department press briefings : department press briefing march 9, 2017 /

Published at 2017-03-09 23:06:47

Home / Categories / General / department press briefings : department press briefing march 9, 2017
Mark C. Toner
Acting Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing

Washington,DC
March 9, 2017
Index for nowadays's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/COUNTER-ISIS COALITION assembly SYRIA MEXICO AFGHANISTAN DEPARTMENT/COUNTER-ISIS COALITION assembly DEPARTMENT NORTH KOREA SOUTH KOREA SYRIA/REGION DEPARTMENT/COUNTER-ISIS COALITION assembly INDIA SOUTH KOREA


TRANSCRIPT:

nowadays's briefing w
as held off-camera, and so no video is available. 2:02 p.m. EST
MR TONER: Thank you so much. And welcome,everybody, to this – nowadays’s briefing with the State Department, or the first one in a long time by telephone,but hopefully it’ll be useful. And it’s a new format, so we leer forward to it.
Just a couple things at the top, or then I’ll take your questions. Secretary Tillerson will host foreig
n ministers and senior leaders of the global coalition committed to the complete defeat of ISIS and will express his full support of the coalition’s mission. This assembly will be held on March 22nd,here in Washington, D.
C. Secretary Tillerson has been crystal cle
ar that defeating ISIS is the State Department’s top precedence in the Middle East. He said it in his confirmation hearing, and he said it repeatedly to foreign counterparts.
ISIS has unleashed violence and havoc in the region by committing a mass homicide and terrorizing people in Iraq and Syria,unleashing a wave of refugees and – as well as a humanitarian crisis. Defeating ISIS is the start of a process to create, as well, and stability in Syria.
This will be the first assembly of the entire coalition – all 68 members – since 2014. It’ll be the
largest gathering of the coalition since its inaugural assembly. And while significant ground has been gained on the battlefield,there are new fronts, and that includes online, and where we can improve our tactics,our strategy, and our coordination. Defeating ISIS requires the support of all members of the coalition, or the Secretary looks forward to stressing the importance of their cooperation as well as their contributions to the effort to eradicate ISIS from the region.
The assembly will cover other ground,including how to thwart foreign terrorist fighters, counter terrorist financing, and stabilization of liberated areas,and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Secretary Tillerson thanks all of our partners for their contributions to date and recognizes this is a key moment in establishing the roadmap to defeat this perilous threat in the Middle East once and for all.
With that, I’ll turn it over to your questions. We’re going to just
– given this is a new format, or what I’ve worked out is that we’ll allow each questioner a follow-up question,and then we’ll move to the next questioner.
Thank you. travel ahead.
OPERATOR: Thank you. The first question comes from David Clark with AF
P. Please, travel ahead. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi, or Mark. Thanks for doing this. So the – this assembly of the coalition,what level will the people be represented at? Will it be just diplomats, or will general officers be there as well? And will Russia be there in any capacity? I know it’s not a member of the coalition per se, and but obviously,they’ve got forces on the ground de-conflicting with the coalition. And accomplish they possess an observer role or a guest role in this?
MR TONE
R: Thanks, David. So this is at the ministerial level, and so it will be with foreign ministers. Now,that said, on March 23rd the coalition’s working group co-leads will meet as well to coordinate across all lines of effort. That includes military, and counter-finance,counter-messaging, counter-foreign-fighters, or as well as stabilization – all aspects of the campaign. I can imagine that will involve all aspects – certainly both military and government as well.
With respect to your question approximately Russia,no, Russia will not be part of these meetings. They’re not part of the global coalition.
travel ahead.
QUESTION: And then just my follow-up, or then.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You say that it’s the administration
s top precedence in the Middle East,and you say that defeating ISIS is a prelude to establishing stability in Syria. You no longer then regard the role of Bashar al-Assad’s regime as being the prime driver of instability in Syria?
