U.S. Department of State's Blog

As in the past, you will be able to choose from several Department of State RSS feeds to get the latest news from the Department delivered directly to your desktop via an RSS reader or news aggregator. Or sign up to get updates via our email subscription service.

Special Briefing



Elliott Abrams


U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela 




Press Briefing Room




Washington, DC



March 15, 2019

MR PALLADINO: Welcome back. It’s Friday and we have with us Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams. Thank you for joining us again. Please.

MR ABRAMS: You’re very welcome. I’m going to start taking attendance and see how much interest there is here. (Laughter.)

A few things to start with. The diplomatic staff from Embassy Caracas arrived at Dulles Airport just after 11 o’clock last night, and they will be meeting the Secretary at 2:30 this afternoon. They will in essence continue their mission from other locations – from the State Department for the most part – to try to support the Venezuelan people as they struggle to return Venezuela to democracy.

Just a – on consular services, I think we’ve said this before, but some time ago – actually a month ago – we said that non-immigrant visas would be handled in Bogota; immigrant – excuse me, immigrant visas would be handled in Bogota for Venezuelans; non-immigrant visas can be applied for wherever the individual is, at any embassy or consulate around the world.

Latest visa revocations: This week we have revoked 340 additional visas, and that’s a process that will continue.

In Venezuela, the diplomatic staff – when we had a full staff and in the last month or so when we’ve had a reduced staff – have been immeasurably assisted by the locally employed staff, which has really been, as is true in so many embassies, vital to the effort to restore democracy to Venezuela and to support a transition to a democratic government under Interim President Guaido. And so just want to express our gratitude toward them. They will remain employed by the United States in Caracas.

Finally, I would like to congratulate Ricardo Hausmann, who is going to be the representative of Venezuela in the Inter-American Development Bank. The voting is not closed. The voting closes at around 6:30 p.m. today, I think, but enough votes have been cast so that we can say he will be elected. And this is part of the taking authority over foreign rolls and assets of Venezuela by the Guaido government. So we congratulate him and you should see an official statement I guess after the voting is closed.

MR PALLADINO: If there’s any questions --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PALLADINO: -- he can take a few. All right, go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks. I’m just wondering if you’ve made any progress or how close you are to getting an agreement with someone for – to be your protecting power.

MR ABRAMS: We’ve made real progress. I don’t have an announcement, but we have been working hard on this. It’s moving forward. We’re happy about the direction it’s going in, and there’s a lot of legal process to do, but this will happen soon. I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: I mean, any kind of a ballpark, like today, tomorrow?

MR ABRAMS: Oh, no.

QUESTION: Monday, Tuesday?

MR ABRAMS: A week or two.

QUESTION: A week or two from now?

MR ABRAMS: From now, yeah.

MR PALLADINO: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. The IDB has put out a statement already saying that Mr. Hausmann can begin as the representative there because enough – there have been sufficient votes cast. What does this mean generally speaking for any kind of economic help for Venezuela? Venezuela is in arrears to the IDB anyway.

And then also, the IMF has delayed a decision by the board, their board, to discuss or – a poll that would basically recognize Guaido, and as you know, the IMF is important as a seal of approval for other big institutions like the World Bank. But what does this overall mean to – for lending or economic help?

MR ABRAMS: I think most – the most important task that Professor Hausmann will be undertaking is to work with the IDB on the preparations for post-Maduro Venezuela. He has personally done a lot of work on this. We actually met yesterday. And there are – there’s been really an enormous amount of work done over the last several years by Venezuelans and by others, and the IDB has clearly a leading role in the recuperation of the Venezuelan economy when we think of things like the electric sector, the energy sector, which are in bad shape. So he will now be in a position officially to represent Venezuela in those IDB preparations, and that’s a lot better than doing it from a university. He’ll be inside.

MR PALLADINO: Washington Post.

QUESTION: There were reports coming this week from Maracaibo, if I’m pronouncing it correctly, the second-largest city – sort of the Houston of Venezuela, I guess, that had a lot of ransacking and it sounded like a terrible situation. I was wondering if you have any sense of how close the economy is and the infrastructure is in Venezuela to a total collapse, and following that, the impact on Maduro.

MR ABRAMS: Our information is that the situation is considerably worse in Maracaibo than in Caracas in a number of ways. I have not seen lots of looting in Caracas, although the blackout and the diminution of social media mean that we may not be seeing everything that’s happening. But we have seen it in Maracaibo. There’s been a lot that has been reported in social media and to us. Part of this I think is because the regime is directing its attention to Caracas. They seem to be taking the view that what happens outside of Caracas is not threatening to them. So, for example, power supply is better in Caracas than in Maracaibo or anywhere else, actually. So that’s a – I think a political judgment on the part of the regime.

What is the impact of this situation on the longevity of the regime? It’s obviously going to shorten the life of the regime. Now, I’ve said before we’re not making predictions, and as we look back we see that, generally speaking, neither we nor anyone else has been very good at predicting when regimes fall. But this blackout has really intensified the difficulties in the country – the difficulties of average families, the difficulties of government institutions – and I think it demonstrates that the longer the regime stays, the worse the economic and social situation are going to be. So what I’m – I can’t give dates, but it seems to me it’s obvious that more and more Venezuelans will be coming to the conclusion that there is no decent future for the country with Maduro in power.

MR PALLADINO: Said.

QUESTION: Thank you. Two quick questions. To the best of your knowledge or your opinion, what is the cause of the blackout? What is the exact cause of the blackout?

And second, could you explain to us the article under which Mr. Guaido declared himself president? It is said that it has expired last month. Could you explain that to us? What is the --

MR ABRAMS: Yeah. Yes. On the blackout, we’re not there. I believe there is a consensus now that by far the most likely explanation is that these extremely high-voltage lines, which tend to bow as the months go and years go by – that is, they are not straight; they tend to --

QUESTION: Sag.

MR ABRAMS: -- sag is a good word – into trees and bushes, and that creates the possibility of a fire. That is what more – I would say more experts have given as the explanation. So how do you avoid that? It’s simple: You cut and prune and keep trees and bushes from approaching the lines, and they haven’t done that. There’s really been no maintenance, not just for years but for decades on those. They have three high voltage lines coming essential from Guri Dam. That’s our best explanation. It is not formed, obviously, by examination but rather by reports that we’ve seen from a fair number of experts.

As to the Venezuelan constitution, the National Assembly has passed a resolution that states that that 30-day period of interim presidency will not start ending or counting until the day Nicolas Maduro leaves power. So the 30 days doesn’t start now, it starts after Maduro. And they – that’s a resolution of the National Assembly.

QUESTION: When did they – they did that after he --

MR ABRAMS: They did that – this is roughly a month ago. We could try to find the date for you.

QUESTION: When he was – when he was – took the mantle of interim president, that wasn’t there.

MR ABRAMS: Yes, when – that’s correct. And so people --

QUESTION: Can you do that ex post facto like that?

MR ABRAMS: When people ask a question how do --

QUESTION: That seems to be like saying I was elected for four years to be president, and then two years in you change the rules so that your term didn’t start – hasn’t even started yet. How does that happen?

MR ABRAMS: Well, you don’t get a vote because you’re not in the National Assembly.

QUESTION: Well, you don’t. You’re not in the National Assembly either.

QUESTION: If it matters, does the U.S. view that as constitutional under their system?

MR ABRAMS: Yes. I mean, we’re taking the – the National Assembly is the only legitimate democratic institution left in Venezuela, and their interpretation of the constitution, as you know, is that as of the date of this alleged term for Maduro, the presidency is vacant. But they have also said that that 30-day period starts when Maduro goes.

QUESTION: So Juan Guaido is the interim president of an interim that doesn’t exist yet?

MR ABRAMS: The 30-day end to his interim presidency starts counting. Because he’s not in power, that’s the problem. Maduro is still there. So they have decided that they will count that from when he actually is in power and Maduro’s gone. I think it’s logical.

QUESTION: So then he really isn’t interim president, then?

MR ABRAMS: He is interim president, but he’s not --

QUESTION: With no power.

MR ABRAMS: -- able to exercise the powers of the office because Maduro still is there.

QUESTION: So their interpretation is that until and unless he actually has the power to run the country, he’s not actually the interim president?

MR ABRAMS: No. Their interpretation is that the constitution requires a 30-day interim period, but it – those 30 days should not be counted while Maduro is still there exercising the powers of his former office.

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go AFP.

QUESTION: Have you engaged directly again with countries who still recognize Maduro as president? I think you said last week that you hadn’t spoken with China yet. Have you had a chance to --

MR ABRAMS: The ambassador has, I believe, been out of town, so – but we have spoken to China in Beijing, that is the ambassador has spoken to the Chinese Government about this.

QUESTION: What – is there something – some progress on --

MR ABRAMS: Have they – have we changed their position? Not yet. Not yet.

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. It is reported that North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un willing to support Maduro regime. Any comment on that? Because it resembled Kim’s regime and Maduro regimes. So any sense of this?

MR ABRAMS: Well, we have noted that among the 54 countries that support the people of Venezuela and Interim President Guaido are many of the most influential democracies in the world. We have really not been trying to get North Korea to support Juan Guaido. That has not been a mission of ours.

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to ABC.

QUESTION: Two questions on the Americans that remain behind. When we were in Cucuta, you said that there are between 30- and 40,000 U.S. citizens. Some estimates put that as high as 50,000. Do you have an update on the number of American citizens you believe are still there? And American Airlines announced today that they are cancelling commercial flights into Venezuela. As more airlines consider that and take that action, is the U.S. considering any sort of evacuations for citizens that remain behind?

MR ABRAMS: Well, first, we’ve had a Travel Warning for quite a while, and the Travel Warning has been one of the strictest, saying to Americans “don’t go.” Obviously, it makes it harder to leave when the largest commercial carrier is no longer serving the airport in Caracas. We are trying first to do the consular activities from the State Department, and we will have a protecting power.

As to the question of a major threat that would lead lots of Americans to want to leave, there – there were always plans to help people leave in a situation of danger. We have those for lots of countries, and I think I’ll leave it at that.

MR PALLADINO: Please.

QUESTION: Olivia Gazis with CBS News. Colombia’s president, Ivan Duque, said in a recent interview that he doesn’t believe that military intervention by the United States is the right thing for Venezuela. How do you countenance that with the very real implicit and repeated threat that the United States has held out that all options remain on the table?

MR ABRAMS: Well, I don’t think that --

QUESTION: And very quickly, just a quick follow on that one: Have you identified a protecting power in Caracas for remaining staff? Because there – I know there was discussion as to identifying one.

MR ABRAMS: I’m just going to leave that where it is on the protecting power; that is, we are in discussions. They are reasonably advanced, but they’re not done yet, and it will take some more time.

I don’t see a contradiction between what President Duque said and what we always say. We also believe that the military outcome is not the right outcome for the future of Venezuela, for the people of Venezuela. A peaceful democratic transition is the right outcome. Our policy is a peaceful transition to democracy. Our economic, financial, diplomatic, political pressure is designed to achieve that goal, or better put, to help the Venezuelan people recover their democracy. But there are lots of contingencies and dangers in the world, and therefore all options are on the table.

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go in the back right there, please.

QUESTION: Yeah. Francisco (inaudible) Spain. Do you know how many Americans you have still in Venezuela, a rough number? And then can you explain more the sentence that you said, that you have closed the embassy because the situation there has become a constraint for the U.S. policy? What do you mean for that?

MR ABRAMS: Well, we don’t – I’d say first we don’t ever know exactly how many Americans are in any country, because Americans are free to travel. We urge them to register – particularly in a situation like Venezuela – register with the embassy. For one thing, they can get onto an email program or a text program where they get warnings, where the embassy can send them messages instantly. But they don’t have to do that. So we’re guessing, and the guesses are in the range of 30,000. As was said, there are higher ranges – 35,000, 40,000, even higher than that. But we don’t know the exact number because we have no way of knowing.

What was the other?

QUESTION: Second one – the situation has become a constraint for the U.S.

MR ABRAMS: Oh, I mean, we answered that already several days ago.

MR PALLADINO: Many times.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate that?

MR ABRAMS: No.

MR PALLADINO: All right, great. Let’s go CNN, Michelle.

QUESTION: Thanks. The International Energy Agency is saying that it looks like the entire oil industry could collapse in Venezuela. What’s your view of that possibility, and how do you see that affecting the situation on the ground, including for the humanitarian situation?

MR ABRAMS: Well, I’m not sure what “collapse” means there. There is certainly a steady drop in Venezuelan oil exports. Partly that reflects the blackout. But even if you take the blackout out of it, there is a very steady drop of maybe 50,000 barrels a month in production so that they’re heading down toward a million now, and in a month or two they’ll be below a million. This is a country that used to export more than 3 million barrels a day.

QUESTION: When do you think that – where did you say they could be below?

MR ABRAMS: A couple of months. I think they’re just above a million now. Again, they may have dipped below it because of the blackout, and they may come back 50- or 100,000 barrels. But that’s the neighborhood they’re in, and it is a steady decline.

It is true that you can do long-term damage if you don’t maintain the infrastructure. One of the reasons that, in our announcement of PDVSA sanctions, we gave some American firms 180 days to transition out was precisely to avoid this kind of damage. We – I think it’s fair to say that the Maduro regime has been a very poor steward of the infrastructure in Venezuela. We see that in the electrical infrastructure, and we also see it in the oil infrastructure. Our sanctions had nothing to do with them coming down from 3 million barrels a day to a million barrels a day. But it would certainly be better from the point of view of democracy and human rights, and it would certainly be better from the point of view of the economy and the oil sector if the regime were to come to an end.

MR PALLADINO: Last question, please, in the back there.

QUESTION: Yeah. (Inaudible) Hernandez from the Spanish newswire EFE. Have you had any conversation lately with Vice President Arreaza?

MR ABRAMS: No. We had two conversations in – god, I don’t remember. One was in late January, one was maybe a week after that. And that – those were the – that was it.

MR PALLADINO: All right, very good.

QUESTION: Mr. Abrams, can you (inaudible) diplomats yesterday (inaudible) in Caracas?

MR PALLADINO: That’s good, we’ll call it there. All right, thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.

Robert Palladino




Deputy Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing




Washington, DC




March 14, 2019










Index for Today's Briefing

SOUTH AFRICA/ANGOLA



SYRIA



VENEZUELA



YEMEN



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



IRAQ/IRAN



AFGHANISTAN



SOUTH KOREA/NORTH KOREA



AFGHANISTAN



CHINA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:54 p.m. EDT

MR PALLADINO: This week our deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan is in South Africa and Angola. His visit is focused on promoting U.S. trade investment, as well as advancing peace and security.

Today in South Africa, the deputy secretary held meetings with a range of stakeholders, during which he discussed South Africa’s business climate, IBM’s investments in entrepreneurship and innovation in Johannesburg, and the value of U.S. Government exchange programs. In addition, he will tour the Zola Community Health Centre and meet with beneficiaries of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Program.

During his visit, the deputy secretary will also meet with South African Government officials to discuss bilateral trade and regional multilateral priorities, including with respect to the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.

In these meetings, the deputy secretary will stress the importance of prioritizing economic partnerships based on mutual respect that help African nations take control of their economic destinies.

In Angola, Deputy Secretary Sullivan will meet with President Lourenco to discuss a range of global economic and security issues. The deputy secretary will co-chair a session of the United States-Angola Strategic Dialogue with Foreign Minister Augusto. They plan to discuss the ways for our partnership to grow in areas such as economic engagement, security cooperation, and development programs, as well as efforts to ensure humanitarian assistance reaches the Venezuelan people.

While in Luanda, Deputy Secretary Sullivan will also deliver remarks on the administration’s Africa strategy to members of the business community and meet with representatives from civil society, youth leaders, and the United States mission personnel to underscore the depth and breadth of United States engagement in Africa.

QUESTION: And they’ll be (inaudible) that in Chinese, right?

MR PALLADINO: We are focused. I also want to highlight two important announcements that were made today by Secretary Pompeo’s Special Representative for Syria Engagement Ambassador Jim Jeffrey. This was done at the third Brussels Conference on Supporting the Future of Syria and the Region.

Today the United States announced more than 397 million in additional humanitarian assistance for the people of Syria as part of the United Nations Syria response plan. This reflects our commitment to providing critical, lifesaving support to any Syrian impacted by the conflict no matter where they live, both inside Syria and vulnerable refugee communities in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt. U.S. humanitarian assistance is now more than 9.5 billion since the start of this crisis, and we appreciate all donors who have stepped up and we encourage others to help meet the growing need as well.

Ambassador Jeffrey also announced, at the direction of the President and subject to Congressional approval, the United States intention to provide additional 5 million to support the vital, lifesaving operations of the White Helmets in Syria and the United Nations International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism, the IIIM. The United States strongly supports the work of the White Helmets. They have saved more than 114,000 lives since the conflict began, including victims of Assad’s vicious chemical weapons attacks. And we stand firmly with them against attempts to delegitimize their work.

The IIIM is charged with assisting the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the most serious crimes under international law committed in Syria since March 2011. We’re proud to support these efforts. These contributions demonstrate the United States commitment and ongoing support for justice and accountability in Syria.

And with that, I’d be happy to take some questions.

QUESTION: Thanks, Robert. Can we start with Venezuela briefly and the return or the departure of the remaining American diplomats from Caracas? In the statement that the Secretary put out announcing that they had left, it ends with we – the sentence, “We look forward to resuming our presence once the transition to democracy begins.” When, in the administration’s view, is – does the transition to democracy begin? Is that when Maduro leaves? When he accepts or agrees to new elections? When does the transition to democracy begin?

MR PALLADINO: Hopefully soon, and --

QUESTION: Well, what is the trigger for – not the date, although I note that --

MR PALLADINO: We will define it when we see it, and I’m not going to specify exactly how it looks, but --

QUESTION: So it’s possible, then, that diplomat – that you could reopen or restaff your embassy while Maduro remains de facto in power, at least as you --

MR PALLADINO: No. That’s a hypothetical, and I’ll --

QUESTION: I want to know what your definition of hypothetical is, because it’s not --

MR PALLADINO: Yeah, you’re saying “if.” You’re saying if this were to happen.

QUESTION: No, it’s not. In fact --

MR PALLADINO: That’s – that is the definition of a hypothetical, actually.

QUESTION: No, no, Robert, except I didn’t use the word “if.”

MR PALLADINO: All right.

QUESTION: How about this? Can you foresee a situation in which U.S. diplomats return to Caracas while Maduro is still the – what you would consider the de facto or the – is still running the government? It’s not the word “if.” It does not exist in that sentence. That’s not a hypothetical.

MR PALLADINO: We are looking forward to the day when they can return to witness firsthand a transition to democracy, so I have a very hard time with that formulation. But just to catch you up on where we are, all diplomats that had remained in Venezuela have now departed the country. They were and they continue to be fully dedicated to the mission of supporting the Venezuelan people’s democratic aspirations and desire to build a better future. They will now carry that mission forward from other locations.

The United States remains firm in our resolve and support for the Venezuelan people, the National Assembly, and Interim President Juan Guaido. We look forward to returning our presence to witness firsthand Venezuela’s transition to democracy.

Michelle.

QUESTION: Thanks. How great is the State Department’s concern that Maduro or his supporters might try to arrest Guaido at this point?

MR PALLADINO: What I would say is we hold former President Maduro and those who surround him fully responsible for the safety and welfare of Interim President Guaido and his family, and it would be a terrible mistake for the illegitimate Maduro regime to arrest Interim President Guaido, and it would provoke an immediate reaction from Venezuelans and the international community.

QUESTION: Robert.

MR PALLADINO: Lesley.

QUESTION: I have two questions. Can you tell us a little bit how the diplomats got out? There were reports that it was a military plane. We’ve had U.S. officials say it wasn’t. Can you just – and what time?

And number two, who have you appointed a protecting power or powers?

MR PALLADINO: All right. It – I confirm that it was a civilian charter. It was not a military plane.

And as far as an interim power goes, we’re working to identify a country to act as our protecting power in order to provide limited services to any remaining United States citizens in Venezuela, and we expect to make an announcement quite soon.

QUESTION: So who’s protecting the property at – is there anybody protecting that property right now, or – and was part of the civilian charter also bringing out equipment and other things?

MR PALLADINO: Yes. Let’s just say we had things that weighed quite a bit that would require a civilian charter plane.

Okay. Right.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Is there going to be more on Venezuela? Please.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Equipment. Some of our equipment.

QUESTION: Like --

MR PALLADINO: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Like what?

MR PALLADINO: Any more on Venezuela?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Please, go ahead, Abbie.

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on, wait. But, like, what weighs a lot? (Laughter.) Like desks?

MR PALLADINO: Equipment. Not quite – I’m not going to go into details, but we had enough that --

QUESTION: Tigers?

MR PALLADINO: -- United Airlines is not going to be happy with us. Please, go ahead, Abbie. (Laughter.) All right.

QUESTION: Please speak a little bit about the Americans who are still there, American citizens, and what it is that the State Department is doing or suggesting as far as their own efforts to leave the country.

MR PALLADINO: Right. As far as American citizens that remain in Venezuela go, we will hold former President Maduro and the Venezuelan military and security services directly responsible for the safety and welfare of U.S. citizens in Venezuela. U.S. citizens residing in Venezuela or traveling to Venezuela or traveling in Venezuela should strongly consider departing Venezuela. We – there are limited commercial flights that remain available, and you saw our travel advisory that we updated – I think it was two days ago now. We remain at Level 4 with the strong warning, “do not travel.” That hasn’t changed. Our embassy does not have – is not able to provide consular services at the moment, as our personnel have departed. And as to Reuters’ earlier question, we expect to be able to announce more details soon on what provisions we’ve been able to arrange.

QUESTION: Venezuela?

QUESTION: Robert?

MR PALLADINO: More on Venezuela?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PALLADINO: Sure. Let’s go EFE, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. In the statement, the Secretary said that these diplomats, they are going to continue to work from other locations. Are they going to work from Colombia, from Brazil? And if you are discussing this with these countries, and also when do you estimate that this work will resume, when they will continue working? Thank you.

MR PALLADINO: Well, we have a task force here in the State Department that is operating pretty much around the clock and has been operating since the beginning of this. Many of these personnel will join that effort, and as the special representative mentioned on Tuesday, much of his efforts that he is spearheading is benefiting from a lot of the talent that we’ve had to – that has had to withdraw from Caracas.

