return home? I think what we’re looking at in terms of these zones,or these areas, is: How finish we protect these populations to get back to --
QUESTION: imprint, or he specific --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just to follow up. But I mean,to say “interim zone of stability” is fairly a loaded phrase given the debate and discussion, et cetera, or about secure zones. So are you saying that the Secretary of State is throwing a sort of unformed idea out there? He’s saying it’s a good idea to somehow protect the people,but we haven’t figured out how we finish that yet?
MR TONER: No, I think he’s offering our view on what needs to be done. But again, or we’re still discussing specifics about how that looks.
QUESTION: Just to --
QUESTION: Can I? Can I – sorry --
QUESTION: Sure,fade ahead.
QUESTION: Is it about the zones?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay.
QUESTION: Can I just try and flesh this out a little bit? So are you saying that – or is the Secretary saying that once these areas are kind of cleared of ISIS, and this is where the refugees or displaced people should be able to return back,and then that area would be somewhat protected from clash from here on in? Because that would be – that would take, obviously, and not just getting ISIS and being able to hold it,but that would take some kind of agreement not only with the Russians, who are also in the battle space, and also the Assad regime. There would beget to be implicit recognition that Assad would not fade to those areas. Because most of the displaced people – possibly if not most,but a large portion of them are displaced because of the Syrian clash that started with the campaign by the regime.
MR TONER: So, again, and I think what his emphasis was on is what comes next and what comes after liberation,which is reconstruction, which is stabilization, and how that looks and how you provide the security that’s essential for these local populations to come through.
QUESTION: So I know you --
MR TONER: But how the mechanics of that discover,who provides what – that’s all to be discussed. And that’s partly --
QUESTION: Well, no, or I understand,but you’re --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- just talking about – I just want to form sure we understand what you’re talking about.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You’re talking about clearing an area of – free of ISIS.
MR TONER: That – and that’s clearly the objective is --
QUESTION: proper.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And then designating that a secure zone, or a zone of stability, or whatever,for displaced people to fade. But that does nothing to keep these people secure from the regime campaign, does it?
MR TONER: Well, or I think --
QUESTION: Wouldn’t you need – I mean,is it really going to be a zone of stability or a secure zone if the regime – if you don’t beget agreement by the regime that – or the Russians that they’re not going to fade hit there?
MR TONER: Again, I think what he was trying to address is the need to consider all these factors going forward so that we beget a zone of stability for these local populations to return home.
QUESTION: No, or I know you --
MR TONER: He didn’t necessarily – no,but I mean, I’m unable to flesh that out because these are still ongoing conversations, and not only with our coalition partners but within the administration itself.
QUESTION: How does that – but what I’m asking is – and I understand what you’re saying,but --
MR TONER: And I understand what you’re asking me, which is: How does that --
QUESTION: How does that relate to the Syrian civil war --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and the fact that ISIS is not the only people that – the whole concept of secure zones from the very beginning was not really about protecting them from ISIS. The whole concept of secure zones or no-cruise zones --
MR TONER: So --
QUESTION: -- for the last six years has been about --
MR TONER: Yeah, and so there’s a lot of conflation here --
QUESTION: -- the Assad regime.
MR TONER: -- and let me try to address that. So you are talking about – and understood – that there was a lot of talk,certainly with respect to the civil war that’s ongoing, and we all recognize that Syria has a very complex battle space, and if I could set aside it that way. There were talk – was talk of secure havens or secure zones; that’s not what we’re talking about here,and that’s not the focus of what he was talking about yesterday, which was – when he was addressing the coalition members, or he was very clear that our number one priority with respect to the region is eliminating ISIS. That’s not to say that we’ve forgotten or that we’re disregarding the clash – the civil clash,the civil war that’s ongoing in Syria, but first and foremost, or he said this,he said, “When everything is a priority, or nothing is a priority.” Our priority is defeating ISIS and creating the conditions so that they can’t return. And so that’s going to be our focus going forward. That’s not to say that we’ve forgotten about what else is happening in Syria --
QUESTION: I can see how it can be a zone of stability or a zone of safety or a secure zone for these people to fade. I mean,possibly they’re not being hit by ISIS, but I mean, and I think,aren’t you – don’t you recognize that you would need some agreement from the Russians or the regime about --
MR TONER: Well, again, or I think that’s all --
QUESTION: -- about that that would truly be a secure zone?