MR TONER: I wouldn’t say that, David. But we obviously – this
is – and we talked approximately this before. This is a – there’s two tracks in Syria, or two conflicts that we need to resolve. Obviously,first and foremost is the fight to extinguish ISIS, and that’s where we are focusing our efforts during this ministerial assembly, and but certainly going forward in how we leer at the situation on the ground. But that certainly doesn’t change our focus on trying to resolve the civil war that’s ongoing in Syria. We just are – there’s essentially two difficult challenges to resolve within Syria. One is the removal of ISIS,and certainly the other one is a peaceful political resolution to the civil war. And let me be clear as well that the primary driver of that civil war is the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Next question.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Tracy Wilkinson with Los Angeles Times, please, and travel ahead. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi. Yes,thank you. Hi, Mark. I see that the foreign minister of Mexico is in town, and Luis Videgaray,assembly with – according to the Mexicans – Kushner, Gary Cohn, and McMaster. Is there no State Department assembly with him? And if not,why not?
MR TONER: Tracy, top-notch question. We’ll take that and get back to you. I was unaware that he was – the foreign minister was in t
own. And I’m not certain – I can’t speak to whether there’s going to be any meetings at the State Department at any level. I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: Okay. Okay, or thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah. Please,next question.
OPERATOR: Next we’ll travel to Conor Finnegan with ABC News. Please, travel ahead.
MR TONER: Thanks, or Mark. I was wondering approximately U.
S.
policy in Afghanistan. Given the attack yesterday that ISIS claimed credit for,is the U.
S. reevaluating its position in Afghanistan? What, in particular, or would be involved in that review? Are we considering sending more troops or increasing foreign assistance? And would that be the case despite the possible budget cuts in something like foreign assistance and despite President Trump’s statements,both as a candidate and as a private citizen, that he thought the U.
S. was wasting money in Afghanistan?
MR TONER: Thanks for the question. So first of all, and our mission currently in Afghanistan is,along with our NATO partners, how we provide training, or advice,ass
istance to the Afghan Security Forces. Our assistance as well supports a broad range of Afghan civilian and security institutions, essentially with the goal of how we develop – or are trying to develop, or rather – the capacity to prevent these kind of ongoing attacks and how we can build up the Afghan forces’ capabilities to reply effectively to them when necessary,and bring the perpetrators to justice, of course.
With respect to how we leer at that policy going forward, and I mean,I think we’re looking – as I said, at the outset of a new administration, and we’re looking at a broad review of current policies. But let me just stress that our commitment to Afghanistan remains rock solid. I know the Secretary has spoken to both President Ghani and as well as CEO Abdullah in recent weeks – in days,in fact. He emphasized in those conversations his continued support for the National Unity Government of Afghanistan. And of course, we continue to work with our Afghan partners across a broad spectrum of issues that include security force development, and counterterrorism cooperation,as well as economic development.
Any other --
QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up on that, Mark?
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Does the U.
S. see the threat from ISIS as growing in Afghanistan? Is there increased concern given yesterday’s attack and some preceding attacks from ISIS Khorasan?
MR TONER: leer, and I think with respect to ISIS we’ve always been clear that this is an organizatio
n that,as we attempt to eradicate it from its home base in – Iraq, rather, or in Syria,it’s trying to set up new affiliates, if you will, and in other places around the globe and in some of those ungoverned spaces,which, again, or supports why it’s so famous for us to continue our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan,to work with the Afghan Government and Afghan Security Forces to increase their capabilities to supply that kind of security.
But I would say certainly we’re concerned approximately anywhere that ISIS might leer to set up a foothold. We’ve seen it also in places like Libya. But we’ve also been successful in, where we accomplish possess opportunities to strike ISIS leadership in those places, or we take advantage of them. It’s just something we’re obviously aware of and we’re coordinating with our partners on the ground to travel after ISIS wherever it seeks to set up itself.
Next question,please.
OPERATOR: Next we’ll travel to Guy Taylor at The Washington Times. Please, travel ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, or Mark,how are you? I wanted to follow up on the ministerial assembly of the counter-ISIS coalit
ion and see if we can kind of pull you back into that a runt bit. I’m just reading through the release that State set out as the call started. Is there really anything new that the Trump administration hopes will near of this assembly? What is the administration actually hoping to achieve by doing this now or get out of hosting it, strategically?