As far as where else and how else we are looking to affect change and continue to work on these issues, I’m not going to go – be able to go into detail on that effort. But there is a lot that remains to be done. And for example, the United States continues to impose visa restrictions on corrupt individuals who enable Maduro’s theft of Venezuela’s assets for their own personal gain. And we are applying this policy to numerous Maduro-aligned officials and their families. Since this Monday, this past Monday, March 11th, we have revoked 340 visas, 107 of which include visas of Maduro’s former diplomats and their families.

QUESTION: Sorry, a hundred and how many?

MR PALLADINO: A hundred and seven of which.

QUESTION: And the overall?

QUESTION: And the rest?

MR PALLADINO: Three hundred and forty since Monday, 107 of which include visas of Maduro’s former diplomats and their families. This action brings the total number of revoked visas to more than 600 since late 2018. Additional visas are being considered for revocation.

QUESTION: Robert, just before we leave Venezuela, can I – I’m still intrigued by what it is that weighs so much that you had to get out of the embassy. I mean, was it like office supplies or computers, or is it like (inaudible) --

MR PALLADINO: Matt, I don’t have details. I don’t have details.

QUESTION: Well, can you find out? Because I mean, that’s just kind of interesting. Anyway, the other thing I just wanted to ask is when you say we will hold former President Maduro and the security services responsible for – isn’t that – when you say former – when you insist on calling him “former president” and then you also say that he’s responsible, aren’t you conceding that your effort to promote or to push Juan Guaido as the legitimate leader has failed? Because you – you call this guy a former president and yet you still – you accept that he has responsibility over – or you insist that he has responsibility for the safety and security of American citizens.

MR PALLADINO: He still has de facto control over – issuing orders to colectivos and the overall just complete deterioration of the situation that has taken place. That deterioration, as the Secretary and the special representative have spoken about it – but the driving – one of the driving forces why we – was no longer sustainable.

QUESTION: Right, but so you don’t see that as a concession that your attempts to promote --

MR PALLADINO: No.

QUESTION: -- Guaido have come to naught so far?

MR PALLADINO: No.

QUESTION: No?

MR PALLADINO: No. We take the opposite lesson. We are quite pleased at the – at the overall global effort that has been undertaken, and we – our policy is going to continue to support democracy in Venezuela. We’re going to continue to support the interim president; the only democratically elected institution in the country, the National Assembly; and we are going to continue on our policy of using sanctions and diplomatic pressure to pressure the illegitimate regime to end its – to end. I’ll stop there.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to Washington Post.

QUESTION: What’s the status of the local staff there? Are they still employees? And do you have any concerns for their safety?

MR PALLADINO: The – our locally employed staff continue to be employed by the United States Government. They continue to receive their salaries and they continue to work for us. For security reasons, I’m not going to go much beyond that.

QUESTION: Are you going to make any of Jim Story’s remarks that were made before the flag was lowered – are you going to make any of those remarks available to us?

MR PALLADINO: Yes, we are. Okay.

QUESTION: Robert?

MR PALLADINO: Please.

QUESTION: Can I --

MR PALLADINO: Please, let’s go ahead. Sure.

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the Secretary’s meeting with Mr. Griffiths today?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t think we have that, do we? But I can talk about Yemen a little bit if that would be of use. Okay.

QUESTION: If you have any update on that and whether you blame the Houthis whether it’s a – you – whether you’re blaming the Houthis for not implementing the Hodeidah agreement --

MR PALLADINO: Okay.

QUESTION: -- that Mr. Griffiths criticized them for --

MR PALLADINO: Right.

QUESTION: -- yesterday at the UN.

MR PALLADINO: So the Secretary is meeting with Mr. Griffiths I believe at 3:00 today, right. So I think that’s right about now. So I don’t have a readout.

QUESTION: At 1:00.

MR PALLADINO: I don’t know what time it is.

QUESTION: At 1:00 it was.

MR PALLADINO: Oh, was it 1:00? I apologize then. Okay. I don’t have a readout yet to provide.

QUESTION: Can we get a readout as soon as you --

MR PALLADINO: Hope so, hope so. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah?

MR PALLADINO: We’ll try to get that to you, okay? Our focus hasn’t changed in Yemen. We’re focused on supporting a comprehensive political agreement that will end the conflict. So towards that end, we are – we continue to support the United Nations Special Envoy Martin Griffiths, and we encourage Yemenis to swiftly implement agreements that were made in Sweden so that the political process can move forward.

And you had a question about --

QUESTION: The Hodeidah agreement.

MR PALLADINO: Okay.

QUESTION: If the Houthis continue to not implement it, and you calling for them to swiftly --

MR PALLADINO: We continue to urge all parties to adhere to the commitments that they made in Sweden, particularly the ceasefire and the redeployment of forces in Hodeidah. We strongly support the UN Redeployment Coordination Committee as it works to implement the Hodeidah agreement and to translate momentum from Sweden into real de-escalation on the ground.

QUESTION: Robert?

MR PALLADINO: Please.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Hello, Robert?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PALLADINO: Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, Robert. Yesterday Ambassador Kozak suggested that the term “occupied” carries legal parameters, and the West Bank and Golan Heights were listed as geographically. We don’t know what that means. I wanted to ask you: What is your official designation of the West Bank now, today? What is – how do you designate it?

MR PALLADINO: As we stated last year, we retitled the Human Rights Report to refer to commonly used geographic names in the area that the report covers: Israel, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza. And this is in line with our practices generally.

QUESTION: Right. I’m not talking about the Human Rights – in particular – Report in particular, but what is your designation for the West Bank? I mean, by dropping the term “occupied,” you are a signatory to Resolution 242, 373. Does that compromise the moral standard of the United States when it drops its commitment – or its signature, actually, on these resolutions?

MR PALLADINO: Yeah. Our view on the status of Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip, that has not changed, and I don’t have anything to add beyond that.

QUESTION: And one last question: Last week on Friday, Mr. Jason Greenblatt, the envoy to the peace process, whatever it is, spoke at the UN and basically sided with Israel on confiscating the tax money. Now – and he, in subsequent tweets and so on, he alluded to the Taylor Force law that was passed here, but that pertains to American money. This money that Israel is taking is Palestinian money and it is enshrined in agreements between the two sides in the Paris accord and the Oslo Accords. So explain to us why – first, why do you support the Israeli decision? And second, isn’t that a breach of an agreement that you oversaw?

MR PALLADINO: As far as Mr. Greenblatt’s words and tweets and whatnot, I would refer you to the White House for the --

QUESTION: But that’s now U.S. policy. I mean, he’s not speaking by himself.

MR PALLADINO: As far as the Taylor – I mean, we’ve – we have said clearly many times before that the United States condemns the abhorrent practice of the Palestinian Authority’s payments to imprisoned terrorists and the families of terrorists. It’s – the Taylor Force Act addresses this practice.

QUESTION: But that’s --

MR PALLADINO: That’s why it’s relevant, and by restricting United States economic assistance that directly benefits the Palestinian Authority until it ends those payments. So this is something the United States continues to press the Palestinian Authority on to discontinue this reprehensible program that incentivizes terrorism. We strongly urge the Palestinian Authority not to reward terrorist violence.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

QUESTION: Robert, on Iraq?

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR PALLADINO: Iraq.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR PALLADINO: We’ll start – Iraq. Go ahead, Laurie, please, let’s see.

QUESTION: Thank you. The Popular Mobilization Forces figured prominently as abusers in your report yesterday on human rights in Iraq, particularly in the north, and Ayatollah Sistani said that pretty much to Iran’s president yesterday as well when they met. So do you think security and stability can be regained in Iraq without addressing this problem or aren’t the Sunni Arabs, as long as they’re being subject to abuse by sectarian militia, going to keep turning to a group like ISIS just to get away from this abuse?

MR PALLADINO: I guess I’d point out, as the Human Rights Report itself indicates, we are deeply concerned about any abuses committed by sectarian armed forces. Many of those armed groups are aligned with Iran, which shares in the blame for their abuses, and which has used those groups to undermine Iraq’s security, stability, and sovereignty. Qasem Soleimani and his Qods Force actively seek to use these armed groups to intimidate the Iraqi people and undermine the legitimate authority of Iraq’s elected government.

The deputy chief of the Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu al-Muhandis, is on video declaring his loyalty not to Iraq and Iraq’s duly elected leaders, but to Qasem Soleimani. And this disregard for Iraqi sovereignty undermines the will of the Iraqi people.

Are --

QUESTION: Well just on al-Muhandis, who is a particularly nefarious character because he is indicted for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. embassy in Kuwait a long time ago, indicted for it, would you consider issuing a criminal arrest warrant or doing something particular against al-Muhandis?

MR PALLADINO: I’m not going to preview anything today. I would just say that Iraq can achieve security and stability only if Iran respects Iraq’s sovereignty and ceases to subvert the central government’s ability to rein in these ill-disciplined armed forces.

QUESTION: Robert, on the Iranian president visit to Iraq, he met with tribes leaders and he signed several agreements with the Iraqi Government. Do you have any comment on these agreements? And how can they help the U.S. sanctions on Iran?

MR PALLADINO: We respect Iraq’s sovereign right to conduct its foreign relations for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I guess we’d say we also – we think it’s a shame that Iraq’s neighbors don’t necessarily see it the same way. The Iranian regime speaks of cooperation with Iraq, but as the Secretary noted just yesterday, its actions are aimed at subverting Iraqi sovereignty, making Iraq dependent upon Iran, and turning Iran into a vassal state.

QUESTION: Turning Iraq into a vassal --

MR PALLADINO: Turning Iraq into a vassal state. The Iraqis are a proud people. They value their independence and sovereignty, and they have long memories. Their skepticism about Iran’s intentions is understandable. Stop there.

QUESTION: But they signed the agreements that might undermine the U.S. sanctions on Iran.

MR PALLADINO: I haven’t seen that yet, and I’d have to – I’d take a look. I don’t want to speak on it.

QUESTION: Robert, do you also respect Iran’s sovereign right to conduct foreign policy the way it sees fit?

MR PALLADINO: Iran’s malign influence is well noted, its lack of respect for the sovereignty of its neighbors is well demonstrated, and that is a malign influence that the United States will continue to counter.

QUESTION: Right. But do you believe that Iran has a sovereign right to conduct foreign policy, or is it only if their foreign policy is something that you don’t object to?

MR PALLADINO: Absolutely not. We’re talking about --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I’m just asking, do they have a sovereign right to their own foreign policy?

MR PALLADINO: We respect each nation’s right to conduct foreign policy, absolutely.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Robert, India? India? India?

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

MR PALLADINO: We’ve – I already asked on you --

QUESTION: India.

MR PALLADINO: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: India.

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: I think we should probably do Afghanistan, okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MR PALLADINO: Okay? Do we --

QUESTION: Ambassador Khalilzad’s comments, please --

MR PALLADINO: Do you have communal --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PALLADINO: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: What about the comments of Ambassador Khalilzad?

MR PALLADINO: All right.

QUESTION: Robert, (inaudible).

MR PALLADINO: Is there a question? What was the – who wants to ask the question?

QUESTION: Conor, Conor.

QUESTION: All right, (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I believe Conor – Conor --

QUESTION: Okay. Okay.

MR PALLADINO: Conor, Conor, please, let’s go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Robert. The Afghan national security advisor is in town and gave comments this morning that I’m sure you’re aware of, really blasting Special Representative Khalilzad, accusing him of weakening the Afghan Government so that he could one day become the viceroy, saying that the U.S. talks with the Taliban are the wrong approach and have undermined the government’s legitimacy. Would you care to expound to that?

MR PALLADINO: To the comments themselves, we don’t believe that they warrant a public response, but I would add that our Under Secretary for Political Affairs David Hale is meeting with him as of 20 minutes ago, 3 o’clock this afternoon, to communicate the United States Government’s displeasure.

We remain in close consultation with President Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah, and other senior members of the Afghan Government on all matters involving peace in Afghanistan. And at every available opportunity, often multiple times during a single trip abroad, Special Representative Khalilzad has traveled to Kabul for updates and consultations. Khalilzad and President Ghani also speak regularly by telephone. In addition, Ambassador Bass, our ambassador in Kabul, and his team – they’re in touch with President Ghani on a near daily basis. So there is no lack of coordination.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up.

MR PALLADINO: Sure.

QUESTION: The follow-up is so do you still – does the U.S. Government still have confidence in the government of Ashraf Ghani? And number two, if the Taliban is refusing to meet with the Afghan Government, can you guarantee that there will be no troop pullout until that time?

MR PALLADINO: To the first question, yes. To the second question, an intra-Afghan dialogue must be a part of any final package. Such a dialogue must include the Taliban, the Afghan Government, and other Afghan stakeholders, including women and youth.

Now, Special Representative Khalilzad returned yesterday and he’s currently in consultations here at the State Department and around Washington as well as meeting with representatives from other partner countries. And the last round of talks saw meaningful progress. We have moved to an agreement in draft on the first of the two core issues, specifically counterterrorism assurances and troop withdrawal. And when the agreement in draft is finalized, the Taliban and an inclusive Afghan negotiating team that includes the Afghan Government and other Afghans will begin their work on the other two core issues: intra-Afghan negotiations on a political settlement and a comprehensive ceasefire.

QUESTION: Follow-on, Robert.

MR PALLADINO: Sure. Francesco.

QUESTION: One question is – is Ambassador Khalilzad part of the meeting with David Hale and the Afghan NSA?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t have that information.

QUESTION: And the other one is have you got any acknowledgments or agreement from the Taliban that some kind of intra-Afghan talks will happen after their recent agreement on the two first pillars?

MR PALLADINO: I’m not going to be able to go get into any more details on the current negotiations, as they’re private. They’re ongoing, and we want to give the parties time to work out these issues in private.

QUESTION: So when you and Ambassador Khalilzad say after there’s an agreement on the two first pillars there will be talks, intra-Afghan talks, it’s your point of view; it’s not an agreed point of view with the Taliban?

MR PALLADINO: I would say that when the agreement on the draft is finalized, the Taliban and an inclusive Afghan negotiating team that includes the Afghan Government and other Afghans – at that point, they will begin to work on the other two core issues.

QUESTION: And the Taliban agreed to that?

MR PALLADINO: We – there’s no agreement until we have a full agreement, and we will continue to work towards that, okay?

QUESTION: Robert.

QUESTION: Follow-up.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Another – wait, wait, wait, wait.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: One more on Afghanistan.

MR PALLADINO: I called on you, Abbie. Let’s go – Lalit, please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Before going public with his comments on the Taliban talks, did the Government of Afghanistan has reached out to U.S., the State Department, about its views of the talks? It looks like it’s quite opposite. It doesn’t want talks with the Taliban to happen. (Inaudible) Mohib said the Taliban and terrorism have the same DNA, are the same DNA.

MR PALLADINO: As I said earlier, I’m not going to – we don’t believe that the comments that were made warrant a public response. And we are in discussions with the government to express our displeasure.

Please.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up?

QUESTION: But in terms of communicating --

QUESTION: India. India, please.

MR PALLADINO: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just quickly on this.

MR PALLADINO: Okay.

QUESTION: After previous rounds of talks, though, Ambassador Khalilzad has gone directly to Kabul. He didn’t do that this time. Was there are a particular reason why he didn’t go to consult the Afghan Government immediately afterwards?

MR PALLADINO: Both Special Representative Khalilzad and Ambassador Bass are in close consultation with President Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah, and other senior members of the Afghan Government, as well as the country’s broader political leadership, on all matters involving peace in Afghanistan. And in our talks with the Taliban representatives, we are getting to a place where the Taliban and an inclusive Afghan negotiating team can come together to discuss a political settlement that ends the conflict. This intra-Afghan dialogue must be part of any final package and such a dialogue must include the Taliban, the Afghan Government, and other Afghan stakeholders. So we are in continuous daily coordination, and I’ll stop there.

QUESTION: Can I --

MR PALLADINO: All right.

QUESTION: One last question.

QUESTION: Robert, India, please. India.

MR PALLADINO: So, please, right here. Go ahead. Cindy, go ahead.

QUESTION: If the national security advisor is the one who --

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. One more just follow to that. Has the U.S. received assurances from other members of the Afghan Government that the national security advisor’s opinion is not representative of the full Afghan Government?

MR PALLADINO: As I said earlier, we’re confident in our Afghan Government partner.

Please. Yes, let’s go ahead.

QUESTION: Robert --

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait. So you don’t think that he represents the Afghan Government’s position?

MR PALLADINO: I did not say that at all. We remain confident in our Afghan Government partner.

QUESTION: Okay. Well --

MR PALLADINO: And I’ve already explained that there is a meeting going on as we speak.

QUESTION: Yes.

PARTICIPANT: And we’ll provide a readout on --

QUESTION: Oh, you will?

MR PALLADINO: We – I – well, I hope so. I don’t know. (Laughter.) I hope so.

QUESTION: Speaking of --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PALLADINO: I’ll try. I’m going to try.

QUESTION: Maybe about the same time that Venezuela’s transition to democracy begins.

MR PALLADINO: I’ll try.

QUESTION: Speaking of communications --

MR PALLADINO: Janne, please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Robert.

MR PALLADINO: Okay.

QUESTION: You are so nice.

MR PALLADINO: Well, I don’t know.

QUESTION: Can you give us on the readout of working group meeting between Wong – Alex Wong, assistant secretary, and the South Korean delegations today?

MR PALLADINO: Okay. You are referring to our deputy assistant secretary, Alex --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PALLADINO: United States – this is the United States-Republic of Korea working group. They held a working group meeting earlier today here in Washington. This is something that is happening routinely now, regularly, and it’s part of our comprehensive and close coordination over North Korea.

During the meeting, the United States and the Republic of Korea shared updates on efforts to achieve our shared goal of a final, fully verified denuclearization, including through the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The two sides reaffirmed their commitment to continue regularly hosting these close – these consultations and coordinations as alliance partners.

And you saw as well, I’m sure, that Special Representative Biegun is in New York today and --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: They talked also --

MR PALLADINO: I believe that was at 3 o’clock, and he’s meeting with the permanent representatives there, and they are talking about the summit as – he’s providing a briefing on the summit and what we are doing, the world is doing, to ensure the full implementation of the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions on this matter.

QUESTION: Robert --

QUESTION: Is he taking any meetings with the North Korean representative?

MR PALLADINO: Not in New York.

QUESTION: Also, both side discussed about the sanctions lift – I mean U.S. sanctions lift against North Korea, if they did any discussion about these issues?

MR PALLADINO: He -- they’re briefing – he’s providing a briefing, a readout, of what transpired at the recent summit in Hanoi and what we’re doing to ensure continued enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR PALLADINO: Right.

QUESTION: Robert.

QUESTION: Robert.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Robert, India. India.

QUESTION: Are you --

QUESTION: Can you clarify something that you said earlier? On the Afghanistan issue, you said that there was no lack of coordination. I’m assuming you mean with the Afghan Government.

MR PALLADINO: Correct.

QUESTION: The NSA is claiming that they’re getting information by tweets and that they’re kept in the dark. Do you then dispute what he’s saying? I mean, are you sharing – is the State Department sharing all of its information with him, or are they getting some of the news from tweets?

MR PALLADINO: We are extremely – in extremely close coordination with President Ghani and other Afghan leaders on a – in a variety of ways – on the telephone, in person, and on a daily basis, and that’s going to continue.

Please.

QUESTION: Robert, could I have a --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Lalit, one more. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have one question on China. China has a strong objections to the remarks made by Secretary Pompeo yesterday about its human rights violation. China is saying that U.S. will come out of its Cold War mentality and is also accusing U.S. of interfering in its internal affairs. How do you see that reaction?

MR PALLADINO: We spoke about this at length yesterday. This is something that we’re going to continue to speak out about. This really is an appalling situation that’s ongoing and we’re alarmed, frankly, that there’s over a million people at least being detained: Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, other members of Muslim-minority groups in these internment camps. We will continue to call on China to end these policies and to free these people that have been arbitrarily detained.

Secretary Pompeo was certainly clear yesterday, and he was certainly clear on this issue when his Chinese counterpart visited Washington for the Diplomatic and Security Dialogue that we held a few months ago. We will echo the Government of Turkey’s recent statement on this matter in which they called this a great shame for humanity. That’s well said. We are committed to promoting accountability for those who are committing these violations and considering targeted sanctions as well.

QUESTION: Considering --

MR PALLADINO: Targeted measures as well.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: And I also point out that on March 13th, the United States co-hosted an event with Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom at the United Nations in Geneva to, together, continue to raise awareness on this issue. We’ll continue to do so and we also strongly encourage the United Nations and the high commissioner for human rights to make these abuses a priority.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: So you said that you – you said that you support the Government of Turkey’s statements of concern and complaint about Chinese treatment of religious minorities, but I never heard you support the Government of Turkey’s complaints and concerns about the Palestinians. Is there – do you just pick and choose which Turkish position you want to support?

MR PALLADINO: The Turkish Government’s February 9th statement was well said in which they stated that the reintroduction of internment camps in the 21st century and the policy of systemic assimilation against the Uighur Turks carried out by the authorities of China is a great shame for humanity. That is well said.

QUESTION: Right, but I

QUESTION: One more, Robert. Robert.

QUESTION: Right, but I know that – but you don’t agree with Turkey on everything, right?

MR PALLADINO: Of course not.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PALLADINO: We tend not to agree with – on everything with everyone. That is true. That’s --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: And so – let --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) something about Syria aid?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Robert, one more?

MR PALLADINO: Okay. Last question. Please, you got me.

QUESTION: On the Syrian aid?

MR PALLADINO: Go ahead.

QUESTION: General Dunford today in his (inaudible) in the Congress, he said that troops in Iraq would be slightly less than the number, and President Trump said in his last visit that they – that you will remain the troops there to watch in on. Is there any change in the strategy?

MR PALLADINO: No change in our strategy, and I haven’t seen General Dunford’s comments, but for anything further on that, I’d – I would refer you to the Department of Defense as well.

QUESTION: Robert, can (inaudible) the Syria aid? The Syria aid?

MR PALLADINO: Going to – we’re going to stop there, guys. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Just a clarification on the Syria aid?

(The briefing was concluded at 3:40 p.m.)

DPB # 6

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.

Robert Palladino




Deputy Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing




Washington, DC




March 7, 2019










Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



VENEZUELA



MEXICO



NORTH KOREA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



IRAN/REGION



CHINA



PAKISTAN



VENEZUELA



EGYPT



NICARAGUA



SYRIA



ZIMBABWE



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:53 p.m. EST

MR PALLADINO: All right, one thing to begin with today. Yesterday, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs launched the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs, and this is a new initiative supporting women entrepreneurs around the world. The academy will equip women with the practical skills needed to create sustainable businesses and enterprises.