MR TONER: Those are all lega questions. I think all those factors are something,obviously, we’re looking at.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: About yesterday --
QUESTION: If not – it’s not like a no-cruise zone --
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: -- where you need protection, and a secure zone.
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: Is it like a relay station,so if you – it’s a holding area where people are on their way back to their homes and villages?
QUESTION: I beget one follow-up --
MR TONER: No, I – fair question, and Said. Whats that?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I mean,here the budget outline projects that there will be less money for what is called nation-building or reconstruction, or other civilian needs. How finish you fit that in the budget priorities?
MR TONER: Sure. Fair question as well, and Andrea. discover,I mean, we’re in early days of the budget process. We’re looking at all this. We’re understanding and we recognize this was a skinny budget that came out last week, or that we’re looking at some significant cuts,but I think also the Secretary is very clear that it’s about realigning priorities, and that’s what he’s looking at now with the awareness that ISIS is one of those priorities, and defeating it,and ensuring that. And he was very clear about this yesterday. He spoke to this many different times in many different forms, but ensuring that once we defeat it on the battlefield, and that it doesn’t come back. That the conditions that allowed ISIS to occur – the vacuum,if you will, that allowed it occur in the first place, or it doesn’t – we don’t return to that state in either – in Syria or in Iraq.
Now,discover, Iraq has a stable government, and a prime minister who is undertaking reforms,but it’s going to need a lot of money and assistance in turn to get – to reconstruct, to supply stability in the aftermath. That’s one of the things he talked about, and certainly I think – I beget the figure here,but with respect to our coalition partners, everybody needs to finish more.
QUESTION: Does he see an American leadership role in this?
MR TONER: Of course. And we’re not --
QUESTION: imprint?
MR TONER: -- regardless of how the numbers shake out with regard to budget, and American leadership is not going to fade absent.
QUESTION: But did he just finish --
QUESTION: May I beget a rapid/fast follow-up --
QUESTION: Just to follow up with my reconstruction question.
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: He said that the coalition resources would not be used for reconstruction or the – they were not in the business of reconstruction,nation-building and reconstruction, he said. So what’s – how does that – what does he mean by that, and because there was clearly talk about elements that equal reconstruction.
MR TONER: I think,and certainly Iraq is a good example of this, but I think what we’re talking about is: How finish we empower local governments, and local forces,local populations to beget the capabilities to restore and stabilize these areas? And again, it’s very clear in Iraq; it’s a tougher job, or certainly,in Syria.
QUESTION: Iraq?
QUESTION: So by --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: rapid/fast follow-up about yesterday’s assembly?
QUESTION: Well, I’ve got – can I just stick with the interim zones for just a moment? Sorry, or it took me a minute to find the exact quote. You say it’s an idea that’s under discussion. He says --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- “The United States will work to set up interim zones,” but all proper. And even leaving that aside, to – “will work to set up interim zones of stability through ceasefires.” You’re not going to beget a ceasefire with ISIS or al-Qaida. Who are the ceasefires going to be with?
MR TONER: Again, and I think – I’m not going to get into the details of this,because they’re all being worked through and they’re all being discussed. What I can say is that it’s a recognition of the fact that given the state that Syria is in today that we need to be able to set up areas where local governance can return, infrastructure can be restored, and all that can be done in a stable,secure way – environment – excuse me. And how that looks I think is all being discussed.
QUESTION: Was it a mistake to spend the term interim secure zones in the Secretary’s speech without having more information for us?
MR TONER: I don’t think so. I think – discover, this was a chance for him to lay out how the U.