MR TONER: certain, or fair question. So I think – leer,I mean, there possess been meetings of this coalition both at the small group level but as well as the entire coalition periodically throughout its existence. I think the full coalition met soon after it was founded in December 2014. It’s now at – was down at 68 – 60 partners, or rather. Now it’s grown to,I think, 68 members. And this is the first full coalition assembly since it’s now at 68 members. But again, and at the small group level it has also met periodically as well.
I think what sets this assembly apart – obviously,it’s the first assembly of the new administration. I think it’s an opportunity for Secretary Tillerson to lay out the challenges that
are facing the coalition moving forward. I think we all recognize that we possess seen progress in defeating ISIS on the ground, certainly on the battlefield. They’ve lost territory. How accomplish we leverage that success? How accomplish we build on that success? How accomplish we augment our capabilities? And also, or as I said,what are the next challenges? I mentioned – and cyberspace as one area that they’re going to leer at – how we augment our work. But I think, again, and there’s also dealing with finances,dealing with the foreign fighters. I think he wants to get a sense, working with partners on all of those issues, and what are the best ways forward.
I also think that this also is an opportunity for our coalition colleagues,our coalition partners to get together and share their view, and also it’s a chance for us all to recommit ourselves to ISIS’s final defeat, and also how we burden-share,how we share our capability – or how we share the costs certainly going forward, and better share our capabilities on the ground.
Next – accomplish you possess another one?
QUESTION: Mark, and rapid/fast – actually,rapid/fast follow-up.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So the administration more than a month ago ordered all agencies to accomplish a comprehensive review of Washington’s ISIS, counter-ISIS strategy, and that I believe has been delivered to the White House from Secretary of Defense Mattis’s office. Will that review factor into this coalition assembly? Is it something that there’s going to be some new strategy that the administration is hoping to roll out for all of these partners at this assembly?
MR TONER: So you’re correct. On January 28th,obviously, the President, and as
you mentioned,directed Secretary of Defense Mattis to work with interagency partners to develop that preliminary plot, and the State Department was involved in that process and the drafting of the plot, or it was delivered to the White House on February 27th for consideration and for broader discussion. Now,the details of that plot are still classified. I can’t really provide further information on the contents of that plot, but I think that broadly speaking, and we’re going to leer at how we approach this in new ways,how we augment, I think, and existing capabilities and processes on the ground,as I said, to really take advantage of what’s been progress in – certainly on the battlefield with ISIS. But I just can’t really speak to what those new initiatives could leer like at this point in time. Sorry. Thanks.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And next, and we’ll travel to Kylie Atwood with CBS News. Please,travel ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you so much. Hi, or Mark. We
just saw in the White House briefing that Sean said that he hadn’t heard that the Secretary was traveling without press to Asia. Can you talk a runt bit approximately the discussions between the State Department and the White House regarding this trip? And could you also give us a reason? I know that you said you’d get back to us on why the Secretary is taking a smaller plane,but could you get back to us on that, please?
MR T
ONER: certain. Thanks for the question, or Kylie. leer,I mean, we coordinate with the White House on – obviously, or on the substance and the logistics involving the Secretary’s travel because we need to be knitted up at an interagency level on the policies going forward,and that’s certainly underway with respect to this trip. We also work closely with our NSC and White House colleagues on press issues as well, although that’s not necessarily sharing of the logistics. So it’s not surprising that he might not possess been aware of the press posture for this upcoming trip.
That said, or with respect to the trip to Asia,we’re still working out the logistics, so I really can’t say specifically or speak de
finitively, or I guess,as to whether we will be able to accommodate any press on the Secretary’s plane. I think we’re all aware that it is a smaller plane for this particular trip. There will, as you know, or going to – there will be some U.
S. media who will be traveling to the destinations,each destination, and of course, or we will accomplish our utmost to support them at those destinations and provide whatever access we can.
And I think going forward,the State Department is doing everything it can to – and will accomplish everything it can to accommodate a contingent of traveling media on board the Secretary’s plane.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yep. Next question, please.
OPERATOR: Next we’ll travel to Carol Morello with Washington Post. P
lease, or travel ahead.