Through an inclusive learning community, women from around the world will be given opportunities to explore the fundamentals of business, including creating business plans and raising capital, with the goal of building a better future for families and communities around the world. The inaugural cohort will feature women in 26 countries, primarily Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, and that’s going to include the Bahamas, Barbados, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Senegal, Spain, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

QUESTION: Venezuela, huh?

MR PALLADINO: Venezuela.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PALLADINO: The program will support the White House-led Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, which is designed to empower at least 50 million women worldwide by 2025 to fulfill their economic potential, and in doing so, create conditions for increased stability and security and prosperity for all. And with that, I’d be happy to take some questions.

QUESTION: I got two extremely brief ones, one just to clear something up on Venezuela. Yesterday the Vice President said that 77 additional visas had been revoked or whatever it is that you guys do for that. And then today, the assistant secretary, Kim Breier, tweeted that 77 additional visas – are they the same ones? Are we --

MR PALLADINO: The same 77, right.

QUESTION: Okay. All right, so that’s --

MR PALLADINO: So yesterday, that was an additional 77 visa --

QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s --

MR PALLADINO: -- revocations, and to date, more that 250 is the number.

QUESTION: Okay. But you’re not doing these in blocks of 77? So there’s not --

MR PALLADINO: No, there’s nothing special, Matt. Yes.

QUESTION: All right, and then secondly, I don’t know if you’re aware of this report that came out of San Diego last night about DHS and the CBP – Customs and Border Protection flagging U.S. citizen travelers to Mexico for specific – for additional questioning, et cetera. Are you aware of this?

MR PALLADINO: I have seen that story, I have.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have anything to do with this? And if it does not, can you say whether it would exceed to some kind of – to a request from another federal government agency to provide information about – passport information about Americans for what would seem to be noncriminal or just kind of political actions or reporting or activism?

MR PALLADINO: What I can say is definitively the State Department has nothing at all, no role to do with any of this. This is a – this is apparently related to actions that are taken by other governmental agencies, so I’m not going to speculate what those are. Of course, law enforcement possibly could be involved, but I don’t want to speculate. And then if you’re – for further information, I think Department of Homeland Security would be the best place to go.

QUESTION: You’re going to knock this down as a hypothetical, but I’m going to ask it anyway. If another government had done this, what would the – what would this – the building’s position be on that? Would that be something that would raise concerns from the State Department if, say, this was the Government of France or --

MR PALLADINO: I’m not going to speculate. I don’t want to do a hypothetical, Matt, all right?

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

MR PALLADINO: Thanks.

QUESTION: Robert.

MR PALLADINO: Francesco.

QUESTION: May I have one?

MR PALLADINO: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you, Robert. On North Korea, on the reports that the site has been rebuilt by North Koreans, I wanted to know if you guys have reached out to the North Koreans to ask an explanation, and at least if you have had any contact with them since the summit in Hanoi on Tuesday. You weren’t able to answer to that.

MR PALLADINO: Before I get to your question, I should have read – said – mentioned something at the top, just for the general group. At 4 o’clock here today, there will be an on background briefing by a senior State Department official on the subject of North Korea, for anyone that’s interested. So there will be some more subject matter expert later today. But regarding your --

QUESTION: In other words, Francesco, he’s not going to answer your question. (Laughter.)

MR PALLADINO: No, no.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. But --

MR PALLADINO: That is not what I just said, actually. And what I would say is – if I could remember your question now, Francesco. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Did you reach out to the North Koreans to get an explanation or at least to --

MR PALLADINO: I think the President spoke to this yesterday. And he said, were it to be true, he would be disappointed.

QUESTION: But my question is different. Did you have any contact with North Koreans?

MR PALLADINO: Right. And I’m not going to be able to discuss or confirm every communication that the United States is having with North Korea. But our message here publicly – and privately, for that matter – is we’re ready. We remain ready to engage North Korea in a constructive negotiation.

QUESTION: A follow up?

MR PALLADINO: Please, Lesley.

QUESTION: Robert, but today there was a 2.1-magnitue earth tremor in North Korea in a mining town. Do you believe this has got anything to do with testing, a testing site, or any kind of testing or questionable behavior by the North Koreans?

MR PALLADINO: Yeah, I have seen those reports. We’re aware of them. I have no evidence suggesting that to be the case.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: Robert?

MR PALLADINO: Any on this subject? Can we --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PALLADINO: Mr. Gordon, please.

QUESTION: Just a sort of policy question, not an intel question. President Trump and senior State Department officials said that, at the Hanoi summit, Kim Jong-un had reaffirmed the moratorium on missile test launches and nuclear tests. And my question is: Is it the U.S. understanding that this missile test moratorium also applies to satellite launches, should the North Koreans undertake such a activity from their satellite launch site? If they were to do that, would you consider that a breach of their missile test moratorium? I ask because of the reported work at that satellite launch site and the history of dealing with North Korean Leap Day agreement.

MR PALLADINO: Yeah, we’ve seen those reports, and we’re not going to comment on intelligence. And regarding what would be our policy in this regard, I’m not going to respond to that today. I’m going to defer on that. All right?

QUESTION: Can I follow up, Robert?

MR PALLADINO: Sure. Right here, please.

QUESTION: A little while ago President Trump said in the Oval Office that “We’ll let you know in about a year” on North Korea. Can you elaborate on what that means for negotiations?

MR PALLADINO: I would refer you to the White House. I’m not going to try to --

QUESTION: So negotiations are ongoing?

QUESTION: Robert?

MR PALLADINO: Said, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Very quick question. This, on the occasion of the International Women’s Day, there are 48 Palestinian women at the Damon prison. I mean, there are many more, but in this particular prison, many of them – if not all of them, but many of them – are on administrative detention that just keeps getting renewed all the time. There are girls that have grown up to be women in there. I mean, there are mothers with their children that are denied exercise and denied books, and on all these – could you look into it? Could you look into this issue? And what would you have to say to the Israelis? Would you urge them to release those who are on administrative detentions? Because that is not a policy that is – that, let’s say, Western democracies implement, administration detentions.

MR PALLADINO: What I would say is, Said, I’m not familiar with any of these cases that you’re referencing. So I mean, I would have to refer you to the Government of Israel for more information on --

QUESTION: I understand.

MR PALLADINO: Right.

QUESTION: And I know that I could be referred to the Government of Israel and so on, and I probably know what they would say. But do you – are you alarmed by this situation? Are you alarmed by young girls – 14, 13, 15 – that are – that get to prison and they spend years and they grow up to be women in the same prison and so on, denied any access to recourse of – or legal recourse? Does that bother you? Does that – do you feel uncomfortable knowing that your ally Israel is doing that?

MR PALLADINO: Again, I know nothing about that. But I would say that as close partners and allies with Israel we have frank discussions and on a wide range of issues.

Laurie.

QUESTION: You don’t know anything about administrative detention in Israel?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t know – I don’t – I know nothing about the specific cases that Said is raising.

QUESTION: Said has been asking about this for, like, every day for the last, like, five years.

MR PALLADINO: These 47? I don’t know anything about these cases. Go ahead, Laurie.

QUESTION: The Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will visit Baghdad on Sunday with a trade delegation. So I have two questions. One, do you have any comment on his visit in general? And two, any comment on the trade delegations? They were all complying with the sanctions on Iran?

MR PALLADINO: I would say that our concerns about Iran’s malign influence in the region are well known. In Iraq, Iran’s support of armed groups, many of which engage in criminal behavior that undermines the security of Iraqi civilians, especially those from persecuted religious communities. And that’s why we insist that armed groups in Iraq must be under the effective command and control of the central government, and we believe strongly in Iraq sovereignty, that it must be respected. And we remain concerned about any actions that could heighten sectarian tensions inside of Iraq. So our position is we urge Iran to avoid actions that undermine the authority of the state, efforts that are aimed at promoting reconciliations among communities in Iraq and the rights of all Iraqi citizens.

As your second question was regards to a trade delegation, I would say that the question of Iraq’s foreign relations is for the Iraqi Government to answer. And after years of conflict, we believe that the Iraqis, first and foremost, would value their sovereignty and independence.

QUESTION: Well, to follow up on your statement about the pro-Iranian militias, you sanctioned al-Nujaba the other day. There’s also calls for you to sanction Qais Khazali’s militia, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which was involved in attacking Americans and other coalition members during the Iraq – during Operation Iraqi Freedom. What do you have to say about the fact that that militia still remains active in Iraq and that Khazali has 15 seats in the Iraqi parliament?

MR PALLADINO: Yeah. Nothing further on that today, Laurie. Sorry.

Yeah. Please, right here.

QUESTION: On China, Chinese telecommunication company Huawei filed a lawsuit, suing the U.S. Government for prohibiting the federal agency of using its equipment. Do you have anything on the latest deferment? Is there any diplomatic conversation between U.S. and China on Huawei’s legal battle?

MR PALLADINO: Regarding this litigation, I don't have any comment on that, because it’s pending litigation. That’s really all I have to say about that lawsuit. We have made our – more generally, aside from that lawsuit, on the question of Huawei, that’s something that we have spoken about regularly and consistently in recent days, on the Secretary’s travel especially.

The United States advocates for secure telecom networks and supply chains that are free from suppliers subject to foreign government control or undue influence, which would pose risks of unauthorized access and malicious cyber activity. Because we believe that these risks posed by vendors subject to extrajudicial or unchecked compulsion by foreign states that do not share our values need to be weighed rigorously before making procurement decisions on these technologies. So we are in the process of routinely engaging our allies and our partners to provide them with information to help them to evaluate the risks, to exercise vigilance, so they can secure their own systems and protect their own people. This is something that we are engaged in, and this is a decision that every nation must make for itself.

QUESTION: Secretary Pompeo is going to Houston next week for energy conference to address – in your words, to address how America’s energy revolution strengthens national security in an age of renewed great power competition. And meanwhile, we understand there are a group of 11 senators, bipartisan senators, has wrote a letter and asking the government to look at new issue and also to call for a ban on electrical device, meaning inverters produced by Huawei not to be used in the energy infrastructure. First, do you agree with those senators’ call? And secondly, should we expect Secretary Pompeo to warn the energy sectors not to use products, specifically inverters, produced by Huawei?

MR PALLADINO: Regarding the first specific call as I understand it, I’m not familiar with that specific ask, and I don’t have a specific answer to give. So I’m going to refrain from doing so.

Regarding what the Secretary is going to be raising next week, he’s going to be talking about energy policy as a matter of national security, and on that I’m certain that our – the Indo-Pacific will very much be a focus. But I don’t want to get too far ahead of what the Secretary will or will not be speaking about next week. We’ll have some more information to give you in that regard, so --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to --

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow-up on Huawei, Robert? Follow-up on Huawei?

MR PALLADINO: Huawei. Okay, let’s – little bit more Huawei. Sure.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) explicit. So do you include Huawei among the list of vendors that you believe poses a threat to telecom (inaudible)?

MR PALLADINO: We do.

QUESTION: Okay. And then, do you believe that Huawei has grounds to file this lawsuit in the United States?

MR PALLADINO: Not going to comment on the legislation. I’d refer to the Department of Justice.

Lalit.

QUESTION: Thank you. The news reports coming out of the UN building in New York City says that U.S., France, and Britain have moved a new resolution in UN Security Council for terrorist designation of Azhar Masood. U.S. has – U.S. and France has done this in the past, but China has always blocked it, saying that you people don’t have enough evidence against Azhar Masood. So what has changed now? What – do you have any fresh evidence? Have you talked to the Chinese? They are convinced this time?

MR PALLADINO: Our views on Masood Azhar and Jaish-e-Mohammed are well-known. Jaish-e-Mohammed is a United Nations-designated terrorist group that has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks and is a threat to regional stability. Masood Azhar is the founder and leader of JEM. As far as your specific question on United Nations sanctions committee deliberations, those are confidential and as such, it’s not something that I’m going to be able to comment on specific matters in that regard. But we will continue to work with the sanctions committee to ensure that the list is updated and that it’s accurate.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to Sri.

QUESTION: Follow-up? Follow-up?

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go – Sri, please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, thanks. My question is also about India and Pakistan. As you know, Pakistan has arrested 44 people who are members of terror organizations. In the past, Pakistan has taken action against such individuals, but they haven’t been credible or long-lasting. This time, do you think – how is the U.S. viewing this? Is the U.S. viewing this as more of the same old, same old, or is it viewing it as a structural break, that something is different this time? And if you’re optimistic about things this time, why the optimism?

MR PALLADINO: I would say that we, the United States notes these steps and we continue to urge Pakistan to take sustained, irreversible action against terrorist groups that will prevent future attacks and that will promote regional stability. And we reiterate our call for Pakistan to abide by its United Nations Security Council obligations to deny terrorists safe haven and block their entry to funds. And I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Just follow, Robert?

MR PALLADINO: Please, Rich.

QUESTION: Robert, on Venezuela, can you – can you confirm that Venezuela has deported an American citizen and journalist to the United States?

MR PALLADINO: He’s on his way to Miami, as I understand, and we’re happy on that regard. Yes.

Please.

QUESTION: Venezuela.

QUESTION: Robert. Robert.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Let’s try right there.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: It’s just the one, yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Actually, my subject of the question is kind of old, but it might be new anytime – sometime soon now. Mr. Palladino, as you know, State Department has held some of those individuals in Congo accountable and even imposed --

MR PALLADINO: I’m sorry, where?

QUESTION: Congo.

MR PALLADINO: Congo?

QUESTION: Yeah, in Congo accountable, and even imposed some sanctions due to human rights abuse and undermining democracy, releasing a statement about that. But the Sisi government has been reportedly torturing and executing opposition members without a fair trial, as it happened with nine young Egyptian citizens a couple of weeks ago, and is it about to happen again due to the ongoing trials. But we haven’t heard anything from the State Department about this. Do you have any comment on that?

MR PALLADINO: Sure.

QUESTION: To prevent the further executions, maybe.

MR PALLADINO: We discuss human rights regularly in all of our interactions when we engage with other nations, and that includes Egypt. I don’t have anything specific on the particular case that you are raising today, and I would want to gather a little more information before responding specifically to that, but we have raised and will continue to raise at senior levels the fundamental importance for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the need for a robust civil society. I’ll stop there.

Please.

QUESTION: Nicaragua.

MR PALLADINO: Nicaragua.

QUESTION: On Syria.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Okay, we’ll try Nicaragua. Please.

QUESTION: There is a dialogue going on in Nicaragua. Does the U.S. support this dialogue, and specifically if the U.S. thinks that the Catholic Church, which were very relevant in the previous dialogue, if they should participate as a witness in the negotiations?

MR PALLADINO: We continue to urge the Ortega government to take concrete actions now to join the church-led peace dialogue, and to negotiate in good faith. That’s what I’d say.

Please, Syria. Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you. So, as you know, there are thousands of women and children who have escaped Baghouz. The women, of course, they were ISIS brides, and the children are their children. So what’s your stance on the children, and should they suffer for the crimes their parents have committed?

MR PALLADINO: Our position on foreign terrorist fighters we’ve spoken about previously here, but you’re asking specifically about --

QUESTION: About the children.

MR PALLADINO: -- children that could – I mean, we’re taking – those on the ground are taking every precaution possible as that – the final fight continues and we’re coming close to an end. There are many groups on the ground with whom we’re engaging that are very involved in that, and of course we’re trying to ensure everything is done to minimize any danger.

QUESTION: Is anything done, like, by the State Department’s human rights and labor department to make sure these children are safe and not harmed in the process of trying to bring the mothers or the fathers to justice?

MR PALLADINO: We’re working with those groups that are on the ground in this regard, and we will continue to do so.

Please, Christina.

QUESTION: On Syria. Could I just ask you why it took you six days to put out a statement about the OPCW findings on the Douma attack?

MR PALLADINO: Six days ago would have been Saturday morning and I had just gotten back from Hanoi. I’m sorry. Yeah.

QUESTION: March 1st it came out.

MR PALLADINO: You got it today. I know.

QUESTION: No, but I mean --

MR PALLADINO: Sorry. We’re slow.

QUESTION: Well, don’t apologize to me. But I mean, if you want your – it just seems to me to be smart from a communications point of view that if you want your sense, your stance on something known, you should try and get it out a little bit more contemporaneously with the actual thing you’re commenting on.

MR PALLADINO: Again, again, I want to hire you for our communications team at some point, but your point is taken.

QUESTION: It’s like offering condolences for President Truman’s death.

MR PALLADINO: We’ll be better. We’ll be better. Christina. Christina had a question.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask a follow-up. To that point, though, is there any kind of State Department policy in the offing, in the works to deal with the kids of these foreign fighters, especially foreign fighters that you said you’re not going to repatriate? Hoda Muthana comes to mind. Because it just seems to me it’s a little shortsighted to say, okay, so now we’ve got a bunch of kids of people who aligned themselves with terrorists in refugee camps, growing up I’m assuming even angrier at the U.S. than their parents would be. Isn’t this – by not having a way to deal with this, aren’t you kind of shooting yourselves in the foot when it comes to trying to deal with these policies and these people and making sure there’s not another generation looking to join ISIS and start this all over again?

MR PALLADINO: We’re taking a look at these issues and we’re going to continue to do so, but I don’t have any policies to announce today.

Let’s go to Lesley, please.

QUESTION: I have a twofer, as they say. President Erdogan said yesterday that his country would never turn back from its deal to purchase the S-400 from Russia and that it would actually also look at the S-500 from Russia. Does this in any way – and you’ve probably seen that the currency’s moving, the lira is reacting to this because of – it provides some more tensions for – between the countries. What is your reaction to that? Is it a do-or-die rule that they absolutely cannot buy this? Is there a middle road here?

MR PALLADINO: I was – I explained the policy yesterday in detail, and I would refer back to that. I have nothing additional to add to what we said yesterday.

QUESTION: And then on Zimbabwe, please, yesterday the – or the day before that the President extended the sanctions against Zimbabwe. It comes at a time when African leaders want those sanctions lifted. Is there any – why did the President extend them, and is there any discussions going on with the new government to lift some or all of them?

MR PALLADINO: Right, so you’re referring to the March 4th renewal?

QUESTION: Correct, which the President put out.

MR PALLADINO: Right, which would maintain targeted sanctions on individuals and entities in Zimbabwe that are responsible for undermining democratic processes and institutions.

QUESTION: Correct.

MR PALLADINO: The basis of that is something that is renewed annually and has been done for – yeah, the basis – that is the basis of law.

QUESTION: I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking.

MR PALLADINO: Yes. It’s done under – it’s in pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which are various executive orders under that – that fall under that.

QUESTION: So you believe that nothing has improved under the new government?

MR PALLADINO: I would say that these sanctions target certain persons and senior – who are senior officials in the Government of Zimbabwe that have participated in human rights abuses related to political repression, or they’ve engaged in facilitating public corruption by senior officials. This is not comprehensive sanctions; this is targeted sanctions against specific individuals. And the renewal that was – that took place on the 4th is – does not add any new names. It is simply a renewal of the sanctions that were – targeted sanctions that were already in place, and I’ll – does that --

QUESTION: So nothing’s improved?

MR PALLADINO: We believe that President Emmerson Mnangagwa has yet to implement the political and economic overhaul required to improve the country’s reputation with the community of nations, and with the United States, frankly. The actions of the targeted individuals continue to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes, and I’ll stop there. So we – well, we’re also seriously concerned about the ongoing human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: The U.S. embassy in Riyadh – the U.S. embassy in Riyadh – I’ve got a question about --

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go --

QUESTION: -- about the U.S. embassy --

MR PALLADINO: Lalit, one more, Lalit. No, I already called on you, Said.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: One quick one on Afghanistan. Do you have any update on Ambassador Khalilzad’s talks to the Taliban? Has any progress, further progress, been made?

MR PALLADINO: Let me check.

QUESTION: If the answer is anything other than “no,” I will be – (laughter).

MR PALLADINO: No updates from yesterday – (laughter) – or two days ago.

QUESTION: That means you have to take Said’s question.

MR PALLADINO: But talks continue, talks are continuing, I would say.

QUESTION: So long he’s going to stay there? Do you know?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t have an end, but we remain committed to the efforts there, and that’s something that we’re going to continue to pursue. Special Representative Khalilzad is active on the ground right now with his counterpart, and we’ve spoken about that recently. I don’t have any new information on how the talks are progressing, but it’s something that we’re of course watching closely. The Secretary has indicated as much. He continues to watch this – we’re all watching this very closely, and no updates to provide, though, today.

QUESTION: Robert, U.S. embassy in Riyadh.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: The embassy in Riyadh --

MR PALLADINO: Guys, we’re going to call it there.

QUESTION: The U.S. embassy in Riyadh.

QUESTION: Hold on a --

MR PALLADINO: That is the end for today.

QUESTION: Wait a – hold on a second. Wait a second.

MR PALLADINO: Go ahead, go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, I’m going to – if Said can’t ask it, I’ll ask it.

MR PALLADINO: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on this report about the embassy staff in Riyadh being kept out of Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt’s meetings there?

QUESTION: Right, thank you.

QUESTION: And secondly, can you explain why exactly this Finnish journalist was – her – the award, International Women of Courage Award, was rescinded? Why did that happen?

MR PALLADINO: On the first one, I am not familiar with the report, I haven’t heard anything about that, and I don’t want to speculate.

On the second one, yeah, I’ve seen that report.

QUESTION: Oh, I’m sure you have.

MR PALLADINO: What I would say is we made a mistake. This was a regrettable error.

QUESTION: In rescinding it?

MR PALLADINO: In rescinding, we --

QUESTION: You should not have rescinded?

MR PALLADINO: No, no, no, no.

QUESTION: Oh.

MR PALLADINO: We incorrectly notified this individual that she had been selected as a finalist. This was an error. This was a mistake.

QUESTION: So she hadn’t been selected as a finalist?

MR PALLADINO: She had not. We regret the error. And to be clear, we admire this journalist’s achievements as a journalist, and that was the basis of her nomination by Embassy Helsinki.

QUESTION: Okay. So the process here is that the embassy, wherever the person is – various embassies nominate people, it comes back here, these – the nominations are looked at and then you guys make a decision. Somehow, someone screwed up here and notified her that she had won, but she hadn’t?

MR PALLADINO: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Is that – that’s the short? So it has --

MR PALLADINO: Yes.

QUESTION: -- nothing to do with any social media commentary that is critical of the President or this administration?

MR PALLADINO: I’ve seen that speculation. I’m not going to be able to go further into weighing the merits of who was selected, whether one person had more merit versus the other. That’s internal. But I can say we regret the error and we’ve got to do better in that regard. I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

MR PALLADINO: We’re done.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:27 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.