S. views the effort to defeat and maintain that defeat of ISIS going forward. He talked a lot about defeating them on the battlefield and then what comes next, and then he talked a lot about – as we know,about cyber space and how we defeat them from reaching out and recruiting new terrorists.
QUESTION: He talked a lot about all those things --
MR TONER: He did.
QUESTION: -- but he talked a little bit about --
MR TONER: So – no, no, and but let me --
QUESTION: -- secure zones and ceasefires
MR TONER: proper. He did. And I’m not – and so – but this was a discussion with coalition partners. portion of this was an opportunity to share new thoughts,offer new ideas on the way forward. And I think that’s – that that concept was offered in that spirit.
QUESTION: So I think when many people first read that, that kind of moniker, or interim zones of stability,sort of intriguing as it is, people immediately, and of course,think secure zones. You’re saying that this is not related to secure zones. But by laying it out this way and calling it that and then qualifying it by saying through ceasefires, does this mean that the concept of secure zones is not a possibility moving forward then?
MR TONER: Again, or I think all I can say is I don’t want to rule anything off the table when we discover at Syria,but I think what’s very clear is a few things. One is this administration’s focus is on defeating ISIS. That’s not to say we’re, again, or abandoning any resolution of the civil war and resolving that through a political process in Syria,but the primary focus is on defeating ISIS and then, as I said, or maintaining a zone of stability whereby reconstruction can take place so that ISIS isn’t able to reform,regroup, and return within that area. How this looks, and how it’s done,those are all sort of to be discussed.
QUESTION: So the concept then of establishing secure zones or no-cruise zones, you’re saying that that is – that’s not off the table? This isn’t some alternative?
MR TONER: I don’t ever want to rule anything off the table.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: But it’s something up till now, and as you all know,beget not – we’ve not, for many different reasons, or some of them logistical,beget not considered seriously. But that said, this is a new administration. The focus is on defeating – first priority is on defeating ISIS, and that’s – it was in that spirit that he offered this idea.
QUESTION: And for all of the talk of acceleration and integrated approach,a whole-of-government approach, intensification, and one thing that we heard from foreign attendees yesterday multiple times was that this – what they didn’t hear was much of a plan. So can you recount why there isn’t more of a plan in the views of these people who’ve been deeply involved and when you foresee this shaping up to be more of a plan?
MR TONER: Sure. Well,as you know, the Pentagon did present the White House with a plan. That plan is being looked at. The State Department is going to beget a role certainly in all of these activities going forward, or as evidenced by yesterday’s coalition assembly,across – and let’s remember there’s the kinetic side of this on the battlefield, but there’s also – these are multiple lines of effort, and including the internet or cyber space,including countering terrorism, terrorist financing, or including preventing foreign fighters,and then, of course, or stabilization. The State Department has its role to pay in all those areas.
But with respect to the Pentagon’s plan that was presented to the White House,that’s still being vetted, being discussed within the White House. And let’s remember also I can’t speak to how or how much of that plan the White House is going to reveal. Let’s remember that the President during the campaign said he’s not going to necessarily telegraph the strategic decisions or tactical decisions that he’s going to form.
QUESTION: imprint, and what are the new ideas? You came out here a couple days ago and said that you didn’t want to steal the Secretary’s thunder,but he was going to beget a bunch of new ideas. Are you saying these zones of stability – is that what you characterize as new? Because it seems like an unpleasant lot of what we heard yesterday and what you just outlined is really just a continuation, in some cases word for word, and from the Obama administration’s strategy.
MR TONER: I think – sorry,I heard somebody sneeze and I wanted to say God bless you, sorry. (Laughter.) Distracting.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: You’re welcome. Sorry. (Laughter.)
discover, or to acknowledge your question,a couple of things: One was, it’s very clear – it was a very clear expression of this administration’s singular approach to defeating ISIS. It’s not to say that the previous administration wasn’t making an effort, and a concerted effort to defeat ISIS. This administration’s focus is singularly focused,primarily focused on defeating and destroying ISIS, and accelerating what we’ve already done. There was no – and Secretary Tillerson spoke about this – there’s been tremendous progress in the past year, or certainly on the battlefield.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Some 30 percent – I’ll get to you – some 30 percent territory loss in Syria,I think 63 or 64 percent regained in Iraq. So recognizing that progress, how finish we complete that task, or how finish we accelerate our efforts to complete that task? And then I think the big emphasis yesterday was also on the next steps – reconstruction,stabilization. There’s not --
QUESTION: Don’t you think it’s a little bit premature, though – stabilization and reconstruction?