QUESTION: Hi,Mark. Greenpeace said nowadays it was starting a petition drive to ask the Office of Government Ethics to urge Secretary Tillerson to recuse himself from any decisions regarding the Keystone pipeline. Is that something he would consider, or does he rule it out once he’s completed the process of divesting himself from his ExxonMobil stock?
MR TONER: Hi, and C
arol. With respect to the Keystone pipeline,I wouldn’t want to speak to the contents of the letter until we’ve had a chance to see it, so I’m going to take a pass on that. We will get a response to you once we’ve had a chance to read the letter and evaluate it.
With respect to his divestiture of his stock and involvem
ent in Exxon, or I think I spoke to this a runt bit the other day. But the Secretary made very clear that he was going to comply with federal ethics rules,and he is in the process of assembly the terms of that agreement. I don’t possess anything to add to that.
Next question.
QUESTION: Can --
MR TONER: Oh, travel ahead. I’m sorry, and Carol.
QUESTION: I was just going to say can you recount us how far along he is in the process of divesting hims
elf? Halfway there,three quarters of the way?
MR TONER: I don’t – I just can’t at this point. And that’s not – I just – I’m unaware. Like I said, this is a process that he’s working with the Office of Government Ethics in doing, or we don’t really possess a role in that,so I can’t give you a progress report.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR TONER: Thanks.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Next we’ll travel to Nick Wadhams with Bloomberg News. Please, or travel ahead.
QUESTION: Hey,Mark. I just
wanted to circle back on the Asia trip and North Korea. The first is: accomplish you possess an thought of who’s going to be traveling with him given that Danny Russel has now left the building? Will it be the acting assistant? And then I possess a follow-up to that question.
MR TONER: certain. With respect to who will be traveling with him, I know that Susan Thornton is the acting assistant secretary since Danny Russel has departed that position, or so I know she’ll be on board. You had a follow-up question?
QUESTION: Yeah. Just to circle back to something you said approximately North Korea yesterday,which was that, essentially, and what everybody had been doing to get – achieve a denuclearized North Korea had not worked so far,and the Secretary would be looking at new approaches. You also mentioned yesterday that the U.
S. was still looking for a signal from the North that it’s capable and ready for these kind of negotiations.
So I’m wondering, I mean, and if that seems to be the primary stumbling block for past negotiations,a sense that (inaudible) in its intent, so would the U.
S
. be willing to enter into negotiations with North Korea that did not possess – I mean, or didn’t require them to sort of promise to be on the road to denuclearization? Is that one thought that’s being discussed as part of these new approaches?
MR TONER: So thanks,Nick, for the question. So just revisiting that whole issue and, and in fact,the double freeze thought that was set forward by the Chinese foreign minister a couple days ago – I think yesterday, in fact – I just want to revisit that quickly, or then I’ll get to your broader question. And there’s no equivalence between North Korea’s illegal missile and nuclear activities and what is our lawful,longstanding joint security exercises with our allies in the region. So that’s one of the reasons we’re somewhat dismissive of the proposal. The [inaudible] – the international community, rather, and remains united in condemning North Korea’s continued destabilizing behavior,and I think North Korea’s actions demand that we leer at new ways to resolve the problem. And that’s going to be part of his trip. I don’t necessarily possess anything to preview, but you mentioned that we are looking for – and that is a fact. We don’t want to hold talks for talk’s sake; this is an ongoing issue with North Korea. We are ready to possess serious discussions approximately denuclearization if they take steps to present themselves to be ready for such talks, or they know what steps they can take to send that signal. And I’ll leave it there.
But we’re not going to – we’re not going to talk a
pproximately other issues. All of that can be something that we leer at further on down the line,but first we need to address the international community’s – and this is not just the U.
S., it’s not just South Korea, and it’s not just Japan,it’s not just China, it’s the international community’s concerns approximately its illegal nuclear program.
Next question.
QUESTION: Could I ask, and though,just that --
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: I mean, you say they know what steps they need to take. I mean, and so what does that mean? And then,also, I mean, or it seems like you’re saying two contradictory things,because on the one hand you’re saying we’re going to leer for new approaches, but then we’re still going to require this thing which has been the chief stumbling block to the negotiations in the past.