Robert Palladino




Deputy Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing




Washington, DC




December 18, 2018










Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



IRAN/DEPARTMENT



DPRK/DEPARTMENT



YEMEN/DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/REGION/DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



DPRK/ROK/REGION



AFGHANISTAN/REGION



SYRIA/REGION



MEXICO/REGION



DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/REGION/DEPARTMENT



INDIA/DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/REGION/VENEZUELA/DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

3:04 p.m. EST

MR PALLADINO: Hello, everyone. Sorry we’re running a little later today.

A couple for the top. I want to highlight today the department’s newly published report, To Walk the Earth in Safety, which I believe has been passed out already – it is in front of you – and which we posted today to our website. This annual report highlights the United States’ enduring commitment to making post-conflict communities safer and setting the stage for their recovery and development.

Since 1993, the United States has invested more than $3.2 billion for the securing and safe disposal of excess small arms, light weapons, and munitions, as well as the safe clearance of landmines and other explosive hazards in more than 100 countries, making the United States the world’s single largest financial supporter of conventional weapons destruction. Working in close cooperating with the Department of Defense and the United States Agency for International Development’s Leahy War Victims Fund, the Department of State has helped numerous countries to declare themselves mine-free.

And secondly, we welcome the recent statements issued by France and the European Union parliament and the resolution presented by Canada at the United Nations that was adopted by a clear majority yesterday, drawing the world’s attention, once again, to the Iranian regime’s sickening human rights record. Such statements underscore the international community’s grave concern regarding the regime’s daily violations of the human rights of the Iranian people.

We join others around the world in demanding an investigation into the senseless death of the arbitrarily detained activist Vahid Sayadi Nasiri as well as into the uninvestigated suspicious deaths of numerous others while they were in the custody of the Iranian regime. We call – we join others around the world in demanding the immediate and unconditional release of Nasrin Sotoudeh and all other arbitrarily detained individuals currently languishing in Iranian jails, including Farhad Meysami.

The United States will continue to support the Iranian people and to call for their fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, religion, and belief, to which they are entitled and justly deserve.

For that, I will open it up to questions.

QUESTION: On UN action, just very briefly, the UN – the General Assembly yesterday also passed a resolution condemning North Korea for human rights. Is there any reason that you didn’t want to mention that at the top?

MR PALLADINO: Happy to talk about North Korea, if we have questions about North Korea. Absolutely.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just wondering why you wouldn’t – why you would highlight Iran and not North Korea, which actually already has a nuclear weapon.

MR PALLADINO: We’ve been – we’ve spoken out often on North Korea here. And if there’s questions on North Korea --

QUESTION: Right.

MR PALLADINO: We – I mean, we decide usually a couple minutes before, Matt.

QUESTION: I can’t remember actually – you’ve also spoken out about Iran actually most – like every single day.

MR PALLADINO: Yeah.

QUESTION: So I’m just wondering why you chose to highlight the Iran resolution and not the North Korea one. That’s all.

MR PALLADINO: We’re not going to review how we prepare for a press briefing, Matt. And we’re trying to pull it together quickly.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PALLADINO: What’s your question, Matt?

QUESTION: I want to ask you just briefly – and I know you won’t be able to say a lot – but about this woman, this Yemeni woman who was trying to get here to see her dying son out on the west coast. I understand visa records are confidential, but my question about this is: Why does it always seem to take a public outcry for you guys to do what a lot of people think is the right thing, the humanitarian thing to do?

MR PALLADINO: What I’d say, Matt, is – I mean, I’ve read these reports, and it is a very sad case, and our thoughts go out to this family in this time, this trying time. But I would also add we – that we are governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, and visa records are confidential. For the latest, they could share information as they see fit, and that’s not something that we’re going to be able to do here from the State Department.

QUESTION: No, I’m not asking you – I’m not – we know what the – that the decision has been made and that she has gotten a waiver, at least according to the family’s lawyers. My question is: Why does it always seem to be – and this is not just this administration. This goes back previous administrations as well, is that in cases like this, it always seems that you guys don’t do what most people think would be the right and humane and humanitarian thing to do until there’s a public outcry about it. What is it about the visa process that makes it so harsh when it comes to situations like this?

MR PALLADINO: These are decided on a case-by-case basis, and we are committed to following United States administration law and ensuring the integrity and security of our country’s borders, and at the same time making every effort to facilitate legitimate travel to the United States. These are not easy questions. These are – we’ve got a lot of Foreign Service officers deployed all over the world that are making these decisions on a daily basis, and they’re trying very hard to do the right thing at all times.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: No, let’s move on – different question. Sorry. Lesley.

QUESTION: I want – well, I want to ask you about the meeting today with Iran and Turkey and Russia – if the U.S. – and on Syria. It appears that they failed to agree on the makeup of this constitutional body that would oversee a political process in Syria. Does the U.S. have a comment on this? And would you see any – I mean, can you see any further progress happening until – I mean, basically the UN envoy has to step – steps down at the end of the month.

MR PALLADINO: We believe that the only path to a political solution in Syria remains the United Nations-led political process in Geneva, and that includes constitutional reform, as you point out, and United Nations-supervised elections in line with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254.

United Nations Special Envoy de Mistura has long worked to launch a credible and balanced constitutional committee under the United Nations auspices. We look forward to de Mistura’s assessment of this process and – at the United Nations Security Council council, which is going to take place on December 20th.

Now, the establishment and convening by the end of the year of a credible and balanced constitutional committee in Geneva is an important step to lasting de-escalation and a political solution to this conflict, and this goal has broad international support from the quadrilateral summit in Istanbul. Russia and Turkey joined the call to convene the committee by December. So we fully support the work of the special envoy to facilitate the political process, and that empowers the United Nations to convene the Syrian Government and opposition representatives for political talks. And we’re going to remain engaged.

QUESTION: But Robert, once again there’s another delay until next – early next year. Does this mean that – I mean, this delays – these delays have been going on for quite a while.

MR PALLADINO: We’re going to remain engaged with the United Nations and with other parties, including Russia, and we are going to continue to encourage all possible efforts be taken to advance the political track, as called for in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254.

Let’s go to Janne, please.

QUESTION: Stay on Syria?

QUESTION: Thank you, Robert.

MR PALLADINO: Syria? All right, one more on Syria.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the visit that the Sudanese president has made to Syria and he met with President Assad two days ago?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t have anything on that from the (inaudible) today. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: But in principle --

QUESTION: Syria? Syria?

QUESTION: -- do you support such visits?

MR PALLADINO: Laurie. Let’s go to Laurie.

QUESTION: Syria. President Erdogan claimed yesterday that President Trump had given him a nod for a Turkish attack on Syria east of the Euphrates. That is a misstatement, isn’t it, that President Trump had told President Erdogan that they could attack east of the Euphrates?

MR PALLADINO: Yes. The United States and Turkey are coordinating actively on all issues affecting both Turkish security and the situation in northeast Syria, where, of course, as you know, U.S. forces are present in the campaign to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. We’ve made significant progress recently in the campaign, and – but the job is not yet done.

And President Trump and President Erdogan had discussed these issues in their telephone call last week, as did Secretary Pompeo and Foreign Minister Cavusoglu in a separate call. Both of our countries remain focused on coordination to counter the threats that terror poses to Turkey, the region, and beyond, and we believe we’re making progress with Turkey.

Please.

QUESTION: And to follow up on that, Ambassador Jeffrey yesterday described the U.S. relationship with the SDF as, quote, “tactical and transactional,” end quote, to defeat ISIS, and that makes it sound like the U.S. is going to use the Kurds and then abandon them. But then Ambassador Jeffrey compared the U.S. relationship to the SDF with its relationship with the KDP/PUK and SCIRI, which that relationship has lasted for over 20 years, and he said, quote, “The eventual goal is for the SDF to become part of the fabric of a changed Syrian society and that isn’t tactical or transactional at all.” So how would you characterize the U.S. relationship with the SDF?

MR PALLADINO: They’re a critical partner in the fight, and our goal for the SDF is the same for many other groups in Syria, and that is, as you just quoted Ambassador Jeffrey, that’s to be a part of the fabric of a changed Syria. And beyond that, I would refer you specifically to Ambassador Jeffrey’s comments, who spoke about it extensively yesterday.

QUESTION: And you don’t anticipate abandoning them?

MR PALLADINO: What we are focused on is a reformed Syria government, an international-supported ceasefire, and the international process that gives everyone – everyone a chance to live in Syria. I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can we go to North Korea?

MR PALLADINO: Yes, please, here.

QUESTION: Ambassador Haley spoke about the Israel-Palestine peace plan today at the UN, and she said she had read it so that’s confirmation that it exists. Two questions: One, has the rollout been delayed because of Netanyahu’s political troubles at home? And two, are the – is the administration reaching out to Palestinian businessmen to get support for the economic side of it given that the Palestinian Authority isn’t talking to them? This is what’s been reported.

MR PALLADINO: Yeah. I would refer to the White House on both of those, to Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner. They’re the ones that are focused most on this. We’re of course in close coordination, but I wouldn’t want to get ahead of anything now that the White House is planning.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: I’m going to Syria right there. Ben.

QUESTION: May I follow up on this, on her point? A very quick follow-up, okay? Because the Europeans – she was appealing to the Europeans and to the world to support the plan which nobody knows anything about. But the Europeans have responded by saying that they will support any peace plan that will include international resolutions and so on at the UN, including a two-state solution recognizing East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. Do you have any comment on that?

MR PALLADINO: When we’re ready to present the plan, it will be presented and we hope that everyone will be giving it a very close look.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on that?

MR PALLADINO: Ben. Let’s go to NHK.

QUESTION: North Korea, a quick follow-up on that?

MR PALLADINO: NHK. Right there, please.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can I just ask what the current status is with U.S.-DPRK negotiations? I know you put out an announcement that Steve Biegun is going to South Korea, but it seems he’s only meeting with South Korean counterparts. And over the weekend, North Korea put out some pretty strong statements after U.S. sanctions. So I’m just wondering, are you still having daily communications? Is there any sort of positive progress?

MR PALLADINO: Yeah, give me a second here. As you point out, our special representative has gone – is about to depart, I think, and – if I’m going to be clear – and he will be on his way to South Korea. You saw the media note early today.

To your first question, your first question was does communication still continue. I would say communication is ongoing, yes. And so as far as the status of what is going on right now, I would say our goal remains the same, and that is to achieve the final, fully verified denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as committed to by Chairman Kim in Singapore.

And at that summit in Singapore, President Trump and Chairman Kim, they made the first leader-level United States-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea commitment on denuclearization in history. And the United States remains confident that the commitments made by President Trump and Chairman Kim at their summit in Singapore will be fulfilled.

QUESTION: Still (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Robert, follow-up --

MR PALLADINO: It’s Chairman Kim’s commitment to denuclearization upon which the world remains focused. Follow-up?

QUESTION: Follow-up.

MR PALLADINO: Please, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you. You said that Singapore – that the Chairman Kim commitment on denuclearizations in Korean Peninsula – he never mentioned about denuclearizations in North Korea. What is different concept? Because Chairman Kim recently – he mentioned that – he never mentioned the denuclearization, their country, Seoul --

MR PALLADINO: Yeah. I haven’t seen those comments, but our focus remains denuclearization of North Korea, and that’s where we’re pushing. So --

QUESTION: So we’re a little confused at the --

MR PALLADINO: Don’t be confused. Our policy hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: Wait.

MR PALLADINO: We are focused on the denuclearization of North Korea. We remain confident and we look forward to the commitments that Chairman Kim and that President Trump have made, and --

QUESTION: One more follow-on --

QUESTION: That means – the denuclearization in Korean Peninsula meaning is the denuclearization in North Korea; is that right?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t want to split words, and I think our policy has been clear. Let’s go right there, please.

QUESTION: All right. So on the special representative’s travel to South Korea, he’s going to Seoul, but will he make any stop to Panmunjom while he’s there?

MR PALLADINO: I have nothing to announce on his trip during this – nothing to announce on future plans. I know – I think in the media note we outlined some of the meetings that he would be engaged in. There will be follow-up discussions to their November 20th meeting that they had here in Washington. He’ll be meeting with the Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Representative Lee Do-hoon and other Republic of Korea officials.

This is very much focused on strengthening United States-Republic of Korea coordination. And this is all about our shared objective for the final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea. And while he’s in Seoul, Special Representative Biegun and Special Representative Lee, they’re both going to also co-chair as – the United States-Republic of Korea working group meeting, and that’s going to be focused on our joint efforts to achieve this goal and to flesh that out further. And that will include inter-Korean cooperation projects as well.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

MR PALLADINO: Yeah. North --

QUESTION: Speaking of this – U.S.-ROK coordination, the United States and South Korea have failed so far to reach an agreement on President Trump’s demand that the South Koreans pay more to support U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, despite many meetings on this. Is there concern within the department that the failure to reach such an agreement is undermining the denuclearization talks, because it shows a lack of unity between North and – the U.S. and South Korea right now?

MR PALLADINO: Talks are ongoing, and the United States-Republic of Korea relationship, that really is a linchpin of – for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and in the region. And we’ll continue working together. Let’s go – please, right there. Right there.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: North Korea has complained against the U.S. recent sanctions, saying it breaks the progress on the talks. So do you see you’re still making talks with North Korea? And is Secretary Pompeo going to resume his talk with his counterpart? The previous meeting was canceled last month. Are you still going to resume the talk?

MR PALLADINO: Regarding your question on sanctions, I would just say the world remains united in enforcing and implementing United Nations sanctions until the final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea. And President Trump himself has been very clear on this. President Trump has made it clear that sanctions relief will follow denuclearization. And the sooner North Korea denuclearizes, the sooner sanctions can be lifted.

Please.

QUESTION: More on North Korea?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Shaun, please.

QUESTION: Sure. Afghanistan, Abu Dhabi. Representative Khalilzad is, of course, there. The Kabul government has now announced that they’re sending a delegation there as well. Is there a sense of optimism in what’s going on in Abu Dhabi? Where do you sense where you are now in terms of finding a negotiated way out in Afghanistan?

MR PALLADINO: I’ve seen some of the reports and characterizing things. I mean, the meetings in Abu Dhabi are part of United States efforts to promote an intra-Afghan dialogue towards ending the conflict in Afghanistan. And this is part of our South Asia strategy, and we have long said that war in Afghanistan will only end when Afghans sit together with mutual respect and acceptance, discuss a political roadmap for their future. So our efforts and those of our partners are focused on this objective right now.

Now, Special Representative Khalilzad, he is in the region, and he has in the past been meeting and will continue to meet with all interested parties to support a negotiated settlement to this conflict. And so others are coming together, and we continue to push this forward.

QUESTION: Robert, can I – a follow-up to that.

QUESTION: Are there any – is there any validity to reports that there’s a proposal to postpone the April election so that the Taliban can participate in future elections?

MR PALLADINO: No. Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Yeah. According to – Taliban sources have told Reuters that the U.S. is discussing a proposal for a six-month ceasefire in Afghanistan and a future withdrawal of foreign troops. Can you confirm that?

MR PALLADINO: Well, I’m not going to be able to discuss details of private diplomatic conversations. But the United States military presence in Afghanistan remains conditions-based, and that’s the cornerstone of the administration’s strategy. The special representative continues to work with all interested parties in close coordination with the Afghan people and the Afghan Government to facilitate intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations.

Let’s move on. Let’s go to TASS, Dmitry.

QUESTION: Thank you, Robert. I wanted to go back for a second to Geneva and Syria. Is the list that the Russians, the Iranians, and the Turks came up with so far acceptable to you? And do you support their intention to convene a Syrian constitutional committee early next year, as they announced today?

MR PALLADINO: We support the United Nations here. We support the work of United Nations Special Envoy de Mistura and what he is doing to facilitate the political process that the Security Resolution 2254 calls for. And we’re going to remain engaged with the United Nations and other parties, including Russia, to encourage all possible efforts to advance the political track in furtherance.

QUESTION: May I change the subject?

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go right there. Right there, please. To Mexico, okay.

QUESTION: Yes. The money and the projects that you all announced today, if I understand correctly, most of that is already in the pipeline or had been requested for next year. So my question is: If this announcement was intended at least in part as an incentive to get more cooperation from Mexico for your other demands, such as keeping asylum seekers and that sort of thing, and is there any progress on that goal?

MR PALLADINO: I would characterize this as strong efforts by the Secretary of State to work with the incoming Mexican administration. This has been something they’ve been very focused on. This is a – meant to be holistic, coordinated approach working with Mexico to stem illegal migration. And so the commitments that we announced today, that’s part of us talking about how we’re going to promote a safer, more prosperous Central America and southern Mexico, and we’re going to do that by enhancing security, governance, and economic prosperity.

There were some specific deliverables that were announced as well, focal points for the new year in 2019, to bring new leadership together, to bring a task force together that’s going to be very much focused on attracting new investment to help there. So we are – we’re optimistic. We’re – the coordination is strong, and I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Have you given up on the goal of keeping asylum seekers in Mexico?

MR PALLADINO: What I would say is today we’re announcing our intent to coordinate strategies to spur development in Central America and southern Mexico. So I have no further announcements to make about our procedures, things along the lines of like how ports of entry are handled, and that’s a separate matter.

Any more? Yeah, Conor – go to Conor, please.

QUESTION: The President tweeted just two months ago that the U.S. would cut off aid to these three countries because they hadn’t stopped migrants from traveling to the U.S. Why are you now increasing aid?

MR PALLADINO: President has made it very clear that United States assistance is allocated in order to meet United States priorities, and we expect all foreign aid recipients to hold up their end of the bargain. We’re going to redouble our efforts to work with the Northern Triangle governments toward showing results, and results mean improving opportunity and security so that their citizens can thrive at home. And we will be continually reviewing that and reviewing our aid to ensure that the American public’s tax dollars are wisely spent and that they’re meeting United States objectives.

QUESTION: But after he sent those tweets, we were told that the department was reviewing aid then. Did you find that they actually were quite cooperative and that they deserved this new money?

MR PALLADINO: This is part of a comprehensive, holistic, new approach that we are working with the new Government of Mexico to address the totality of the issue. We remain – we applaud, frankly, what Mexico has done when they announced an unprecedented development program for the region, and we on our part are committed to increasing the project line for OPIC if any commercial, viable projects emerge. So we’ll be taking a look at various financing mechanisms and tools and that’s going to include, of course, very much a focus on cooperation with the private sector, multilateral banks, and other regional partners.

QUESTION: But nothing has changed in their behavior?

MR PALLADINO: Okay, Abbie, please.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, of the 5.8 billion, how much of that is actually new or not previously announced commitments from the public sector rather than the private sector?

MR PALLADINO: The figure includes 1.8 billion that the United States has spent on or allocated Fiscal Year 2015 to 2018, as well as our FY ’19 budget request, as well as OPIC’s current projects and potential pipeline, and our current Millennium Challenge commitments. Some of the OPIC commitments are new, but they remain contingent on the identification of commercially viable projects.

Now, there was two releases that went out, one that was joint with Mexico and one that we issued from the United States, and I just – I refer you to the paragraph that deals specifically with the financial numbers, and that there’s a pretty good breakdown – something that I’m not going to be able to do right from here right now. Okay, Abbie?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to Bloomberg, please.

QUESTION: On the possibility of a shutdown, though that may be looking increasingly unlikely, can you just talk about what services may be suspended if a shutdown does occur? The White House announced that Secretary Pompeo would lead the presidential delegation to Brazil. Will that trip go ahead if there’s a shutdown? And what services worldwide will be available to U.S. citizens and to others seeking U.S. services? Thanks.

MR PALLADINO: A lapse – well, a lapse – I was going to make a joke about this briefing not continuing, but I’ll refrain. How’s that? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: There probably would be another briefing if there were shutdown, right?

MR PALLADINO: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: Anyhow.

MR PALLADINO: All right. No. A lapse could mean that a number of activities across the federal government would shut down due to a lack of appropriated funding, as you point out. So what happens? This is obviously a congressional matter for decision, but we’re just talking the what-ifs here, as (inaudible) like to do.

So the Office of Management and Budget has directed us to prepare, and part of that preparation is that we are required to post our plan online, and it’s available to read. It’s 42 pages; I won’t read it to you. But in that plan, the gist of what the Department is doing: it’s basically a prioritization. And we prioritize along the highest national security responsibilities – protection of American citizens that are overseas and protection of American personnel in our facilities overseas. Those become the highest priorities in a situation like this.

And as that’s being examined, you can expect that certain things are going to be prioritized and will continue. And two of the most important functions that the State Department is able to provide are our visa and passport services. So domestically and overseas, that’s something that’s going to remain open so long as there are sufficient funds, but it will remain a priority. And our embassies and consulates overseas, they’re going to continue to provide emergency services as well as routine services to American citizens.

QUESTION: Can you --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can you tell – can you just tell us for citizens who may be expecting certain services, as well as what will continue, what will be suspended?

MR PALLADINO: Beyond – beyond a focus on passport and consular services, visa services, assisting American citizens overseas, this is something that we will – we look at once – once – check out the plan. Take a look closely at the 42-page plan that goes into more detail. But we go through a system by which we evaluate the most essential personnel – first of all, the most essential functions that must continue, and very much they’re related to national security and security. And then based upon that, we identify personnel that are required to continue those – continue that, to make sure that that happens. And others are exempted, or those are the ones that are exempted and others – they’re exempted from the furlough and others, of course, would not be. So, I’ll move it on. Let’s go --

QUESTION: Robert? No, no, so passport hotline --

MR PALLADINO: The --

QUESTION: So the passport hotline would not be suspended? It would be still running and people can still go get their passport done?

MR PALLADINO: That’s my understanding. Yes, exactly. So let’s --

QUESTION: If I may, can I ask on Russia?

MR PALLADINO: A Russia question.

QUESTION: Yes, so Russia has announced to set up a military base in one of the island in – of Venezuela, in the Caribbean area. I wonder if you have any position on that. Do you see that as a threat? Because it’s in the back yard.

MR PALLADINO: I would refer you to the Russians on their statement. They say a lot of things, and I’m not going to react to it from here. I would also refer you to the Government of Japan on that matter. Please. Fine, please.

QUESTION: Just there is a U.S.-based organization, Sikhs for Justice, which is calling for a campaign, Referendum 2020, to separate the northern state of Punjab from India. And in our story, the – one of the attorneys, Ravi Batra from New York, has said that the State Department and – should look into the citizenship and all that, that how this – such a thing is happening from the U.S. soil, that calling for separation of a state, of a state of India?