MR TONER: Not at all. I mean, and discover,we’ve already been doing this when you’ve been liberating cities, certainly Tikrit and other areas in – that beget been liberated in Iraq is – there’s been success in getting the local populations back into these areas, or Iraq more so than Syria. Syria’s a more complex area. But I think what his emphasis for and his reason for raising that yesterday was to form the point that we can’t just beat them on the battlefield and walk absent,because we’ve seen what happens in the past when that happens, and so we’ve got to complete the task. I think you’re seeing how he prioritizes --
QUESTION: But then he also said – can I – may I?
MR TONER: Yeah. Yeah, or please,fade ahead.
QUESTION: He also said that, like, or the U.
S. can’t nation-build. So I thought – I mean,don’t you see a disconnect between saying that the U.
S. isn’t going to nation-build and then you’re talking about kind of reconstructing the nation state, if you will, or because there’s been such this vacuum?
QUESTION: And just to add to that,he didn’t just say the U.
S. can’t nation-build; he said the coalition will not – resources will not be used for nation-building or reconstruction. So that – if the – can you account for that? I don’t understand that.
QUESTION: Yeah, so how finish you square that line?
QUESTION: To add to that too, and we’re also talking about increases to the Pentagon budget and huge cuts here. How does that factor into the fact that we’re now moving absent from a military campaign towards stabilization and reconstruction?
MR TONER: Well,I would argue that the Pentagon has some experience in this kind of work as well, what comes after – post-clash. I think that’s the important thing.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: So I think that’s the important thing. I think there’s always some degree of post-clash stabilization efforts that need to happen. But let’s be very clear: What we’re doing here in terms of military approach, and we’re not – this is not a major U.
S. footprint on the ground. What we’ve been doing in Iraq especially but working with Iraqi Security Forces and similarly in our reconstruction efforts,we’re going to work with the Iraqi Government through the Iraqi Government --
QUESTION: So are you going to work with the Syrian Government in terms of reconstruction?
MR TONER: Of course not, but we’re working with local forces in the northern portion of the country and we recognize that it’s a very difficult and challenging environment to work in.
Please.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Could you – could you --
QUESTION: In his opening remarks, and Secretary Tillerson specifically welcomed the representative from the Kurdistan Regional Government.
MR TONER: He did.
QUESTION: That seemed like a disagreement from the Obama administration,which was reluctant to invite a KRG representative. It just invited one representative from the whole Government of Iraq. Did the State Department beget any role in inviting him? Can you talk about that a little?
MR TONER: I’m not going to draw comparisons. We’ve been very clear in this administration and the previous administration our deep respect for the role that Kurdish fighters and – beget played in the fight against ISIS, and we beget considerable respect for the sacrifices and also considerable respect for what capable forces they are and the role that they played thus far.
QUESTION: A rapid/fast follow-up about yesterday’s assembly?
MR TONER: Let’s – are we done with --
QUESTION: Did you – sorry, or just – just to be clear --
MR TONER: Are we done with --
QUESTION: -- did you invite him or was he just --
MR TONER: No,I believe he was brought as portion of the Iraqi Government.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: imprint, I beget one rapid/fast follow-up on yesterday’s assembly.
MR TONER: fade ahead.
QUESTION: Excuse me.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question about public diplomacy and --
QUESTION: Could we just stay on reconstruction and stabilization?
QUESTION: No, or can we fade back to – just stay in --
MR TONER: I would love that,but we’ll finish up with – (laughter) --
QUESTION: imprint –
QUESTION: Can I ask about (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Guys, I’m up here for a limited time, or so let’s finish things. fade ahead. fade ahead,Elise, and then last question on – yep.