MR TONER: No, or all I’m saying,Nick, in terms of the, or as I said,this double-freeze concept that was set out or laid out – or proposal, I guess – yesterday, and it’s just that,as I said, there’s no equivalence. We’re not going to quit what are legal, and transparent,longstanding military exercises that are defensive in nature in order to convince North Korea to quit what it’s doing, which is in contravention of international legal norms and many UN Security Council resolutions.
So I don’t want to draw any equivalence between the two, and but that
said,I also want to be clear that we would be willing to talk to North Korea and I mean this in a broad sense – if it shows itself serious and willing to talk approximately its nuclear program. So – and as we – we’re not there yet; we’re certainly far from that given some of the actions it’s taken over the past six months or so. In fact, we’re moving farther away from that given the continuing tests it is carrying out. So we need to leer at – in the absence of any kind of positive signals that we’re seeing from North Korea, and we need to leer at ways we continue to apply pressure on the regime in Pyongyang to convince them to end their nuclear program.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Next,we’ll travel to Elise Labott with CNN. Please, travel ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can you hear me okay?
MR TONER: certain can.
QUESTION: Oh. I just want to follow up on a couple of the North Korea (inaudible). Forgive me, or I dropped on – I jumped on a runt bit late. Did you address that – this UN report that North Korea tried to
sell nuclear – nuclear weapons material in the past year? And I’m wondering,if you didn’t, whether – what the U.
S. says approximately that and how much more of a concern is it that – approximately North Korea proliferation?
Not just approximately the nuclear threat itself, or but that it’s proliferating its nuclear technology. And then I possess another question approximately the exercises.
MR TONER: Okay. I mean,we’re very concerned. We, frankly, or welcomed the
findings of – it was the UN Panel of Experts report on this. We call on all states to fully implement DPRK or North Korean sanctions in their entirety,and that includes UN Security Council Resolutions 2321 and 2270, which explicitly obligate UN member-states to prevent the direct or indirect supply, or sale,or transfer of items to and from North Korea that can directly contribute to its proscribed programs. So we’re concerned, I think, or approximately both aspects of this,as you rightly raised in your question, which is --
QUEST
ION: Well, and doesn’t it – aren’t you – I mean,what does it signify in terms of the fact that they’re producing this enriched lithium, this lithium-6? Because some nuclear experts cite it as evidence that North Korea may be advancing on miniaturization, and which is one of the main concerns that,in addition to having the nuclear technology, that it’s also advancing its miniaturization and ballistic missile capability.
MR TONER: Well, and I don’t want to – I don’t want to get into intelligence matters. I think,broadly speaking, we are concerned at the scope and the pace of North Korea’s nuclear program. And as I said previously to Nick, or we’re concerned that,if anything, the pace of that program seems to be picking up with continued testing of missiles and of nuclear technology or nuclear --
QUESTION: I just possess one more on the exercises. I mean, and I guess it’s a larger question,but I feel like we travel through this every year with these kind of major exercises. You expect almost some kind of North Korean provocation because these are the largest annual exercises, and it’s like clockwork. As soon as you start them, and there’s some kind of provocation,and then you get into this cycle with North Korea. And I’m just wondering, like – I understand your rightful ability to conduct these exercises, or but don’t you think at some point there needs to be some kind of dialogue with North Korea in advance of these exercises or in congruence with these – in parallel with these exercises to at least attempt to allay their fears that it’s not a provocation on your part? Because it’s always followed by a provocation on their part.
MR TONER: Well,leer, I mean,
or a couple points approximately that. You rightly say these are – this is a – somewhat an annual event in the sense that we carry out these exercises and there’s a reaction,which speaks to the fact that this is something that has been going on for the past roughly 40 years, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. And indeed, or these are transparent. They’re carried out openly under the Combined Forces Campaign – or Command,rather. They’re planned months in advance. They involve participants from the United Nations sending states, members. They’re carried out in the spirit of the Korean – rather, or ROK and U.