MR PALLADINO: And I’m sorry, who’s – I didn’t understand (inaudible).

QUESTION: The U.S.-based organization Sikhs for Justice --

MR PALLADINO: Ah, I see.

QUESTION: -- is calling for a campaign – it’s called Referendum 2020 – to separate northern Indian state of Punjab from federal India. So is the State Department aware of it? Are you looking into it?

MR PALLADINO: I’m not aware of it. That’s – I mean, I’m just not aware of it today. I haven’t seen these reports. We have freedom of speech in the United States, we have freedom of association, and these are bedrock principles of American society. And – but I --

QUESTION: Yeah, but is – is that freedom of speech gives one a right to call for disintegration of another country?

MR PALLADINO: We have freedom of speech in this country that’s protected by our First Amendment, and that is a bedrock of American society and the American Constitution, and I unfortunately don’t have anything on this specific case. And I’m going to wrap --

QUESTION: Robert? Robert?

MR PALLADINO: All right, last one, last one. Barbara.

QUESTION: The Russian military base that Nike was talking about is off of Venezuela, not of Japan, so – and given that the Secretary of State has spoken about his concerns of Chinese influence in Latin America, would there not also be concern about Russian influence?

MR PALLADINO: I’m sorry, so you asked about Japan, though; correct, Nike?

QUESTION: No, I asked off Venezuela.

QUESTION: No, it was Venezuela.

MR PALLADINO: I’m sorry. I did not listen to your – Nike, I need to listen more closely, and I apologize for that. Okay. All right, you can get me later for that. You’re asking about Venezuela, and what I would say about Venezuela is it’s the same thing.

QUESTION: The Russian military base that might be set up near Venezuela --

MR PALLADINO: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: -- is the question.

MR PALLADINO: Yes, I think I’d say the exact same thing I said to the other question.

QUESTION: Except not consult Japan.

MR PALLADINO: And that is why I would refer --

QUESTION: Get comment from Venezuela?

MR PALLADINO: -- you to the Russians on their statements. Frankly, they say a lot of things, and I am not going to react to everything that they say. I – today we are not going to comment any further on Russian propaganda, okay? Thank you.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR PALLADINO: We’re done. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:41 p.m.)

DPB # 62

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.

Robert Palladino




Deputy Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing




Washington, DC




November 29, 2018










Index for Today's Briefing

CUBA/CANADA



RUSSIA



YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA/IRAN



NORTH KOREA



IRAQ/SYRIA



IRAN/IRAQ



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



GEORGIA



DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO



SYRIA



CHINA



RUSSIA/UKRAINE



G20 MEETING



INDIA/PAKISTAN



PAKISTAN



IRAN


TRANSCRIPT:

2:54 p.m. EST

MR PALLADINO: All right, nothing for the top. Let’s – happy to take a question.

QUESTION: That must mean that there’s nothing going on in --

MR PALLADINO: Oh, there’s a lot going on, Matt. There’s a couple things going on.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, actually in keeping with the theme of that, though, I have a kind of a smaller question, but I need to get it out of the way first. And that is the Cubans are complaining that you guys are not – you’re limiting the number of visas that you’re giving to their people while they have been more than accommodating with your requests. And I got an answer to the one question which had to do with the two embassies, but apparently the Cuban complaint is broader than that. And I just discovered this in the last 15 minutes, so I apologize for that. And that is that they’re also complaining that you guys are denying visas for Cuban officials to come to go to New York or to participate in UN events. Do you have any response to that?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t have anything specific, but what I can say is we are – the Cuban Government is already aware of our concerns about visas, specifically about staffing at our embassy in Havana. Under reduced staffing levels at the United States embassy in Havana following the health attacks, every position is vital to our operations, and both of our governments are – maintain our sovereign right to issue or deny visas to specific individuals. And I would leave it at that.

QUESTION: Well, so you don’t have any response to the related but separate --

MR PALLADINO: I don’t have anything related – anything specific on specific visa cases. I don’t.

QUESTION: No, no, no, but I’m talking about your obligations under the UN host country agreement and granting – or their complaint that you’re using your authority to deny visas in violation of that.

MR PALLADINO: Matt, I’ll have to look into it. I don’t have anything on that.

QUESTION: All right, thanks.

MR PALLADINO: Sure.

QUESTION: Move on.

MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to Francesco.

QUESTION: One last quick question on Cuba.

MR PALLADINO: All right, Cuba.

QUESTION: Just-- Canada announced it last night that a 13th Canadian diplomat has now experienced the same health symptoms that U.S. diplomats have. Are you aware, I guess, of any additional U.S. cases? And are you doing anything to help the Canadians to try to figure out what’s going on?

MR PALLADINO: I’m not aware of any new cases. We did – we do note that Canadian case, and we are in close coordination on a pretty regular basis with the Canadian Government on these issues.

Francesco, I said – please.

QUESTION: Yes. On Russia, the President said he won’t be meeting with President Putin at the G20. Does the Secretary have any plan to meet with Lavrov at the G20 or in the next days, or – and did he talk with Lavrov about what’s going on in – with Ukraine?

MR PALLADINO: The Secretary’s schedule at the Group of 20 Summit in Buenos Aires will follow that of the President’s, and I have no new – nothing new to announce for the Secretary.

QUESTION: No conversation with the Russians?

MR PALLADINO: Not a word. I have nothing – I am not aware of any of that, no.

Let’s go to – sure, Barbara.

QUESTION: So Mr. Pompeo spoke to the Senate yesterday and made a very pointed case to continue military assistance to Yemen, after which the senators voted on the first procedural step to withdraw military assistance. Does the Secretary of State have a reaction to that since it seems quite a failure of his attempt?

MR PALLADINO: I think the Secretary spoke quite a bit yesterday and made the case that the timing is not right for that, and he made the case quite forcefully that what we’re trying to accomplish vis-a-vis Yemen we are on the cusp, and hopefully in December we’re going to be supporting Special Representative Griffiths as we push towards that.

QUESTION: But does he have a reaction to the vote that followed shortly after his --

MR PALLADINO: I haven’t spoken to the Secretary. And as you know, he’s on his way to Buenos Aires. Please, anything further?

QUESTION: Why is the time not right? He said that the time is not right to end the war in Yemen. Is there --

MR PALLADINO: Absolutely not. The Secretary spoke on this yesterday, and he was clear the time is right for us to end this violence. And so we don’t want to give Iran any further cause to continue to fund and supply arms, so we are pushing in support of Special Representative Griffiths.

Please.

QUESTION: Well, if you could draw that out a little bit further, Robert, when would the time be right for Congress to act on ending support for the Saudi campaign?

MR PALLADINO: We are --

QUESTION: Ever? Is there – would there ever be a good time in this administration’s view for Congress to weigh in on this matter, or is this something that you think the Congress should have no business in?

MR PALLADINO: Absolutely not. We welcome the views of the Congress in this matter.

QUESTION: So you welcomed the vote, the procedural vote yesterday?

MR PALLADINO: We welcome the views of the Congress. The Secretary has made quite clear that for the Iran-backed Houthi rebels to be able to establish something akin to what Lebanon’s Hizballah has done in Lebanon in the Arabian Peninsula would be destabilizing, damaging to American interests and to our allies and partners in the region.

QUESTION: I get that. But you say you welcome the views of Congress, and yet you’re – you made – the administration has made clear that the President will veto this --

MR PALLADINO: We appreciate the views of Congress, of course, and we work closely.

QUESTION: I find that highly – no, you don’t. I mean, the op-ed that the Secretary wrote in The Wall Street Journal that was published yesterday was extremely harsh, went after the members of the Washington salons and whatever the experts of the foreign policy community – foreign policy experts, or not experts, but the community at large. So it’s pretty clear that you don’t – I mean, he called it “caterwauling.” It’s pretty clear that you don’t welcome a different opinion or opposing views to what you have, so I’m just curious as to how you can get – say with a straight face that you welcome this.

MR PALLADINO: We – the Secretary has made clear our position on the violence and the humanitarian disaster that has taken place in Yemen, and we’ve just announced additional measures to help alleviate some of that situation.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PALLADINO: And it’s actually quite significant. It’s worth mentioning. A hundred and thirty-one million in emergency food assistance to the people of Yemen, and we – and this --

QUESTION: I agree it’s significant.

MR PALLADINO: And that is why we support the special representative and we think the timing is right and we are on the cusp, and so --

QUESTION: Let me just – I’ll point out that yes, it is significant. I’m sure that it is appreciated. But that does not answer the question of how you can say you welcome Congress’ views on this and then just ignore it and then essentially insult --

MR PALLADINO: We consult with the Congress. Please. Janne, please.

QUESTION: A question about North Korea. Do you know why is there no high-level talks between United States and North Korea?

MR PALLADINO: We are looking forward to having high-level talks. We have – we continue to – our policy hasn’t changed on North Korea. Progress has been made, and we are hopeful that more will be made on North Korea as well.

QUESTION: But if North Korea continues to refuse to talk, then will the United States, your strategic patience is over – I mean end over? Or how you – your diplomatic engagement with --

MR PALLADINO: The Secretary and the President have been clear we’re not going to be forced into artificial time constraints here. We’ve made great progress at the summit in Singapore for the final, fully verified denuclearization. We are going to continue to push forward on that. And of course, future dialogue will take place and it’ll definitely be something that Special Representative Biegun will be leading. And we’re – that’s okay.

QUESTION: And do you know that Special Representative Biegun said that the last week he mentioned about maybe they’re going to close up windows because it’s not listening in anything from North Korea? So what does it mean?

MR PALLADINO: I’m sorry, Janne. I didn’t understand that. They were going to close the --

QUESTION: Close. I mean close door or windows, no longer open the windows. I don’t know what the meaning is diplomatically.

MR PALLADINO: I’m not familiar with that statement, and I don’t want to --

QUESTION: That’s why I said --

MR PALLADINO: -- try to parse those words. Sorry. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PALLADINO: Laurie, please.

QUESTION: Hi. The head of the Iraqi militia Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, which is backed by Iran, recently said that the Hashd al-Shaabi should have a role in security along Iraq’s border with Syria. What’s your comment on that?

MR PALLADINO: The security of Iraq and its borders is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq, and I would defer to the Iraqi Government for comment.

QUESTION: Iraqi Government. Okay. And Secretary Pompeo condemned statements that Iranian President Rouhani made in an Islamic Conference in Tehran recently when he called for Israel’s destruction. Iraqi Vice President Nouri Al-Maliki was at the same conference, and he spoke and said that Hizballah, the Houthis, and the Hashd al-Shaabi, which is Iraqi militias, will liberate Palestine soon. What’s your comment on Maliki’s statement?

MR PALLADINO: As you point out, it was – the Secretary was speaking to President Rouhani’s comments, and we have no further comment beside that.

QUESTION: Even if the vice president of an allied state of yours --

MR PALLADINO: Laurie, we’re not going to react to all world leaders’ comments here. Please.

QUESTION: Rob, could I stay on that region? Very quickly, I have a very quick question there for you. Thank you. Yesterday, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations circulated a draft resolution to condemn Hamas because of the rocket firing, but of course it begins by saying violence against all civilians is rejected and so on, but does not mention Israeli or Israel in any way, shape, or form. I want to ask you first what is the status of this draft resolution. What’s going on? Did you gather enough support? Because I think you need something like 90 member-states to support it for it to be voted on.

MR PALLADINO: Said, we don’t comment on draft resolutions.

QUESTION: But it was circulated. I mean, I have a copy.

MR PALLADINO: We don’t comment on drafts, yeah.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what is going on in terms of talks among --

MR PALLADINO: I can’t. What I would say is the root of destabilization and violence in Gaza is Hamas. And beyond that, the world is growing tired of Hamas’s violence and the violence of other bad actors in Gaza that prevents any real help for the people of Gaza.

QUESTION: Today being the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, do you think the world has grown tired of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, 51 years on?

MR PALLADINO: I would say that Hamas’s activities continue --

QUESTION: That – I’m not talking about Hamas.

MR PALLADINO: -- to prove that they don’t really care about the Palestinians of Gaza.

QUESTION: Right. Right, okay. What --

MR PALLADINO: And I’ll leave it at that, okay.

QUESTION: Okay. What about – what about – I mean, what about --

MR PALLADINO: And that’s – and move on. I’m going to move on. I’m going to move on. Please. Sure.

QUESTION: Except that they actually are Palestinians in Gaza.

MR PALLADINO: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Two different questions on two different region. Let me start with Georgia. Do you have anything on the second round of Georgians’ presidential election? What is the U.S. expectation, and what is the implication of this election to U.S.-Georgia relations? Thank you.

MR PALLADINO: Thanks, Nike. I would say the United States looks forward to working with President-elect Salome Zurabishvili and continuing our close partnership with Georgia on a range of important bilateral and regional issues, including our robust security cooperation and Georgia’s contributions to NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Can I move on to ask a question on DRC, Congo?

MR PALLADINO: The Congo. Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have anything on the closure of the embassy and why it’s closed so long? And do you have any update on the terror threats against the U.S. --

MR PALLADINO: As you point out, the embassy is still closed. It has not adversely impacted the United States support to our ongoing efforts there regarding containing that Ebola outbreak. And as far as when we’re going to resume operations, I would say we just got to step back and understand that the highest priority in these situations, of course, is the safety and security of American citizens, including our diplomatic and our military and government officials that are serving abroad. So we are closely following the threats against our facilities there, and I can’t comment any further or in more detail on the actual threat reporting there.

QUESTION: Robert, thank you. But in your estimation, do you think the closure of the embassy and the terrorist threats is something to do with the press release by the U.S. regarding the election over there?

MR PALLADINO: I’m sorry. With the election?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PALLADINO: I don't have anything correlating to that, no.

QUESTION: Do you think it’s targeted at --

MR PALLADINO: I have nothing for you on that.

QUESTION: It’s targeted at the U.S. announcement on the position on DRC going to have an election in December?

MR PALLADINO: I just don’t have any information on that. Sorry, Nike.

QUESTION: Robert --

QUESTION: China?

QUESTION: -- on Syria?

MR PALLADINO: On Syria. Okay.

QUESTION: You were hoping that the constitutional committee would be held by the end of December. Today Astana group has failed to agree on a list of members, and you are blaming Russia and Iran for continuing to use the process to mask the Assad regime, as you said in your statement. What’s the alternative now?

MR PALLADINO: Well, Michel, as you point out, the meeting did not yield to an agreed list of members for the Syrian Constitutional Committee and it again ended in stalemate, so it failed to produce progress towards advancing the political process, which is, of course, one of our goals.

We believe that establishing and convening a constitutional committee in Geneva is vital to a lasting de-escalation and a political solution to the conflict, and that has broad international support. We are going to continue to work to achieve the goals laid out in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, and that includes de-escalation and a reinvigorated political process, but we believe success is not going to be possible without the international community holding Damascus fully accountable for the lack of progress in resolving the conflict.

QUESTION: How can you hold Damascus --

MR PALLADINO: We’re going to support the work of the United Nations Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura to convene the committee by the end of the year and his efforts in Geneva as well to broker a political process. And we’re going to remain engaged.

QUESTION: Isn’t he leaving?

MR PALLADINO: We’re – he – there’s a successor. We’ll work with both, correct. We’ll remain engaged with the United Nations on this and other parties. That’s the way forward, including Russia.

Please. Right here.

QUESTION: Do you still hope that Russia will push the regime to nominate the members? And since you are blaming Russia and Iran for not coordinating and masking the Assad regime, what hope do you expect from Russia?

MR PALLADINO: We’re going to remain engaged. We’re going to support the UN process, and we’re going to keep engaged.

Yeah, Ben, please. Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Robert. The President’s going to have a meeting with President Xi at the G20. Are you expecting any kind of agreements to come out of this meeting that might sort of defuse the current tension between the two countries?

MR PALLADINO: Ben, I’m going to not get ahead of the President and his meeting, okay, so – yeah.

Okay, go to Conor.

QUESTION: The other meeting that he was supposed to have was with Vladimir Putin. The White House announcing that that was canceled and that Secretary Pompeo was involved in that decision. What advice did the Secretary have for the President? Why not have that meeting and send a strong message face to face with Vladimir Putin about Ukraine?

MR PALLADINO: I mean, I would point out that happened a couple hours ago, Conor, and it was aboard Air Force One, I believe, that that took place and the Secretary was with the President at the time. So I don’t have any further details to provide you. But what’s clear is the President’s tweets on the subject were quite clear at what we looked for, and that is the return of the Ukrainian sailors as – and the vessels. The aggression that we’ve witnessed this week is unacceptable and a strong message has been sent.

Please.

QUESTION: The – how has a strong message been sent? Just through (inaudible)?

MR PALLADINO: Isolation. Isolation, okay?

QUESTION: And – but since the message was sent on Monday by Secretary Pompeo calling for these sailors’ release, they’ve actually been moved from Crimea to a jail in Moscow, according to one of their lawyers. Is it time, then, to increase your pressure other than isolating Vladimir Putin?

MR PALLADINO: We are – our European partners from NATO, OSCE, European Union have all issued strong statements. There have been emergency sessions that have taken place. There are – there is a coalescing of opposition and strong condemnation for the aggression that we have witnessed. And for the United States, our position has been very clear, from the President to Ambassador Haley to Secretary Pompeo. We – they must return to Ukraine its vessels and detained crewmembers.

QUESTION: But have those statements failed if they’ve now moved these sailors into a different facility as opposed to releasing them?

MR PALLADINO: We are going to continue to drive forward on this and to be firm in our position.

All right. Let’s – sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. I have one clarification, logistical; one update request; and then one question.

MR PALLADINO: That’s a lot.

QUESTION: No.

MR PALLADINO: That sounds difficult, too. What are you – what?

QUESTION: Logistical is that President Trump will be having a trilateral with Prime Minister Modi and the Japanese leader. What about any bilaterals with officials for the Secretary?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t want to speak from the State Department on the President’s schedule. That’s something --

QUESTION: No, about the Secretary.

MR PALLADINO: I have nothing to announce. The Secretary will be participating in the President’s meetings and supporting the President on this trip, and I just don’t – have nothing else to announce on that.

QUESTION: And with the U.S. ambassador now in Colombo, do we have any update on the U.S. position on Sri Lanka?

MR PALLADINO: I don’t have anything new today to read out. Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. Now the question is about the India-Pakistan. They have opened a new – at the Kartarpur border and things are moving, but the Mumbai attack for which we made the statement the U.S. has given more reward. What is exactly happening behind the scenes? Like, is – are we serious six U.S. citizens died and nothing? Those people are out there roaming around freely. And with the new prime minister, what is the U.S. – is he coming here? Is there going to be a meeting? Is there – what is – can you give us --

MR PALLADINO: No new meetings to announce at this time. I did – I’m aware of the reports of this Kartarpur corridor, as you referenced there. I understand that it’s kind of a visa-free way for Indians to visit this important Sikh site. And of course, the United States – we would welcome efforts to increase people-to-people ties between India and Pakistan. I’d leave it at that and --

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR PALLADINO: Okay. Sure, let’s go right behind Nina, please. Yes, Pakistan.

QUESTION: Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV, Pakistan. So I have one question about Afghanistan. A couple of weeks ago, President Trump on Twitter accused Pakistan of harboring terrorists, some kind of very harsh tweet, and Prime Minister Imran Khan also tweeted. There was kind of exchange of harsh tweets on the Twitter, sir, but right now, United States looking towards Pakistan to bring Taliban to the table for the peace negotiations. So do you think it’s the right time for such kind of statement from U.S.?

MR PALLADINO: The Secretary has emphasized the need for Pakistan to deliver outcome and build confidence and trust between our two countries, and our policy towards Pakistan is clear.

Last question. Dan De Luce, please.

QUESTION: Thanks. Just – so we had this briefing this morning on Iran’s missile program and so on. Given this discussion about Yemen, could you just take a step back? Because the administration, from the first day it came into office, said it would roll back Iran’s influence across the region. This was a top priority. We’ve had an array of sanctions imposed, sanctions reimposed, we had this briefing about the missiles. Has the administration succeeded in rolling back Iran and Yemen and Syria and Lebanon, or is it time to review the approach?

MR PALLADINO: We’re going to continue to push. Our approach to Iran’s malign influence has many, many, many factors, and this administration is committed to stopping what Iran is attempting to do both across the region and globally.

QUESTION: Is there an example of a successful case where you’ve managed to do that?

MR PALLADINO: We have gotten out of the failed JCPOA, something that is going to allow us to finally confront the totality of Iran’s malign influence and to preserve American interests and peace both in the region and globally, and that’s it. I’m going to end it there. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) to the failed JCPOA? I mean, the administration’s position is that even if it was succeeding, it wasn’t good enough, and that’s why you had to withdraw. But the IAEA continues to say that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, so I don’t think that --

MR PALLADINO: While they continue to proliferate --

QUESTION: So “failed JCPOA” – but wait a second.

MR PALLADINO: -- as your colleague points out today from --

QUESTION: Look, I understand that – your reasons for withdrawing from it, but you didn’t withdraw from it because it had failed. You withdrew from it because you said it didn’t go far enough and because --

MR PALLADINO: We --

QUESTION: -- even if it was succeeding, it wouldn’t work, right?

MR PALLADINO: We withdrew because it failed to counter the totality of what Iran is up to. Thanks, guys. I’ve got to go. All right.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:20 p.m.)

DPB #60

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.

Heather Nauert




Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing




Washington, DC




November 27, 2018










Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/PEPFAR



MEXICO/DEPARTMENT



SECRETARY TRAVEL/DEPARTMENT



AFGHANISTAN/DEPARTMENT



DEPARTMENT



SECRETARY TRAVEL/DEPARTMENT



MEXICO/DEPARTMENT



IRAQ/KURDISTAN



CHINA



NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA



DEPARTMENT



SECRETARY TRAVEL/DEPARTMENT



ECUADOR



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



DEPARTMENT



YEMEN



DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/UKRAINE/REGION



SAUDI ARABIA/MIDDLE EAST PEACE/REGION



NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA



NORTH KOREA/DEPARTMENT



POLAND/DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA/DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

3:23 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Good afternoon, everybody. I brought a guest with me today. Great to see you, by the way. Deborah Birx is here. You all know her, I think, from her interest in her work that she’s done over the years in PEPFAR. So Ambassador Birx, our U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and U.S. Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy, is here to take a few questions and talk with you a little bit about some of the progress that has been made in PEPFAR over the past year. So I’ll turn it over to Ambassador Birx. She’ll take a couple questions, and then we’ll proceed from there.

Ambassador, go right ahead.