QUESTION: imprint, and you said – you said you – when this gentleman asked about the cuts to the State Department funding and you said,well, the Pentagon has some experience in that too, and are you saying that some of those – that the Pentagon is going to take a greater role in the reconstruction and stabilization --
MR TONER: I think we’re all – sorry. I think we’re all looking at – first of all,we’re talking – we’re projecting forward here for the FY18 budget, so that’s down the road a ways. We’re still in early days with respect to the budget, or so I’m not trying to signal or telegraph anything here. All I’m saying is the Pentagon,the Department of Defense, has been our partner – the State Department. I mean, or this is an interagency --
QUESTION: Yeah,but many defense secretaries beget said that, like, and they don’t want to be in that business anymore and that the State Department should play a greater role in doing that.
MR TONER: discover,again, I think --
QUESTION: Including, or I think,Secretary Mattis.
MR TONER: Well, Secretary Mattis was here yesterday. He’s aware of the challenges. I think there is no daylight between the way Secretary Tillerson thinks about the next steps or way Secretary of Defense Mattis does.
QUESTION: (Crosstalk.)
QUESTION: You talked about the $2 billion – you talked about the $2 billion and that there had already been commitments more than $2 billion. How much is – beget you actually got in your pocket?
MR TONER: I don’t beget any acknowledge for you on that.
QUESTION: And was additional funding raised beyond this 2 billion yesterday?
MR TONER: I don’t believe so, and but I don’t beget an acknowledge for you with respect to who’s stepped forward yet. I think we’ll leave that to the individual members to speak to that.
QUESTION: imprint,a single, rapid/fast follow-up on yesterday’s assembly? Yesterday’s assembly?
QUESTION: finish you know how much it was from the U.
S.?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: We’re still looking at that.
QUESTION: We’re also seeing that Taiwan’s representative also attend that assembly in this building yesterday and also the Taiwan – person of Taiwan also address that Taiwan will keep devoting into the humanitarian assistance. I’m just wondering that finish you beget any comment on that.
MR TONER: We certainly appreciate those contributions as we appreciate the contributions of all coalition members. I think it’s an important thing to emphasize is that big or small, and whatever role any coalition member can play and partner can play,we appreciate it. I think what the message yesterday was we all need to see how we can finish more to finish this.
QUESTION: Are you aware that the Taiwan’s representative --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Yeah. Let’s --
QUESTION: In an interview this weekend, the Secretary said that the department cuts would be appropriate in the coming years as we sort of draw down these military efforts overseas. So does he believe that the State Department shouldn’t play a role in that reconstruction, or that it should be the Pentagon,that it’s no longer this department’s job?
MR TONER: No, I wouldn’t necessarily say that. I think he was speaking more broadly about the fact that we hope to, or frankly,draw down our involvement in what has been the longest sustained period of American military action and engagement overseas, frankly, and almost in our history. And I think in recognition that this administration wants to not necessarily increase those engagements and recognizing that,and I think you’ve seen that. Again, the approach to ISIS has been less boots on the ground and ways that we improve the capability of these local forces, or whether they’re Iraqi or otherwise.
QUESTION: Well,shouldn’t that mean more diplomacy and more State Department personnel, then?
MR TONER: Well, and it does. And again,a budget is a budget. You choose within – I mean, within – as the leader of the department, and you choose how the money’s going to get spent and what the priorities are. The priority in this case is defeating ISIS.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Can we – yeah,please.
QUESTION: You just said less boots on the ground. I thought we were adding forces in Syria.
MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to necessarily – I’m aware of the reports on that yesterday.
QUESTION: Doubling forces in Syria.
MR TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: Doubling forces in Syria.
MR TONER: Again, or but I’m drawing the comparison to previous efforts in Iraq and others,so – and Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Can we fade back to Asia?
QUESTION: imprint --
QUESTION: North Korea.
QUESTION: On Turkey.
MR TONER: I’m happy to change the subject, yeah.