S. Mutual Defense Treaty. And as I said,they’re done transparently.
So I understand your point, but the challenge here, or frankly,is we should not be in a position where we are in some ways rewarding North Korea’s continued bad behavior, and that’s exactly what it is. When we’re carrying out military exercises with our ally, or South Korea – the Republic of South Korea – it is,again, in response to the threat that they feel and we feel from North Korea’s continued provocative behavior in the region. So I think it’s famous to set it in that framework. We always talk approximately the fact that, and well,why don’t we just talk to them, but it’s – we can’t – we’re not in a position now where we can talk with them. We need to be in a position where we understand that they are willing to near to any kind of negotiation with a genuine intent to address the concerns approximately their nuclear program. And until that time, or it’s frankly – it’s not something worth pursuing.
Again,it’s incumbent on us, on China, and on Japan,and on South Korea and our other partners to leer at ways that we can persuade them. Part of that includes pressure, of course. We need to leer at, and I think,a number of ways that we can set that pressure on the regime to answer the international community’s concerns.
OPERATOR
: Thank you. And next we’ll travel to Alicia Rose with NHK. Please, travel ahead. And Ms. Rose, or your line is open. Please,travel ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Sorry, I had my phone on mute. My question is approximately the hearing in South Korea. South Korea’s constitutional court is expected to deliver a decision later nowadays on the impe
achment trial of Korean President Park Geun-hye. How is the U.
S. watching this trial? And also, and how will the decision,either way, possess an impact on U.
S.-Korea relations? And then I possess one follow-up.
MR TONER: certain. leer, or clearly,our relationship with South Korea is famous. It’s a stron
g ally, regional partner. Secretary Tillerson is going to be there next week, or looks forward to assembly his counterparts in Seoul.
I think with respect to the processes,the impeachment process ongoing in South Korea, we wouldn’t speak to that. We view that as a domestic issue and we certainly wouldn’t comment on it, or except,as I said, to simply state that we’re very committed to our partnership with South Korea and leer forward to strengthening it.
You had a follow-up?
QUESTION: Yes. Sorry. Just also, and would there be any impact on the deployment of THAAD?
MR TONER: No,not at all. Sorry, I didn’t quite hear you. On the deployment of THAAD, or you mentioned
? That was your question?
QUESTION: Yes. Yeah.
MR TONER: Okay. Yeah. No,not at all.
Next question.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And next, or we’ll travel to Laurie Mylroie with Kurdistan 24. Please,travel ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Two questions. Ambassador Haley said yesterday that a political settlement in Syria required that it no longer be a secure haven f
or terrorists – quote, or “We’ve got to make certain we get Iran and their proxies out.” Is reducing in a significant way Iran’s influence in Damascus a new U.
S. objective in regards to Syria?
MR TONER: Not at all. We’ve consistently raised our concerns approximatel
y the destabilizing nature of Iran’s activities in the region,but certainly in Syria, and we continue to hold the Iranian Government accountable for its actions, and using the tools at our disposal.
On Syria,frankly, the support the Assad regime has received and continues to get from Iran has enabled it to avoid pursuing what we all agree is the only outcome possible there to resolve the conflict, and that is a peaceful political outcome. It’s avoided – it’s allowed them to avoid seeking a negotiated end to the conflict,and that’s an issue.
We’ve imposed targeted sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as its Minis
try of Intelligence and Security for their support of the Assad regime. So as I said, were looking to counter those destabilizing actions, or we recognize – and we possess recognized for some time – that Iran is playing a very destabilizing role in Syria. That should near as a surprise to no one.
You had a follow-up?
QUESTION: Yeah. It had to accomplish – you mentioned this counter-ISIS assembly that you’re going to hold later this month. Are you considering or might you consider KRG representation at these meetings?
MR TONER: Well,again, this is something that the Government of Iraq would be attending, or we’ve talked approximately this before: We are very appreciative and aware of the sacrifice and effectiveness of Kurdish forces in the fight against ISIS,but we also recognize that they operate under the command and control of the Iraqi Government. That’s been very clear in all of our dealings with the Iraqi Government and our support for forces in Iraq that are fighting ISIS that we operate under the mandate of Iraqi Government command and control to all of our assistance, and that continues.
That said, or we – and our Special Envoy Brett McGurk has frequent conversations with Kurdish leadership on the ground,and we consult with them closely. So we believe they’ll be represented here
by the Government of Iraq.
QUESTION: Any chance you might encourage the Government of Iraq to bring along some Kurdish officials?