AMBASSADOR BIRX: Great. Good afternoon. Hopefully you realize that this year marks the 30th anniversary of World AIDS Day, and of course the 15th-year anniversary of PEPFAR. So it’s really a privilege to be here. The Secretary opened an event this morning at the State Department on really engaging faith communities in the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in a more and expansive way to really meet the needs of young men and young women who we haven’t been finding, who are well and need to be diagnosed.

But he also announced our results. And every year annually we announce our World AIDS Day results. They’re quite impressive this year, with 14.6 million men, women, and children on treatment in PEPFAR countries. We did almost 6.8 million children, Orphans and Vulnerable Children’s Program; 2.4 million babies born HIV-free. So 17 million people are alive today because of the generosity of the American people.

We also continue to focus on prevention, both prevention for young boys and prevention for young girls. We have now completed 18.9 million circumcisions. And remember, circumcisions are like a vaccine, except it’s good for life. And so decreases the incidence of HIV by 60 to 70 percent, and we’re now up to 19 million, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa.

But critically, and up on the website today, is our DREAMS results. DREAMS stand for Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, and Mentored, and Safe young women. We now can announce that in our 63 DREAMS districts, of those 85 percent still show increasing declines in new infections in young women due to this program. We’re very excited about those results. It’s a comprehensive structural intervention that’s really focusing on the young lives of young girls and ensuring that we’re addressing their needs in their communities. And so we’re very excited about those results.

But I think you’ll also see that we’ve shown that in our studies in Ethiopia, now our studies in Nigeria, we’ve shown that Ethiopia truly is achieving an AIDS control and control of their HIV/AIDS pandemic with significant drops in incidence, and we’re very excited about new data that will come out in the beginning of the year from Nigeria showing their epidemic is not as large as we had once expected, and that people are thriving and staying on their ARVs and are virally suppressed – both thriving for themselves and ensuring that they’re not transmitting the viruses to others.

So I think we’ve really been able to show now that country by country, community by community, county by county, there is ability to control this pandemic when you focus resources in an accountable way and really translate the American taxpayer dollars into an effective program that’s actively monitored in a way so that we both are constantly improving our performance but also monitoring our results for outcomes and impacts. And so we believe we’re really delivering on foreign assistance and for the American people, but also for the continent of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Central America, where we work for PEPFAR programming.

So I’ll stop there and see if you have any questions about World AIDS Day, the 15-year anniversary of PEPFAR, or the 100th year anniversary of Nelson Mandela, who brought AIDS awareness to all of us and the plight of the continent of Africa.

MS NAUERT: I know you’re all a curious bunch. Okay, Nadia.

QUESTION: Some of these countries have been asking for the use of generic drugs. I think South Africa was an example of that. How do you balance between the pharmaceutical companies who want to use their own drugs and using generic drugs to these countries?

AMBASSADOR BIRX: PEPFAR’s been very exciting that way. PEPFAR was set up as a new way of doing foreign assistance, like MCC. And from the beginning, the FDA worked with pharmaceutical companies to create waivers. And so all of our medicine that we utilize is generic-based. And so we have drugs that for an entire year, to keep people alive, about $75 a year. So from the very beginning, PEPFAR, through the FDA, quality-controlled drugs but delivered in these resource-limited settings at that $75-80 per year.

MS NAUERT: Nick Wadhams from Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Hi. When you’ve come up before, we’ve asked you this question, so apologies for doing so again, but you herald the success of PEPFAR, but then the administration has called for eliminating funding for some countries. So how do you square those two, both the obvious success of this program and its effectiveness versus the administration’s own desire to eliminate funding for several countries for PEPFAR?

AMBASSADOR BIRX: Well, as you noticed, we’re still in all of the countries, fully supported by this administration and fully supported by Congress. And I think the results speak for themselves. Now, I’m very cognizant of the fact that PEPFAR was set up as an emergency. It was set up in order to have an impact where we would be successful and therefore funding would be able to be decreased in the out years. Ethiopia alone has gone from $400 million a year to $100 million a year because of the success of that program. And so now it’s us to keep that program sustained at a level that we can maintain our success that we’ve done in partnership with the country and the communities.

So I think it’s a really exciting time for us to be able to show that foreign assistance should have a beginning, middle, and end, and it should have an end because we’ve been successful both in building the capacity in a sustainable way but also because we’ve controlled the pandemic in a way that the financial requirements are less and less each year.

MS NAUERT: Final question? Conor, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Just on that point, where in that process would you say that we are now – a beginning, a middle, and an end? A lot of aid groups have warned that there’s a sense of complacency at this point, which actually risks allowing the pandemic to explode once again.

AMBASSADOR BIRX: So you all can be part of that solution for the complacency, because part of that complacency comes from the American people or others around the world who don’t see any reporting on HIV/AIDS. And so if you ask leaderships of country, they’ll say, “Well, that was something in the 1990s. That’s not something that’s a problem today.” So I think highlighting both the epidemic here in the United States and the progress we’ve made, but what is yet to be done, and also being very clear – just because I talk about the countries that – I was clear on about Ethiopia. For every Ethiopia, there’s a Cote d’Ivoire, where we haven’t controlled the pandemic.

And so although we have this roadmap, it really requires political will of each of the countries to take on the policy and the policy changes that ensure that everyone has access to these critical services. So if you are poor and there’s fees to access services, you can’t get into the clinic, no matter how free we make the HIV test. So there is a definite partnership and leadership that’s required in each of these countries. And you’ll see the countries that have been highly successful, they combine political will with policies and community engagement. But we will have complacency if people in the – all around the globe with these very severe pandemics don’t talk about it, like we do in the United States, we don’t talk about it. So young people today don’t even know that there’s an HIV/AIDS risk still in the communities.

So you can help us by talking about World AIDS Day, talking about the progress, but also caution us to ensure that we keep this on the front burner for everybody. And that’s why I’m just so happy Heather let me come over today and talk to you, because I love inserting this good news, but a cautionary note to all of you. And you can really be part of our solution, so thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Ambassador, thank you. And World AIDS Day is Saturday, December the 1st. So Ambassador, thank you so much. Thanks for your dedication and your passion for the issue.

A couple announcements, and then I’d be happy to take your questions. First, let’s start out with a senior – a U.S. – a trip to Mexico, and that’s coming up this weekend. It was announced initially by the White House earlier today. President Trump asked the Vice President to lead the U.S. presidential delegation to Mexico City over the weekend to attend the inauguration of Mexican President-elect Obrador on December the 1st. The State Department will participate in these meetings. Our Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Kim Breier will attend, as well as our Charge d’Affaires in Mexico City John Creamer. The Vice President will lead the trip. Of course, they will be joining as well with other U.S. officials.

The United States enjoys excellent cooperation with Mexico on a broad range of political, security, immigration, and also economic issues. The U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship is a top priority, and we look forward to maintaining an open dialogue with the incoming Lopez Obrador administration, focusing on advancing our shared priorities that benefit both of our nations.

In addition to that, Secretary Pompeo looks forward to welcoming the incoming Foreign Minister Ebrard here on Sunday at the State Department. We’ll have more details for you in the coming days.

QUESTION: Ambassador Bolton said that Secretary Pompeo was flying to Mexico?

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm. Yeah. He’s flying back from Argentina. He will be here at the State Department, where he’ll be meeting with him, so --

QUESTION: Oh, okay. So he’s not going to see the new foreign minister or secretary in Mexico City. He’s --

MS NAUERT: He is unable to do that due to his scheduling with the President down at the G20. But he’s going to hightail it back here to Washington, and that’s where he will meet with the foreign minister.

Next, let me talk for a few minutes about the G20 summit in Buenos Aires coming up. Secretary Pompeo will travel to Buenos Aires, Argentina to support President Trump’s participation in the G20 Leaders’ Summit November 30th to December 1st. The President and his team will pursue several administration priorities, including promoting global and domestic economic growth and prosperity; ensuring free, fair, and reciprocal trade and a system of fair economic competition; enhancing cooperation to strengthen financial markets; promoting women’s economic empowerment; and increasing access to affordable and reliable energy sources.

While at the G20, the President and the delegation will hold bilateral meetings with the president of Argentina, the president of Russia, the prime minister of Japan, the chancellor of Germany, and he will also hold a working dinner with the president of China. Secretary Pompeo will join the President for his meetings. We look forward to seeing you in Buenos Aires. I’ll be heading down, I think tomorrow, and so look forward to seeing some of you down there with us.

Next, our Under Secretary for Political Affairs David Hale arrived in Geneva today to lead a U.S. delegation attending the Geneva Ministerial Conference on Afghanistan. That’s where the international community will review the effort to attain a lasting peace and prosperity for the Afghan people.

Just a few hours ago, Under Secretary Hale met with the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Dr. Abdullah Abdullah to discuss a wide range of bilateral issues, including government reform efforts, preparations for presidential elections next year, and also the peace process. In Geneva, Under Secretary Hale is joined by our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Alice Wells, Ambassador John Bass – he’s our ambassador to Afghanistan, and the international community in reaffirming our support for a future of peace and economic development for the people of Afghanistan. The Geneva conference serves as an important opportunity for both to review Afghans’ progress and to start planning for that future.

Finally, something that was important to the Secretary here at the State Department today, and that is an awards ceremony that takes place here once a year. It’s an incredible day in which the secretary offers the department’s annual awards this year to 46 State Department colleagues who have personified American resolve and also American goodwill under trying circumstances abroad. Among the 46 I just wanted to highlight a few of the folks who received those awards.

Anthony Godfrey received the James Baker III Outstanding Deputy Chief of Mission Award. In 2017 he had taken over as deputy when the Russian Federation ordered that the U.S. Mission staff be cut by over 700 positions. There were other colleagues of ours from U.S. Mission in Moscow who have also been awarded this – similar designations today.

In addition to them, Sarah Credon won the Swanee Hunt Award for Advancing Women’s Role in Policy Formulation. Sarah helped increase female representation at the UN-led Syria negotiations. She has been described as a pillar of our efforts to produce peace and stability and promote women’s rights across the Middle East.

Next, Brendan Mullarkey. He’s our consul general in Havana, Cuba. He received the Barbara M. Watson Award for Consular Excellence. Brendan braved months of turmoil that included Hurricane Irma and also consular employees suffering from health attacks in Cuba. As more and more of his colleagues were ordered to leave Cuba, Brendan insisted on staying behind to continue performing his duties.

Next, someone that many of you know, my colleague, former colleague and soon to be colleague once again, Mark Stroh. Mark Stroh received the Ryan Crocker Award for Outstanding Leadership for Expeditionary Diplomacy. What does that mean? Well, he was out in Syria for a long time helping to lead the START team. Those are our teams that facilitate our humanitarian and stabilization responses in Syria. So congratulations to Mark for that.

And finally, this is one that I think a lot of my colleagues will really share an interest in. We couldn’t do our jobs here at the State Department without our locally employed staff. I think they, in fact, outnumber the number of Foreign Service and civil servants here at the State Department. These are folks all around the world from those local countries who show up, do their jobs every single day, and some of them in dangerous environments.

This year, one of our locally employed staff also earned an award. His name is Housseini Intifaskiwen, and is receiving the Foreign Service National Award. Secretary Pompeo presented his award to him earlier today for his understanding of violent regions in northern Mali. His work helped combat violent extremism and fight terror groups, including ISIS and al-Qaida.

The 46 award winners today remind us that we ourselves can always do more, we can aim higher, and they remind us of what the United States stands for in every corner of the world. So congratulations to our exceptional team. We couldn’t be more proud of the work that you and others do each and every day.

With that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: No award for you or your staff?

MS NAUERT: We do have a couple Public Affairs people who have received awards too, but I wanted to highlight the work of other people.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a logistical question first before getting into some policy substance?

MS NAUERT: Certainly.

QUESTION: In Buenos Aires, does the Secretary plan to have any separate meetings other – aside – any meetings aside from those that he goes to with the President?

MS NAUERT: At this time, he will just be accompanying the President on the President’s meetings. If anything changes, we’ll let you know as the schedule evolves.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just then again logistically, on Sunday’s meeting with the – he will be the Mexican foreign secretary by Sunday. Is that open? Is it here? What’s the --

MS NAUERT: It’ll be here at the State Department. We’ll get you details as we have all of those things ready to provide.

QUESTION: So continuing on the Mexico theme, yesterday the Mexican government said that it had sent a diplomatic note to you guys asking or perhaps stronger than asking for an investigation into the use of tear gas at the border, American Border Patrol agents firing tear gas into Mexico. And I am wondering if you have responded to that request, even if the State Department’s role is simply to hand this note to DHS and say --

MS NAUERT: So I can confirm for you that we did receive that note from the Mexican government. I don’t have anything for you beyond that. I don’t know if we’ve responded to it or not, but I imagine this – and among many other things – will be a topic of conversation when we meet with Mexican officials over the coming days.

Hey, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi. On --

MS NAUERT: Excuse me.

QUESTION: On Mexico.

MS NAUERT: I’ll go back to you. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. Masoud Barzani visited Baghdad and Najaf last week, and it seemed a major step forward in improving ties between Erbil and Baghdad. Was that something that you were involved in, and what’s your comment on it?

MS NAUERT: To my knowledge, we were not involved with that. We would always encourage for the Kurdish government and the Iraqi government to meet together, to sit down and have conversations. We encourage constructive dialogue to take place. But to my knowledge, no, we did not have anything to do with that.

Okay.

QUESTION: Well, last week Iraq began – this I know you were involved.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Iraq began exporting oil through the Kirkuk pipeline, and now it’s a small amount, but the KRG has increased the capacity of that pipeline to a million barrels a day. Would you – since they could – it could export a million barrels a day, and you’ve got the sanctions on Iran, and Turkey’s a big importer of Iranian oil, would you encourage an increase in the amount of oil that’s being exported from Kirkuk through that pipeline?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think Iraq is and could be an even more important player in the global oil markets, so that’s one thing that we will certainly keep an eye on. In terms of the figures and the stats that you just provided right now, that’s something we just can’t confirm. We can’t confirm that would just refer you to the Iraqi government for that.

Hey, Cindy.

QUESTION: Hi. I’ve got China and Ukraine, so --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s take one at a time.

QUESTION: Okay. On China, State has made clear its position on China’s exit ban. Do you have any update on the case involving Victor and Cynthia Liu? And what are your recommendations to Americans who were born in China and naturalized as American citizens when they travel to mainland China?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m glad you asked that question. Earlier this year – and this is important for people who are dual-nationals, Chinese citizens living in the United States, who may want to return to their home country. It’s important to know that the State Department put out basically information earlier this year to those individuals. It’s called a Travel Advisory.

For those who would travel to China, we suggest that they exercised increased caution while traveling to China. China is known for its so-called exit bans, where sometimes the Chinese government will prevent people from exiting the country if they are trying to sometimes get other members of their family into that country. If they’re trying to get someone to pay a fine, for example, they may prevent them from entering the country. Those are just a few examples.

The specific case that you cite is of two American citizens, Victor and Cynthia Liu. I know that the White House has called for their immediate return home. That’s something that the State Department is certainly aware of. We’ve had conversations in more a general sense with the Chinese government about cases such as that, and it remains a concern of ours, so we’re continuing to watch it.

Okay. Hi, Janne.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you, Heather. On North Korea, the United States officially approved the groundbreaking ceremony for the South Korea-North Korea railway connections, or United Nations, they approved, or who approved these railway connections between South Korea and North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think that would be for the North and South to decide and be involved with. In terms of our participation, I’m not aware of any in regard to that. But if I have anything for you on that, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: What is the exceptional sanctions of this? Like --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: The South Korean government --

QUESTION: Sanctions.

QUESTION: Sanctions. Exceptionally they’re using sanctions for South Korea. There are so many times they --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I don’t know if you’re referring to UN Security Council sanctions and resolutions under the Security Council or South Korea’s own sanctions. I’d have to refer you to the government to answer questions about that.

Hey, Barbara.

QUESTION: Hi. So senators are saying that Secretary Pompeo along with Secretary Mattis are going to be briefing the all-Senate on Saudi policy or Saudi developments tomorrow. One, could you confirm that that is the case? Because it hasn’t been officially announced to my knowledge.

And two, Senator Sanders’ bill on – asking for a withdrawal of U.S. support for the Yemen war will probably come up for a vote this week or very soon. In March when it first came up, Secretary Mattis sent a letter urging against support for that and I’m wondering, given that – now that Secretary Mattis and Secretary Pompeo have called for a ceasefire and have stopped the refueling of the aircraft, whether the State Department is taking any position or giving any advice in any way with regards to that bill and whether that will come up in the briefing that Mr. Pompeo will be giving on Wednesday.

MS NAUERT: Well, I don’t know if the senators will bring it up. I can confirm that Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Mattis will be on the Hill tomorrow. They will be testifying in a classified setting. It’s an all-Senate-members briefing that will take place at 11 o’clock tomorrow. So I can confirm that that will take place. In terms of legislation that may or may not be developed and addressed and brought forward, I just would – never would comment on that anyway, so – and I wouldn’t get ahead of that either.

QUESTION: The State Department – right. The State Department hasn’t sent any sort of letter or advice or position to senators on that?

MS NAUERT: Not that I’m aware of, but again, I’m not going to get ahead of the briefing that they hold tomorrow on the Hill.

Hey, Nick.

QUESTION: Just to go back quickly to the G20, is the Secretary planning for the possibility of a meeting with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia?

MS NAUERT: No, don’t read too much into it. I said to you that the Secretary will be participating in the meetings with the President. We do not have any additional meetings set up. We’re not looking to set up any additional meetings at this time. If anything changes, I will let you know.

QUESTION: So are you ruling it out?

MS NAUERT: That is not a question that I have asked. I just know we do not have anything on the schedule. The Secretary will be mirroring the President’s schedule and looks forward to backing the President at the President’s meetings.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Hold on.

QUESTION: Can I also ask about Ecuador? Did the Secretary, in his conversations with the Ecuadorian foreign minister yesterday, discuss Julian Assange and whether the United States would like Ecuador to have him leave the Ecuadorian embassy --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. We put out a readout of the Secretary’s meeting with the Ecuadorian foreign minister. I’d be happy to read it for anybody who missed it.

Secretary Pompeo met on November 26 with the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Jose Valencia and the Finance Minister Richard Martinez. They affirmed – reaffirmed their commitment to expand bilateral cooperation on a number of political and economic issues, including through the recently relaunched U.S.-Ecuador Trade and Investment Council. Secretary Pompeo confirmed U.S. support for Ecuador’s efforts in strengthening democratic institutions and President Lenin Moreno’s commitment to democratic reforms. He also recognized Ecuador’s significant support to Venezuelan refugees and migrants and welcomed further Ecuadorian cooperation on a democratic solution to the manmade crises in Venezuela and Nicaragua. That’s all I have for you on that.

QUESTION: So you don’t – you can’t say whether they discussed Julian Assange?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information for you on that.

QUESTION: Do you know or --

MS NAUERT: Do not take it as a yes, because I don’t have any information on that, okay?

QUESTION: Right. But I mean, it’s a fairly significant case.

MS NAUERT: It is.

QUESTION: Have you asked the – could you ask the Secretary, take the question?

MS NAUERT: There are plenty of significant cases going on around the world, as I can – as you can imagine. We’ve been heavily involved in watching the situation as it unfolds in Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, a lot of other issues that we’ve been heavily focused on as well, but the Secretary had a good meeting yesterday.

QUESTION: Yeah, but there’s only one country in the world that is housing a person who has been apparently charged by the U.S. Justice Department in – for publishing classified information, and that would be Ecuador.

MS NAUERT: And that is a very serious matter. I am just telling you I don’t have any information on that as to whether or not that came up in the meeting. I just read you the readout. I can read it for you once again.

QUESTION: Could you take the question?

QUESTION: No, because it doesn’t answer – we don’t need you to read it again, but it would be nice if we could find out an answer to the question. Because while it is true there is a lot going on in the world --

MS NAUERT: I will – Matt, I will certainly ask. Some of these would be private diplomatic conversations which we wouldn’t always necessarily read out. You know that. Okay?

QUESTION: Well, right, but have you – this is a --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything more for you on that so I’m going to move on.

QUESTION: I get that, but it’s --

MS NAUERT: Said, go right ahead.

QUESTION: It’s a significant – a significant case and it’s – the jockeying for attention with these other things that you mentioned rightfully are important.

MS NAUERT: I heard – I take your point.

Hi, Said.

QUESTION: Yes, hi, Heather. Last week the President met with Secretary Pompeo and National Security Advisor Bolton and his peace team – Greenblatt, Kushner, and Ambassador Friedman. Could you share with us any outcome, any calendar, any timetable as far as a peace plan or the release of this peace plan?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, as soon as it is ready to be presented, they will present it. I know that isn’t a very satisfactory answer. A lot of folks, yourself included, have been waiting for that peace plan to be presented, and we will do so just as soon as they’re ready to do that. They had a good meeting last week with Mr. Kushner, Mr. Greenblatt. The Secretary was there as well, also the Vice President and Ambassador Bolton. They discussed the President’s vision for a comprehensive peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We remain committed to sharing our vision for peace with Israel and Palestinians and other regional and international stakeholders. We’ll share that information just as soon as we can.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hold on, hold on. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on the Palestinian issue. Today the Israelis issued order for demolishing 16 homes in Shuafat – it’s a neighborhood in Jerusalem – there’s been dozens of arrests of Palestinian officials – in fact, officials that you have trained in security and so on – in Jerusalem. Is – does Israel have a green light or are you looking the other way while all these things go on? I mean, I don’t want to name all the things that happen on daily basis, but there is a – we’re seeing a more heavy-handedness, so to speak, in the conduct of the Israeli occupation against Palestinians. And I wonder if you have a comment on that.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. This is what we would typically say about cases of such a nature, and I can’t confirm those particular cases nor can I confirm the individuals that you mentioned, that you said were allegedly involved in that. We’re not going to be able to respond to every single news report on a very complicated and emotional matter, such a sensitive subject. I know that’s not very satisfying to you, but we would encourage both sides to create an environment that’s conducive not only to negotiations, but also to a comprehensive and enduring peace. So back to the peace plan, we look forward to presenting that just as soon as we can.

Okay. Go ahead, Nadia.

QUESTION: Two follow-ups. One, since the hearing is classified tomorrow, do we expect any statement by the Secretary after the hearing in Congress?

MS NAUERT: We’ll see. We’re still fully working out our schedule tomorrow, but as of now the Secretary’s planning on doing that briefing. What comes after that, we’re not sure just yet.