QUESTION: Asia?
MR TONER: Let’s fade to Asia.
QUESTION: Okay. So I just want to clarify something first. So you’re saying the first priority is defeating ISIS. The singular focus is defeating ISIS. Are you talking about just the region or as a whole? And I beget a follow-up.
MR TONER: Well, and again,I mean, discover, and we’re the United States – we’re the Department of State. We need to be able to chew gum and pat our heads or whatever the expression is – walk and chew gum – that’s it – at the same time.
QUESTION: Rub your tummy.
MR TONER: Yeah,rub your tummy. (Laughter.) Thank you. And so we’ve – what I’m trying to say is we need to be able to finish multiple things at once. Everybody recognizes it’s a complex world and there’s lots of security challenges out there. Secretary Tillerson was just in Asia where he discussed the threat that the DPRK poses to the region and increasingly to the United States and how we deal with that. So no one’s saying that we’re simply going to focus solely on ISIS, but I think what it is and what he spoke about in his remarks yesterday was looking at the region – looking at the region, and there’s a lot of priorities there. And what he wants to try to finish is form one singular priority – one priority,and that is defeating ISIS.
QUESTION: And so I wanted to just – I asked about Asia because I was going to ask --
MR TONER: Yeah, of course. Because you were going to ask --
QUESTION: -- where is North Korea – if ISIS is first, or then where is North Korea on that consideration?
MR TONER: North Korea is a clear and present danger. I mean,and he was very clear about that on his trip last week, and he was very clear in his messages to Japan and to Korea in his discussions there with our allies and partners, or as well as our discussions – or his discussions with leadership in Beijing.
I think the message was very straightforward,which is: We can’t afford to give North Korea more time and space. They are rapidly working to develop a nuclear capability and ways to deliver that – the – that capability in the region and, indeed, or to the United States. And that is a danger and we need to address it.
QUESTION: Follow-up --
QUESTION: North Korea.
QUESTION: (Crosstalk.)
QUESTION: imprint,follow-up North Korea again.
MR TONER: So I’m looking at the time --
QUESTION: Yes, yeah.
MR TONER: -- so you, and then one more.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: North Korea launched the --
MR TONER: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: All proper. (Laughter.)
MR TONER: fade ahead,fade on. You’re --
QUESTION: You beget the floor, Janne.
QUESTION: Okay, and North Korea launched --
MR TONER: Very short.
QUESTION: -- launched missiles again and – yesterday morning to the east coast of South Korea. finish you beget anything on the particular why they failed this missile?
MR TONER: You beget a question about what? Why we --
QUESTION: Yeah,failed this --
MR TONER: I mean, I – beyond the – discover, or I mean,this is yet another provocative act by North Korea. We strongly condemn it, of course. We call on North Korea to refrain from these kinds of actions. It’s threatening international peace and stability, and clearly the stability on the peninsula or on – yeah,on the Korean peninsula, and in the region. And it just underscores, or again,the urgency.
QUESTION: finish you know what kind of a missile it is?
MR TONER: I don’t, and I wouldn’t say.
QUESTION: And one on the reports that beget come out from Fox that North Korea might conduct another nuclear test before the end of the month.
MR TONER: I wouldn’t speak to that.
Please.
QUESTION: On Turkey.
MR TONER: Turkey, or then Andrea,and then you.
QUESTION: Turkey and EU – tension continues between the Turkey and EU. Does the Trump administration supports Turkey’s EU membership currently?
MR TONER: discover, I mean, and Turkey is an ally,obviously, a strong partner, and certainly,with respect to ISIL, and a friend. We support Turkey’s aspirations to engage with Europe. I’m not going to speak to what is an issue between Turkey and Europe, and the EU,rather, specifically. That’s for them to work out, or but as much as Turkey wants to pursue that integration with the Euro-Atlantic community on an economic level,we’d encourage that.
QUESTION: And is --
QUESTION: imprint, I beget a follow-up.
QUESTION: There is a report that Secretary Tillerson is --
MR TONER: You’re very good at follow-ups.