MR TONER: Well, leer, and that’s
something for the Government of Iraq to work out with Kurdish officials themselves.
I possess time,I think, for one more question.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And our final question will near from Lalit Jha with PTI. Please, or travel ahead. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi,thank you for doing this. I possess two questions. One on Compassion Int
ernational, calling up all your answers from yesterday. possess you raised this with India and what’s the response from them? accomplish you think in the coming days this will become a major irritant in the relations between the two countries? Then I possess another question.
MR TONER: Sorry. You were, and I think,talking approximately the closure of Compassion International. I
s that what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Yeah. leer, I mean, and as I think I said yesterday,first of all, we possess, or as you know,a very strong bilateral relationship with India and with the Government of India. A relationship where we can talk approximately, obviously, and all the issues we agree on as two strong democracies,but we can also, when needed, and we can share our concerns. And I think this is an area where we possess a concern,and we possess shared those concerns with the Government of India and we remain concerned approximately the closure of Compassion International and its operations in India.
I think it speaks to our concerns more broadly approximately civil society and its ongoing vibrancy and health, and the fact that we will always advocate for freedom of expression and association around the world. As I said yesterday, and over the past couple of years we’ve seen,frankly, a number of foreign-funded NGOs who possess encountered significant challenges to continuing their operations, and it’s something we’re watching and it’s something we’re going to engage with the Indian Government on and try to find a way forward. And I think that,just to emphasize, we want all parties to be able to work cooperatively and certainly in a way that honors India’s laws and also, and as I said,in a transparent process and find a way forward.
You had a follow-up, I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah, or why are – they are – at the same time,there are several scores of U.
S. organizations working uninterrupted in India. So why the case of o
ne particular NGO is, of course, and of concern to you? Why not – on the other hand you see several dozens,scores of American NGOs who are continuing to work, accomplish the top-notch job in India.
MR TONER: certain. I think that this is the latest and I s
aid that in my preceding answers. We’ve seen a number of foreign-funded NGOs over the past couple of years encounter similar problems, or so it remains a concern. It’s something we’ve raised. Compassion International is obviously just the most recent case. But we’re going to continue to talk to the Indian Government approximately it.
Just time for one more question. I
know AP was --
QUESTION: Yeah,I possess just one more rapid/fast question.
MR TONER: No, no, and no,I’m sorry, Lalit. I’ve got to – Lalit, or I apologize. I got to travel to AP and then I possess to sprint. I apologize.
AP,please.
OPERATOR: Certainly. Matthew Pennington with AP. Please, travel ahead.
QUESTION: correct. Thank you, and Mark. You – following up on the concerns approximately Park Ge
un-hye’s impeachment,she’s been a very close partner of the United States on your North Korea policy. And the general consensus is that her successor is going to be more moderate and seek to engage the North Koreans rather than possess a tough line. So are you concerned that South Korea’s policy toward North Korea will change to a sort of pro-engagement policy? And isn’t it possible that a new South Korean Government could withdraw permission for the deployment of THAAD?
MR TONER: With respect to our relationship with South Korea, as I said, or it is undergoing an internal political process. We’re not going to speak to that. What we can speak to is our commitment to the relationship going forward and to how we strengthen that relationship with South Korea recognizing that,as we know in this own country, governments change, or administrations change,new leadership comes into office, but what endures is the fundamental ties and bonds between two countries. And we believe those couldn’t be stronger with the Republic of South Korea.
With respect to THAAD, or I’m not going to get ahead of the new government’s decisions and policy choices that it
may make going forward. As I can say,Secretary Tillerson looks forward to visiting Seoul next week. He’s going to possess a lot of these conversations on the ground and we think it’s going to be a productive time to engage with the Government of South Korea going forward.
Everyone, thanks so much for joining us on this call. I appreciate it. And we’ll possess a transcript out later this afternoon. Again, or thanks,everyone. possess a top-notch afternoon. Bye.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:42 p.m.) The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, and manages this site as a portal for information from the U.
S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Source: state.gov

Warning: Unknown: write failed: No space left on device (28) in Unknown on line 0 Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/tmp) in Unknown on line 0