QUESTION: Okay, and on Yemen, seems to be a renewed effort to end the war in Yemen. How much is the U.S. involved and why this new round of talks in Sweden is have better chance of succeeding than all the previous ones?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think the important thing that the United States government and many other governments right now are focusing on is supporting Martin Griffiths, our UN special envoy. And it is obviously a very difficult and complex and tragic situation that has unfolded for far too long in Yemen. It’s something that we care about a lot. The thing that we are focused on – I don’t want to say the most right now, but one of our top things that we’re focusing on – is supporting the work that Martin Griffiths is doing right there. He has a process in place; we believe that he’s making progress. He has some commitments, not only from the Yemeni government but also from the Houthi rebels, to sit down and have conversations and we think that’s a good place to start. Any time that you can have two sides that have been fighting so fiercely for such a period of time sit down together is certainly progress. We think that that’s critical and we’re focused on that and look forward to bringing you any new information that comes out of that.

Okay. Hi, Conor.

QUESTION: Last week, the top Republican and Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee sent a letter to the administration triggering an investigation under the Global Magnitsky Act into whether or not the crown prince was involved in the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. Have you received that letter and then begun that investigation? There’s a 120-day window.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I believe that the letter you’re referring to is a letter that was sent to the White House. I don’t believe that that was sent to the State Department, but I can double check and look into that for you.

Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: You would be part of that investigation though, right?

MS NAUERT: Again, I have not seen this letter, so I would hesitate to respond to that part in particular. I believe this letter was sent to the White House, so we wouldn’t necessarily have received that, but I’ll look into it and see if that’s something that State Department is involved with.

Cindy, I’ll come back to you and then – go ahead.

QUESTION: Russia has rejected the idea of direct talks with Ukraine. What is the U.S doing? Is the U.S. concerned that this might escalate out of control?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I mean, I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical, but obviously what happened over the weekend was a serious escalation. It’s a dangerous escalation on the part of Russia’s continued aggressive behavior against Ukraine. The United States continues to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The Secretary and the President both have a very strong relationship with the Government of Ukraine, President Poroshenko in particular. Some of you may be aware the Secretary spoke with President Poroshenko yesterday, offering our support, expressing our concern over that dangerous, aggressive act on the part of Russia.

The Secretary’s heading to NATO, as many of you know, in the coming days. I would imagine that that would be a big topic of conversation. NATO issued a very strongly worded statement earlier today. I would encourage you to take a look at that.

Among the things that the U.S. government is doing – you saw Ambassador Haley’s comments yesterday at the United Nations. The Secretary then had a call with President Poroshenko. We put out a statement ourselves, and we’re continuing to have conversations not only with NATO but with the OSCE and other multilateral organizations who share our concerns.

Now, one of the things I think you’ll be seeing in the days and weeks ahead are additional conversations that the U.S. government is having with our European allies. And one of the things that we would like to see take place is our European allies doing more to assist Ukraine. The United States government has taken a very strong position in their support, in support of Ukraine. We would like other countries to do more as well. That is something that’s enshrined in our National Security Strategy, encouraging other countries to help one another around the world so that the United States isn’t completely – I don’t want to say shouldering the burden, but so the United States isn’t handling these issues chiefly alone.

Now, you may ask what can European governments do. Many governments have imposed sanctions on Russia for its actions in Crimea, in Ukraine. Not all of those sanctions, as I have been told and our experts have explained to me, have been fully enforced. So that is one thing that we can look for European countries to do more when we talk about doing more.

Also something we’ve talked about a fair amount but perhaps not enough is Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2 is snaking through many of these countries, and I think that’s a question European countries have to ask themselves: Is Nord Stream 2 something that they want to continue with, because it helps the Russian government, and is that the kind of support that they want to provide the Russian government with, continuing to back Nord Stream 2 at this time?

QUESTION: So Ukraine didn’t sneak into NATO over the past three – two weeks without anyone noticing, did they? (Laughter.) I’m just curious as to why you kept mentioning --

MS NAUERT: Matt, I think this is a – it’s a shared concern.

QUESTION: You just kept mentioning – I understand --

MS NAUERT: And I just mentioned that NATO put out a very strong statement --

QUESTION: I know that.

MS NAUERT: -- about its concerns. And so I think this is a issue that many countries around the world are concerned about.

QUESTION: Yes, I get that. But the point of my lead-in to the question is are you envisioning – even though Ukraine is not a member of NATO – that there would be a step, something that NATO could do in – as an alliance --

MS NAUERT: I think it is important any time --

QUESTION: -- on behalf of Ukraine?

MS NAUERT: -- any time that countries come together and express their serious concern. It was the Ukraine Commission. They have something – NATO does – that’s called the Ukraine Commission, and they held an emergency session yesterday, which they largely condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean are you saying that --

MS NAUERT: I can’t speak for NATO. I can’t speak for NATO.

QUESTION: No, I’m asking --

MS NAUERT: But I can tell you that a lot of these countries are concerned as their – as allies.

QUESTION: I’m asking you if the U.S. government is pushing a NATO response to the incident over the weekend, even though Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

MS NAUERT: Matt, I don't have any information for you on that, okay?

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Is the U.S. pushing this response at G20? Is this going to be a message to the G20 of pressuring – more action to bring pressure on Russia --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m not going to get ahead of anything that the President may or may not discuss when he’s at the G20. We look forward to being there in support of the President, and I’d just refer you back to the White House for anything on that, okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Go ahead, sir.

QUESTION: Hi.

MS NAUERT: Tell me your name again.

QUESTION: Jackson Richman.

MS NAUERT: Jackson, hi.

QUESTION: Hi. From Jewish News Syndicate, jns.org.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Considering Secretary Pompeo’s most recent statement on the Khashoggi affair, will the incident affect if the U.S. wants Saudi Arabia to help forge a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians?

MS NAUERT: Saudi Arabia has taken steps really in the right direction in quite a few key areas. And it wasn’t that long ago that we would highlight, right, how Saudi Arabia has taken steps in helping to further empower women. Do they have a longer way to go? The answer, of course, to that is yes. They have also taken steps in the right direction in conversations with Egypt, Israel as well. I’m not going to speak on behalf either of those governments, but I would just include that in sort of the basket of taking steps in the right direction.

I’m going to have to wrap it up in just a second.

QUESTION: India?

MS NAUERT: Ben, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. South Korean media is reporting that the U.S had tried to set up a meeting with North Korea for the 27th. Obviously that didn’t happen. I was just wondering if you confirm that --

MS NAUERT: For the 27th, as in today?

QUESTION: As in today.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m not going to be able to comment on every South Korean news report, because there are a whole lot of them. I don't have anything for you on that. There was no meeting of any sort that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Are you still trying to set up a high-level meeting before any second summit?

MS NAUERT: Well, we are in frequent contact with North Korean officials. That’s not changed. We have our Special Representative Steve Biegun who’s leading those conversations. We have those types of conversations, meetings at various levels, from the Secretary level to Steve Biegun’s level to the working level. So those conversations continue.

QUESTION: Has he actually had any meetings with the North Koreans?

MS NAUERT: He’s been in the meetings with Secretary Pompeo and has been a key, key part of those meetings with Secretary Pompeo and North Korean officials in Pyongyang not that long ago.

QUESTION: Right. Yeah, yeah, but I’m asking if he – because he was supposed to be – remember there was the invitation that was issued for the North to send people to Vienna that would meet with Steve Biegun. Have any of those meetings – has he had any separate meetings with North Korean counterparts or any official?

MS NAUERT: We continue to have conversations with North Korean officials. Whether it’s a face-to-face sit-down meeting, that’s one thing, but we continue to have conversations and we think we’re in a good place with that. Do more need to take place? Yes, certainly they do.

QUESTION: So he has been in contact even if it’s not been face-to-face?

MS NAUERT: Oh, yes, absolutely, we’ve been – and that’s why I say we remain in frequent contact with the North Korean officials.

And I’m going to take it – go to Abbie, and then I have to go. Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, let me just ask one brief unrelated question that has to do with the ambassador to Poland.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Actually, a related question, just quickly?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: The CIA confirmed that Andy Kim is departing at the end of the year. He’s obviously been integral to the Secretary in his efforts. Is there any response from the Secretary to his retirement?

MS NAUERT: Andy Kim is fantastic. Andy Kim has been a great partner of Secretary Pompeo not only at the agency – and I can’t speak for them – but certainly here at the State Department as well. We have our Special Representative Steve Biegun who is firmly in place, and Andy has been a great partner. I can’t confirm whether or not Andy is retiring. I’ve not heard that from any officials. But if he is, we certainly look forward to thanking him for his service.

QUESTION: One more on Andy?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I just want to ask you if you have any --

MS NAUERT: And then Abbie, and then I’ve got to go.

QUESTION: -- response or explanation to this letter that Ambassador Mosbacher wrote to the Polish prime minister which has upset a lot of Poles because she apparently misspelled his name, got his title wrong, as well as misspelled the name of the interior minister. And the tone of the letter apparently was not appreciated by the Poles. I’m just wondering if you guys have any --

MS NAUERT: Well, I’d say Ambassador Mosbacher does a great job of representing the State Department and the United States government in Poland. She’s of Polish descent, as a matter of fact. She also represents our ideals and values. Those values include freedom of the press, all of those things that I know you all hold near and dear. In terms of allegedly leaked letters, what you refer to, I’m just not going to comment on that beyond saying she does a great job representing us.

QUESTION: Well, just being of Polish descent doesn’t make it any easier to spell some Polish names, so I’m not --

MS NAUERT: You said it, not me, so – (laughter) --

QUESTION: Yeah, but I’m just – so you don’t have any – you don’t have any explanation for --

MS NAUERT: No, I’m not going to comment on that, just thank Ambassador Mosbacher for her continued good work over there.

Abbie, last question. I gotta go.

QUESTION: One more? Yeah, so just following up, actually, on what my colleague asked about Andy Kim retiring. Does the Secretary --

MS NAUERT: I can’t confirm it. I’d refer you to the CIA for any information about his alleged retirement. It’s a news report. But he is a terrific guy.

QUESTION: They confirmed it. But – okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay, they did. Okay.

QUESTION: But then also on that, there have been a lot of reports, or there has been some reporting out today going back to this idea of North Korea allowing inspectors in for concessions by the U.S. Have there been any further developments in that or discussions?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of any of that, but that’s something that the Secretary and Chairman Kim had agreed to and had spoken about when the Secretary was in Pyongyang about a month and a half ago or so. So that’s something that they agreed to, and we look forward to Chairman Kim fulfilling his commitments.

QUESTION: One on India?

MS NAUERT: All right. See you guys. I gotta go. Bye-bye.

(The briefing was concluded at 4:02 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.

Heather Nauert




Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing




Washington, DC




November 15, 2018










Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



LIBYA



DEPARTMENT



SAUDI ARABIA/TURKEY



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



IRAN/IRAQ



SYRIA



NORTH KOREA



SOUTH KOREA



MEXICO



NORTH KOREA



CYPRUS



NICARAGUA



SAUDI ARABIA


TRANSCRIPT:

3:16 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Okay. A couple announcements to bring you before I take your questions.

First, I’d like to address a meeting that I was able to have yesterday with some incredible women who are from the Committee to Protect Journalists. They were the winners of the International Press Freedom Award and they joined me here at the State Department yesterday to share some of their stories. These women were incredible representatives of your profession. They were from Venezuela, Vietnam, and the Philippines. I spoke with them about some of their experiences they have faced and also that their family members have faced as a result of their chosen professions.

They shared with me their stories of harassment, the threats that they have received, the intimidation, the detention, and their kidnapping, all faced and that they suffered just simply for doing their jobs. For many of these journalists, this kind of treatment is ongoing. One of the awardees was named Maria Ressa. She’s from the Philippines. She was unable to travel to the United States because of legal challenges to her website by the government. We also discussed the threats to journalists and human rights defenders in other countries including Tanzania and also Egypt.

As I’ve said from this podium many times before, my colleagues and I at the State Department believe very deeply in the right to a free press. That is essential to transparency and also accountability. I appreciate working with you most days. (Laughter.) No, each and every day. It is a real honor, and I think you know I mean that very sincerely. I know some of you had an opportunity to meet these ladies earlier today, so thank you for taking your time to meet with them and hear about their stories, and I know that they were very grateful for that.

Next thing, our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans and International, Environmental and Scientific Affairs Judith Garber and the Libya Ambassador Wafa Bugaighis marked the 10-year renewal for the U.S.-Libya Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement with a signing ceremony that took place here yesterday at the State Department. That renewal provides a framework to strengthen the bilateral cooperation in STEM fields. It ensures open data practices, extends U.S. norms and principles, and also protects Americans’ intellectual property. The State Department will continue to support programs that provide new opportunities to talented youth and STEM leaders in Libya, including through the Fulbright Student Program, the Professional Fellows Program, the TechWomen Scholarship, and the U.S.-Libya Space Camp Scholarship. Since the signing of the original agreement in 2009, the department has supported the participation of more than 75 Libyans on exchange-focused STEM subjects, so we’re pleased to welcome them.

Last thing is a staffing announcement, and we’ve had – we’ve been hard at work getting our team on the field, as we often say here. I have two additional staffing announcements to bring you today. The first is our new assistant secretary for legislative affairs. Her name is Mary Elizabeth Taylor. She has now started and has been sworn in. Ms. Taylor comes to the State Department from Legislative Affairs at the White House. Previously, she served in the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. She worked on the Senate floor as a senior cloakroom assistant and also as the – acting as liaison between the minority and the majority leadership in order to negotiate agreements on legislative and executive matters.

Next I’d like to announce the addition of Mary Kissel. She has joined us from The Wall Street Journal. Many of you may have known Mary during her 15 years at The Wall Street Journal, and we could not be more thrilled to have her on board as well. Mary will be working for the Secretary as a senior advisor to the Secretary for policy and strategic messaging. While at the Journal, she also served as a member of the Journal’s editorial board. So we’re thrilled to have her on board. She’s also an expert on Asia, and we look forward to introducing you to both of them in the near future.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks, Heather. Before getting into the news of the day, I just want to – I want to ask you a question about your first topper there in terms of the journalists who are here with the Committee to Protect Journalists. You’re right; we did get a chance to talk with some of them, and as did you. And while we all appreciate the message that you send or that you deliver from this podium every day, are you not at all concerned that that message gets diluted a bit when you see what’s going on just up the street at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where there is essentially a full-on war between the President and one particular reporter and the White House that’s trying to put him out?

MS NAUERT: I understand where you’re going with this. I think we have to keep this --

QUESTION: I mean, do you – don’t you think that your message or is there a concern that your message of support for journalists both here and abroad – more importantly abroad, perhaps – is somewhat diluted or somewhat hurt by what’s going on and the rhetoric and the language that comes out of the leadership in the White House about this?

MS NAUERT: Let me – I know where you’re going with this question, so let me just stop you and answer it there. No, and here’s why: In the United States, journalists are able and allowed to freely practice their profession. We see that each and every day. Administration officials and others across the country sometimes take issue with incorrect, inaccurate reporting. We’ve had these debates often here. That is one thing.

Journalists can do their jobs in the United States. These women – their family members have been detained, some of them. They’ve been forced out of their professions entirely. Some of them have been forced out of their countries. And as you all know far too well, some journalists have been detained, sentenced to many years in prison in other countries. So I think the situations are entirely different, and I would encourage you all to keep it into perspective. How journalists --

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait. But that’s not – what I was trying to say. I am --

MS NAUERT: -- are handled and treated here in the United States versus the very real risks that they face overseas.

QUESTION: I was afraid that you would try and do this by trying to change the – I am not suggesting in any way that the threats and the persecution, prosecution that these people that – who you hosted, you who met with, is similar to what or is in any way like what those of us in this room deal with. I am asking you if you are concerned at all that your message of support for them, for these journalists who you just hosted is diluted or hurt or may not resonate as much as it did because of the situation that we see here in the United States.

MS NAUERT: I have seen --

QUESTION: And again, I am not trying to compare their situation to our situation.

MS NAUERT: I have seen how when we speak about the cases of some of these journalists how much it has helped them, how much it has helped them in their home countries. Sometimes we don’t speak about their cases when we think that speaking about their cases could hurt their cases, but I have seen firsthand how speaking to the realities that they face in their given countries has assisted them, has encouraged governments across the world to treat journalists better, to stop doing things like taxing them out of business, stop detaining them, and things of that nature.

So what we do here at the State Department in speaking out in support of freedom of speech has helped people, and I continue to believe that that does help people. Okay?

QUESTION: All right, let me say once again I want to ask you about the sanctions that were imposed.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I – just really quick – just really quick on this issue?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I mean, true – true --

MS NAUERT: Because if you all would like to make this all about you and not talk about other things today, we can do that.

QUESTION: No, no, you – look, we cannot compare how journalists conduct themselves in this country to other countries, but certainly you must agree that many of your close allies, very close allies, mistreat journalists, put them in prison, persecute them, and so on. And you seem to – maybe issue a statement. I mean, I don’t want to name countries, but you probably know what I’m talking about. You seem to issue a statement, then it stops there. So you hold, like, foreign journalists in a different standard.

MS NAUERT: I disagree with that because much of what we do – you know this, Said; all of you know this – much of what we do is behind the scenes. And some people may think oh, the State Department isn’t doing enough on this case or that case. I’d encourage you to go back and talk to your editors, because we’ve helped some of your very own colleagues. We won’t speak about it, we’ll be discreet about it, but we continue to do that, and we’re proud of our work. That’s what we do on behalf of American citizens and journalists who in some instances are not American citizens.

QUESTION: I just want to say one thing.

MS NAUERT: Go ahead, Gardiner.

QUESTION: In countries around the world, these dictators are using – use fake news as a rallying cry for repression of journalists, directly echoing the President of the United States.

MS NAUERT: But you know what?

QUESTION: That does not cause you any concern?

MS NAUERT: You know what? Since having taken this job – and you know I’m a former journalist myself – I have been disheartened – and I didn’t believe it until I got into this role and started working with reporters each and every day. You all are a great group. You know that. I respect to the Nth degree what you do for a living, and I think we always have fair and honest exchanges of ideas, our concepts, our values, our policies.

I have seen since taking on this role inaccurate and sloppy reporting. Sometimes I think it’s intentional because of bias. Other times it may just be someone’s naivete. And so when the President has spoken about fake news, when other world leaders have spoken about fake news, there is such a thing. We have experienced that just this week: one news magazine, for example, referring – taking the Secretary’s quote about Iran and twisting that quote and making it inaccurate. That information was used by the Iranian regime, for example – and I can give you all the details – for its own propaganda purposes.

So fake news, I hate to say, but is a real thing. It is a real thing, Gardiner. I’m sure you’ve seen it. Others have. You all have had to make corrections at many of your publications, yours included, in the past for inaccurate and sometimes biased reporting.

QUESTION: I didn’t want to get – this isn’t about us. But you mentioned that – okay, so do you think then that anyone that you accuse of fake news is an enemy of the people? Is that the position of the State Department as well?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I don’t think that news reporters are the enemy of the people. What I do think --

QUESTION: Okay, all right. Is that, first of all --

MS NAUERT: Hold on. What I do think is very dangerous is when the news is dishonest when you report – not you, but when journalists report false information. And I’ve seen it come from the highest levels of news organizations, where I’ve had to pick up the phone and call the president of unnamed news organizations, who have been unwilling to change their headlines or to change their stories, despite facts to the contrary. That has to stop.

And when I spoke to these women yesterday, to hear their stories about what they do each and every day, they are the best of what journalists should all aspire to do, and I hope we can all keep that in perspective – fact-based reporting. And I think that’s why the President and others in the country and other countries around the world become very concerned when reporting is taken out of context, is inaccurate, or is biased.

QUESTION: But you don’t agree with the idea that someone who does that, whether intentional or not, is an enemy of the people, do you?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I’m not going to get into this.

QUESTION: All right. Good.

MS NAUERT: I think we’ve addressed it enough.

QUESTION: Good. I agree.

MS NAUERT: If you’d like to make this entire briefing about the profession of the news business, we could do it or we could take it over to the Newseum and have a conversation.

QUESTION: No, I wanted to change the subject before. Can I ask you about the sanctions on – that were imposed on the 17 Saudi officials today?

MS NAUERT: Yes, you may.

QUESTION: So the reaction to this from various members of the Hill – sorry, members of Congress – has been well, okay, this is a good first step, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. And I realize that the Secretary in his statement said we’re going to continue to uncover the facts and as we do we’ll act appropriately. But can you say – are you able to say now that this is not the end, that there will be something more substantive – I don't want to say – these are substantive, but something more that will come as the case against these people and perhaps others in the future continue?

MS NAUERT: We rarely preview sanctions or other activities. You all are well aware of that. The Secretary has addressed this in a general sense and has said that this is not the last that you have heard from the U.S. Government on this very issue, the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

Today, in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury, we put out a statement, as did Treasury, imposing sanctions on 17 Saudi Arabian individuals for serious human rights abuses resulting from their roles in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi at the consulate of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul, Turkey on October the 2nd. That action was taken under the authority of Executive Order 13818, which implements and builds upon the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. As a result of that action, all of the individuals’ assets within U.S. jurisdiction are blocked. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with these individuals.

At the time of Jamal Khashoggi’s killing, these individuals occupied positions in the royal court and at several ministries and offices of the Government of Saudi Arabia. The United States Government goes on to list the names of those sanctioned individuals. If someone has not received this notice, you can certainly contact our Press Office for this or the Treasury Press Office.

Global Magnitsky Act empowers the United States to take significant steps to protect and promote human rights and combat corruption around the world. Our action today is an important step in responding to Jamal Khashoggi’s killing. The State Department will continue to seek all relevant facts. We will continue to consult Congress and work with other nations to hold accountable those who were involved in his killing.

QUESTION: Very brief, last one from me.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But can you say that you’re satisfied that the – in terms of the seniority of officials that it stops where it stops and – or is it still an open question? It could still – those to be punished or to be sanctioned could be higher level than what has already happened? Is that --

MS NAUERT: So let me respond to your question this way, because the Saudi Government made an announcement today. We regard the announcement that they made as a good first step. It’s a step in the right direction. It is an initial investigation finding. It is important that those steps continue to be taken toward full accountability. We will continue to work diligently to ascertain the facts. The Secretary has talked about the importance of gathering data from various sources. That’s something that the U.S. Government continues to do. That data will then help inform the decisions that we end up making and taking in the future, and that’s in part how we arrived in conjunction with Treasury at the Global Magnitsky sanctions of those Saudi individuals.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Heather, (inaudible) a follow-up --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Michel, go right ahead. Hi.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the findings of the Saudi prosecutor --

MS NAUERT: Well, that’s why I say that this is an important first step and that this is also an initial finding of its investigation. We expect that the investigation will continue, not only in Saudi Arabia but in Turkey as well, as we continue to develop facts, a fact set, and make determinations from here on out.