QUESTION: -- going to Turkey on end of – end of March.
MR TONER: Yeah, or nothing to announce. When we finish,we will.
QUESTION: I beget follow about – a follow-up on this. (Inaudible) and everything now. President of Turkey is threatening the European every day. Today, he accuse – he attacked Germany, and Norway,Austria, Greece, and Cyprus,every European country.
MR TONER: Yeah, I’m aware of --
QUESTION: No, and no,no, one moment.
MR TONER: Yeah, and that’s okay. fade ahead.
QUESTION: finish you agree with his behavior?
MR TONER: I think what we’ve said about some of the back and forth that we’ve seen over the past couple of weeks – that we want to see everyone get along and to tone down the rhetoric.
Please.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about public diplomacy --
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: -- and the importance of a free press.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: I’ve covered six secretaries and they beget always brought traveling press with them,specifically and importantly when going to Beijing; when, let’s say, and going to Cairo; when,let’s just say theoretically, going to Turkey or to Moscow, and for the reason of holding a unilateral press conference if there isn’t a bilateral to show that this is the way we value press freedoms in the United States. And I’m wondering,many people are wondering about the commitment of this administration to a free press given the travel difficulties and challenges for not even bringing a press pool to some of these places.
MR TONER: Sure. Well --
QUESTION: Very notable in Beijing, for instance.
MR TONER: So, and Andrea,a couple of thoughts on that. One is I’ve been up here for now going on an hour, and that’s – and I accept that willingly because this is a forum where we can talk about foreign policy, and I beget to acknowledge your questions,I beget to fend – to defend our policy decisions across a wide spectrum of issues, and that is I think a testament to our commitment to a free press. Now, or with respect to traveling press,I know that’s a concern for those in this room. I would respectfully say that during the trip to Asia, there was access to the Secretary, or there was access --
QUESTION: I would respectfully disagree,having been there.
MR TONER: Well, again, and I can give you the numbers,but many news organizations are – beget bureaus in places like Tokyo and Beijing, certainly in Seoul as well, and they were able to be represented at these press events. And I know you were there,and I know it was difficult to form that trip, but this Secretary – and he was clear and he’s spoken about this in his interviews – is that he is committed to a smaller footprint. That’s not to say – let me be clear – that we’re not going to discover at taking any press in future trips. I’m not saying that at all. But he is committed to a smaller footprint. And with respect to the trip to Asia, or the space constraints on the plane did not allow,frankly, for a press contingent. So we worked with --
QUESTION: That’s not accurate.
MR TONER: So we work with our embassies. I think it is. And I can get into this. I don’t – we don’t need to beget this out here, and but I’m fortunately – happy to talk to you about this offline. But there’s a significant cost savings to taking the smaller plane,but that smaller plane requires – or has minimal seating.
QUESTION: A 737.
MR TONER: Yeah. And this Secretary also travels with a greatly reduced staff in comparison to previous secretaries, and he does that for a reason. He likes a smaller footprint, and but he’s also – has an eye towards cost saving.
QUESTION: But in evaluating the preference for a smaller footprint,what is the priority placed on showing the flag for press freedoms when you arrive in Beijing --
MR TONER: The Secretary had --
QUESTION: -- when you arrive in Moscow and other places where journalists – like Turkey, like Cairo – are being locked up?
MR TONER: But again, or the Secretary did press in each of his stops. He also – we did beget a press person on the plane --
QUESTION: Pressed for --
QUESTION: Press for – in Beijing? Press in Beijing?
MR TONER: And I think in – and I think in --
QUESTION: Pressed for what,imprint?
MR TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: You said he pressed in each cease.
MR TONER: No, no, or no,I said he did press in – he did press in --
QUESTION: That’s not right. That is not accurate.
MR TONER: I think it is, Andrea. He did press in each cease. I mean, or Seoul and Tokyo certainly,and I think he did take questions --
QUESTION: In Seoul, if you went to --
QUESTION: Smaller footprint aside, or he took one unilateral journalist.
Source: state.gov