Okay. Sorry. Janne, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. On North Korea --

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Can we stick with this just for a second?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead, Gardiner.

QUESTION: Sorry. So this explanation today seems to contradict earlier explanations by the Saudis. Today, they seem to be saying that this was a rendition gone bad. Before, they agreed that it actually was a premeditated murder. The administration even seemed to agree with that earlier premeditated murder explanation. Where are you on the – is this a rendition gone bad? Was this a premeditated murder? And can you tell us whether --

MS NAUERT: I think it’s still too early for us to be able to answer that question. We continue to get the information and we’ll analyze and make determinations as we get additional information.

QUESTION: And the announcement today about the sanctions – was that at all coordinated with the Saudis? These two announcements came today within an hour of each other, one from Saudi Arabia about its conclusions, the other from the United States about its sanctions.

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: Did – was the timing a coincidence?

MS NAUERT: It was not. It was not. It has been no secret – even though we don’t forecast sanctions, it has been so secret because many of you had emailed me all hours of the day asking me when these sanctions would be announced. So the U.S. Government and some officials have spoken to this, so it was no surprise that something of this sort was coming out and would be announced today.

QUESTION: You’ve explained repeatedly in the past that sanctions take weeks, months, and even years. In fact, we just had --

MS NAUERT: It depends on the level of complexity, and I’m not a sanctions expert, so I’m not going to try to be one. But in having talked to a lot of my colleagues who are more technical experts on this matter – for example, when we talk about CAATSA. CAATSA, very different kind of instrument of sanctions.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: That type of sanction can take a very long time to dig down into all the details, because they can involve very complex, large conglomerates, businesses overseas. Today Treasury and the State Department announced individuals. Individuals – unless there may be an oligarch – can be a little bit easier to drill down onto the facts of their portfolios, their holdings, and all of that. So that is why that may not take as long as when we deal with something like CAATSA.

QUESTION: And one other thing: In a related matter, NBC News reported today that the administration was actually thinking about some sort of getting Fethullah Gulen to the Turks in some way, even though this administration has yet to even start any kind of judicial extradition process. Can you help us understand that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So let’s back up a little bit.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Because over the past year and a half, since I’ve been in this role, we’ve talked a fair bit about the Turks’ interest in Fethullah Gulen, who’s in the United States. We have received multiple requests from the Turkish Government, at least over the time that I’ve been here, related to Mr. Gulen. We continue to evaluate the materials that the Turkish Government presents requesting his extradition.

This is wholly handled out of the Department of Justice, so I’d have to refer you to the Department of Justice for information on that, but I can tell you these issues are unrelated. I’ve seen some news reports where people are trying to conflate the two, Saudi Arabia and Turkey with Khashoggi and Gulen, and there is no relation. So let’s pull those two issues apart and keep them discrete just as they are. Let me also add, because I’ve spoken to some of my White House colleagues about this, the White House has not been involved in any discussions related to the extradition of Fethullah Gulen.

Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Michel, I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Sorry. Discussions with the Turks or interagency discussions?

MS NAUERT: With the Turks. Yeah – with the Turks.

Okay. Yeah, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. On the Palestinian issue, today marks --

QUESTION: Heather, can you say --

MS NAUERT: Michel, I’ll come back to you. Let me just try to get around the room a little bit.

QUESTION: Thirty years ago, the Palestinians recognized Israel and its right to exist and as a state, but they have been waiting for Israel to recognize a Palestinian entity of some sort for the past 30 years. And meanwhile the occupation goes on, the settlements go on, the arrests go on, and so on. Don’t you think that the time has come for Palestinian self-determination and statehood?

MS NAUERT: I think the time has come for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We have a team that’s very hard at work trying to get the two sides together. When we talk about a two-state solution, Said, we need both parties to sit down and have direct negotiations to do that. You can’t do this through an intermediary. You can’t do this through headlines and fights in the press related to that. You have to sit down and you have to be willing to compromise.

The President has repeatedly said and we’ve repeatedly said the two sides are probably going to have to give a bit to develop a lasting peace. We hope we are – we hope that we can get to this point. We’ve got a deal that is still in the works, and when we’re ready to announce that deal and unveil that deal, I’ll be thrilled to bring it to you, okay.

QUESTION: On this very point.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: On this very point, today Mr. Jason Greenblatt actually published an op-ed or an opinion piece in my own newspaper. And he talks at length about the need to normalize with the Arab countries and so on, but he hardly talks about whatever points the plan might have and so on. He is not reaching out to the Palestinians. I suggest that you read the whole article. It’s a lengthy and very thorough --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’ve taken a look at Jason Greenblatt’s editorial. I think it was posted in your paper, right?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Well, I’m glad that you ran that. Look, our relationship with Israel is not simply about a peace plan. Israel’s relationship with many other countries around the world is extremely broad. They do a lot of great work in the areas of finance, manufacturing, desalination of water – there are a lot of things. It is a broad relationship that they have with a lot of countries. Commerce is in part what Jason Greenblatt addressed in his editorial, and there’s nothing wrong with discussing those issues, and not simply every time he writes to talk about Israeli-Palestinian peace, as important as that issue is. So he has other work to do, and that’s part of it as well.

QUESTION: He’s charged with that.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: He’s charged with that. And I’m just asking whether you have shifted the fulcrum or the center of your emphasis or your focus.

MS NAUERT: No. I mean, he knows these issues, he knows the country very well, and I’m glad just seeing him put pen to paper and share his expertise with others.

QUESTION: I have another question.

MS NAUERT: And by the way, Said, I know he’ll be thrilled that you read it. So I’ll be sure to let him know.

QUESTION: Yeah. Last thing. Last week, the Israelis arrested 45 Americans that were planting flowers and so on, and they released them. I wanted to ask you whether you had anything to do with their release so quickly. They were released right after two hours and so on. Or are you aware of the situation?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, that’s one of the situations where there are privacy considerations, so I just can’t comment on that due to that, okay.

Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi. Earlier this month you tweeted that one of the 12 conditions for lifting sanctions on Iran is that the regime, quote, “must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias,” end quote. Is that still your position?

MS NAUERT: Nothing has changed with regard to our position on that.

QUESTION: Even though Iraqi politicians have said you’re interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs?

MS NAUERT: I don’t think we’re interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs. That’s something – we take great pains to not do that. We respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government. Sovereignty is an important element of what this U.S. administration stands for. You can read that in our National Security Strategy. We have a great relationship with the Iraqi people, but we believe that Iraq is a sovereign nation.

Okay, yeah.

QUESTION: And on Syria’s Kurds, last month, Secretary Pompeo said they were, quote, “great partners,” and will ensure them, quote, “a seat at the table.” Is that still your position?

MS NAUERT: Our position has not changed. Kurds are great partners, and you remember the President up at UNGA – I think you were in the audience there – where he called upon one of – he’s not here today, is he? “Mr. Kurd.”

QUESTION: “Mr. Kurd,” that’s right.

MS NAUERT: The bureau chief. And we were thrilled that he then reported – put an article in The Wall Street Journal. So our position has not changed.

QUESTION: Mr. Kurd appreciates that a lot and he thanks the President.

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Invite Mr. Kurd back, please. We enjoy him. Hey, Laurie – I mean, I’m sorry, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Heather. Two questions, quick, on North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un recently announced that North Korea will rebuild both the nuclear and economy. In this regard, we don’t know whether North Korea denuclearized. What do you think about North Koreans’ brinkmanship diplomacy? Second question is --

MS NAUERT: I think a lot of these things are negotiating points, and a lot of these are positions that various governments, just as a general matter, will use leading up to negotiations. This is an issue – the denuclearization of North Korea – that President Trump has been intimately involved in. The Secretary, of course, is his personal representative on that – Steve Biegun as well. And they’ve been hard at work working toward the denuclearization of North Korea.

We’ve said this before: We have a long way to go. We believe in giving diplomacy a chance. There are plenty of news organizations who like to make fun of us, that we haven’t gone far enough, we haven’t done enough. We are hard at work at this. President Trump and Chairman Kim came up with four sets and – areas of agreement that they intend to work on. We’ve been hard at work on those four areas of agreement. We take Chairman Kim at his word that he will work on this with us. And when the President and Chairman Kim are next able to meet, whenever that does take place – we think probably early in the next year – we expect that those four elements of the Singapore summit will be addressed by the two leaders.

QUESTION: But the North Korea has done so in the past, there – it will be breaking of the --

MS NAUERT: There are significant differences between how this administration is handling things and previous administrations have handled things. We won’t make the same mistakes of the past. Some of those mistakes of the past included piling on a bunch of different countries that could all weigh in, and you get mired into a lot of bureaucratic battles and can’t always get things effectively or efficiently done. We’ve now stripped that away. We are negotiating leader to leader. You have the President and the Secretary both negotiating with Chairman Kim personally, and that adds an entirely different element to it.

North Korea is seeing a brighter future, I think, ahead. That is something that the Secretary and others in the U.S. delegation have discussed with North Korean officials. We’d like a brighter future for North Korea and think that they would as well. So --

QUESTION: So I’m sorry, when you said that you’d – that past attempts had gotten bogged down in the multilateral process, you’re referring to the Six-Party Talks?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, a lot of times, having a lot of parties weigh in on something has bogged down the negotiations, as you can imagine, Matt. You could put six – six people in a room, right?

QUESTION: Children?

MS NAUERT: No, I didn’t say that. You put six people in a room and they’re going to have disagreements, and things are --

QUESTION: And have seven different opinions --

MS NAUERT: And things are going to take a lot longer to get done. But this is a leader-to-leader negotiation. But the United States, along with many other countries, is backed by the world.

QUESTION: Fair enough. Is that --

MS NAUERT: If you’ll look at the UN Security Council resolutions and the unanimous rounds of those resolutions, that tells you a lot about the importance of denuclearizing the Korean – North Korea and the efforts behind it.

QUESTION: Of course, that’s also a lot of people in the room.

MS NAUERT: They’re backing those Security Council resolutions, yeah.

QUESTION: So does that apply to other negotiations as well?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to apply the same thing, that, to every other situation because situations are unique. You know that. Okay.

QUESTION: My second question is did Secretary Pompeo meet with the South Korean Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon today?

MS NAUERT: Did Secretary Pompeo meet with the South Koreans today?

QUESTION: South Korean Unification Minister Cho.

MS NAUERT: Not to my knowledge. Secretary Pompeo is on a trip to Texas today. I’m not sure where he is in his schedule right now, but not to my knowledge has he met. Nope, I’m getting heads shaking over here, so he’s not met with South Koreans today.

QUESTION: South Korean media reported that are you planning for the meeting, any meeting with the Secretary Pompeo and South Korea?

MS NAUERT: We – look, we don’t have any meetings on the schedule just yet. Secretary Pompeo is willing and able to meet with his South Korean counterparts. Sometimes he’s met with Kim Jong-un, Chairman Kim; not always has he met with them.

QUESTION: South Korea.

MS NAUERT: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you meant North Korea. I’m not aware of any meetings that we have scheduled.

QUESTION: Is South Korea fake news?

MS NAUERT: Maybe it is. Okay. Hey, Abbie.

QUESTION: Hi. Do you have any information on the death of an American recently, Patrick Braxton Andrew, in Mexico?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I can only tell you that we can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen in Mexico. Taylor Meyer was his name. He died in Playa del Carmen, Mexico on November the 9th of this year. We would like to offer our deepest condolences to his family and his friends. Our U.S. consulate is providing consular assistance to the family, so we’ve been in touch with the family to try to support them in any way that we are able to. You know we’re limited in terms of what we can say for various privacy reasons and out of respect for the family as well. I can tell you we are coordinating with Mexican authorities. They have the lead on investigation as to what caused his death. And I’ll just leave our comments at that.

QUESTION: Unfortunately, this is actually a case of another American. The family just confirmed that the Mexican authorities – Mexican authorities have confirmed his death. He was hiking, from North Carolina. Do you know anything about that American?

MS NAUERT: Oh, I’m sorry. I don’t have any information for you on that. I thought you were referring to another case. Let me look into that and get you some information. My apologies.

Okay. Hey, Ben.

QUESTION: Hi. If I could go back to North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: Vice President Pence gave an interview while in Singapore where he stated that it was absolutely imperative at this next summit that we come away with a plan for identifying all weapons in question, identifying all sites, and allowing inspections and plans for dismantlement. Does the State Department share those goals for the next summit? And with where you guys are in your negotiations with North Korea, are you confident that you can accomplish this at the next summit?

MS NAUERT: You’re asking me for a measurement. You’re asking me to make a prediction. I’m not going to get ahead of any negotiations that may happen at a much higher level than me between the President, Chairman Kim, or Secretary Pompeo and his counterpart, or our special representative, Steve Biegun and his counterparts. We went into this eyes wide open. We have made, we think, tremendous progress. We will continue to work on that progress and continue to work toward the fully verified – final, fully verified denuclearization.

Okay. Hey, go ahead. Hi there.

QUESTION: Hi. It’s reported that President Erdogan said the U.S. has adopted the stance that Turkey must not interfere in Block 10 of Cyprus, exclusive economic zone, where ExxonMobil is drilling, but it is allowed to do whatever it wants beyond that point. So my question is: Is this your position, or do you expect Turkey to respect every single block of the Cyprus exclusive economic zone?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Regarding the Cyprus exclusive economic zone, it’s something I haven’t looked at that information for quite some time. I’ll have to check with my colleagues who cover Cyprus each and every day very, very carefully, and I’ll get back with you with a response. I’m afraid I don’t have anything more for you on that today. Okay.

QUESTION: On Turkey.

MS NAUERT: Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. The president of Turkey is threatening again Greece and Cyprus, and lately included an American company, ExxonMobil. Do you have any comment on this?

MS NAUERT: Again, I --

QUESTION: And can you tell us --

MS NAUERT: Just as your neighbor right there asked me about an issue of Cyprus, it’s not something I’m – unfortunately that I’ve asked my Cyprus experts about today or yesterday, so I will check in with them and get you the latest. I don’t want to give you any incorrect information.

QUESTION: Can I ask one thing about --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: You may also have to take this, because I didn’t know about it until – well, it didn’t come to me as a question until recently, and that is just about --

MS NAUERT: Meaning while you were sitting here, so I have no idea what you’re going to ask me about. Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, no, it’s not breaking news, necessarily. There is legislation that’s pending up on the Hill that’s been introduced by Senator Menendez, and it’s got some Republican cosponsors as well, that would impose sanctions on Nicaragua for the current situation down there. I’m just wondering if you could take – if you don’t have an answer at hand on the current situation in Nicaragua, what the U.S. view is of it, if you could find out what the administration’s position is on this legislation? Are you prepared to – they’re a part of the --

MS NAUERT: I think it’s going to be the same as it always is, that we don’t comment on pending legislation.

QUESTION: Well --

MS NAUERT: But if there is something new in the way of our stance regarding Nicaragua and looking at --

QUESTION: Well, it’s just that it comes in the light of Ambassador Bolton and the “Troika of Tyranny” comments in his speech about Latin America policy. And so I’m curious to know where you guys stand on going after not just the government in Venezuela, but also the government in Nicaragua. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’ll take a look and see if we have anything new for you on that.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS NAUERT: We’ve got to go. I’ll just take your last question, Michel.

QUESTION: Yeah. On the sanctions announced by Treasury today, Senator Tim Kaine has said that, “I am disturbed that following repeated Saudi lies about what happened to Jamal, the administration appears to be following the Saudi playbook of blaming mid-level officials and exonerating its leadership.” Do you have any reaction to that?

MS NAUERT: No. Typically we wouldn’t comment on things that congressional leaders have remarked, nor do we comment typically on what foreign leaders would say about a situation. So I’m just not going to comment on that.

Do you have something else you want to ask? Then we’ve got to wrap it up.

QUESTION: No, that’s it.

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right. Thanks, everybody. Got to go.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:54 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.

Heather Nauert




Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing




Washington, DC




November 13, 2018










Index for Today's Briefing

COUNTERTERRORISM



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



NATO



NORTH KOREA



AFGHANISTAN



IRAQ/IRAN



HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE



SAUDI ARABIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:44 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Good afternoon, everybody. Hope you’re all doing well. Great to see you again.

Today we’re going to begin with a special briefing by some of my colleagues. We will be joined by our Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security, Mike Evanoff, and also our Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Nathan Sales. They will talk about new measures that the U.S. Government is taking against Lebanese Hizballah and also Hamas.

First up, I’ll invite Assistant Secretary Evanoff, and then we’ll – and then Nathan Sales, and then we’ll take a few questions. I’ll moderate, and then we’ll go on to the regular briefing.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) I’ll come back, Nazira. Okay. Go right ahead, Mike.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY EVANOFF: Thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. So today the U.S. Department of State’s Rewards for Justice program is offering rewards of up to 5 million each for information leading to the identification or location of Hamas leader Salih al-Aruri, and Lebanese Hizballah leaders Khalil Yusif Mahmoud Harb, and Haytham Ali Tabatabai.

Salih al-Aruri is a deputy of the Hamas’s political bureau and one of the founders of Hamas’s military wing. Al-Aruri is currently living freely in Lebanon, where he is reportedly is working with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. Al-Aruri raised funds for and directed Hamas military operations in West Bank and has been linked to several terrorist attacks, hijackings, and kidnappings.

In 2014, al-Aruri asserted Hamas’s responsibility for the June 12th, 2014 terrorist kidnapping and murder of three teenagers in the West Bank, including dual U.S.-Israeli citizen Naftali Frenkel. The U.S. Department of Treasury designated al-Aruri a specially designated global terrorist in September 2015.

Khalil Yusif Mahmoud Harb is a close advisor of Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanese Hizballah, and has served as the group’s chief military liaison and Palestinian terrorist organizations. Harb has commanded and supervised Lebanese Hizballah military operations in the Palestinian territories and several countries throughout Middle East. The U.S. Department of Treasury designated Harb as a specially designated global terrorist in August of 2013.

Haytham Ali Tabatabai is a key Lebanese Hizballah military leader who commanded Hizballah special forces in both Syria and Yemen. The Department of State designated Tabatabai as a specially designated global terrorist in October of 2016. The Hamas and Hizballah organizations receive weapons, training, and funding from Iran, which the Secretary of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Department of State designated both Hamas and Hizballah as foreign terrorist organizations in October 1997, and as specially designated global terrorist entities in October 2001.

We urge anyone with information on the whereabouts of these individuals to contact the Rewards for Justice Program via the RFJ website at www.rewardsforjustice.net, or via email at info@rewardsforjustice.net. The individuals outside the United States may be – also contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. All information submitted to us will be kept strictly confidential – I repeat, confidential.

The Rewards for Justice Program has been an effective tool in our fight against international terrorism. Since its inception in 1984, the program has paid in excess of $150 million to more than a hundred individuals who provided credible information that prevented international terrorist attacks or helped to bring terrorists to justice.

Through the efforts of courageous people who have stepped forward with information about wanted terrorist suspects, the Rewards for Justice Program has helped law enforcement authorities throughout the world to stop terrorists and save innocent lives.

I’m hopeful that the rewards offers we are announcing today will play a similar role in bringing Salih al-Aruri, Mahmoud Harb, and Haytham Tabataba’i to justice. Thank you.

And now I would like to turn over the microphone to Ambassador Nathan Sales, who will then give you a – our government’s view on Iran going forward. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR SALES: Thanks, Mike. I’d like to say a few words to put into a broader strategic context the RFJ reward offers that Assistant Secretary Evanoff has just announced. Before I do so however, I’d like to pause for a moment to acknowledge that today is a very sad anniversary. This is the three-year anniversary of the ISIS attacks on Paris in November of 2015.

Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It has held that dubious distinction for many years now, and it shows no signs of relinquishing the title. Let me give you some numbers. Iran spends $700 million a year on Lebanese Hizballah. It gives another $100 million to various Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas. Combined with the money that Tehran provides to other terrorists, the total bill comes close to $1 billion a year.

Sadly, it is the Iranian people who are forced to pay this price. The resources that Iran uses to fund its global terrorist ambitions are resources that come directly out of the pockets of everyday, average Iranians. The regime robs its own citizens to pay its proxies abroad.

Inside Lebanon, Hizballah’s destructive actions have endangered the Lebanese people. Thanks to Iran’s backing, Hizballah has built a fearsome arsenal. The group has stockpiled more than 100,000 rockets and missiles inside Lebanon, and we see this as a massive and destabilizing buildup. As we all know, Hizballah hides its missile factories in population centers, effectively using innocent civilians as human shields.

Hizballah’s ability to destabilize is not confined to the Middle East, however. It is able to destabilize inside Lebanon itself. As Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri told media outlets earlier today, Hizballah continues to block Lebanon from forming a new government. This is all at the expense of the Lebanese people in an effort to extract more concessions for Hizballah’s own benefit.

We are also deeply concerned about Tehran’s growing ties to Hamas. After a brief split early in the Syria conflict, Hamas and Iran have rebuilt their relationship. Iran is once again providing Hamas with much-needed funding. Salih al-Aruri has been a major player in the Hamas-Iran relationship, serving as one of Hamas’s key liaisons with Iran and playing an important role in the reconciliation between the two sides. As has been widely reported, Aruri is currently living freely inside Lebanon, where Hizballah’s leadership has welcomed him with open arms. This is simply unacceptable. It is intolerable for a leader of Hamas to enjoy safe haven in Lebanon.

In addition to the reward offers just unveiled by Assistant Secretary Evanoff, I announced several new actions to combat Iranian terrorism earlier today in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Today, the State Department is designating Jawad Nasrallah and the al-Mujahidin Brigades as specially designated global terrorists, or SDGTs. Jawad Nasrallah is the son of the group’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah. AMB is an Iran-backed terrorist group that has been operating in the Palestinian territories since 2005.

In addition, we’re maintaining Hizballah’s designation as a foreign terrorist organization, which was up for a mandatory five-year review. Likewise, the Treasury Department is designating a number of Hizballah-related individuals as SDGTs: Shibl al-Zaydi, Yusuf Hashim, Muhammad Farhat, and Adnan Kawtharani. All told, the Trump administration has already designated more than 40 Hizballah-related individuals and entities this year alone, with a total of 160 to date.

The actions we’re announcing today are one more step in our campaign to build the toughest sanctions regime ever imposed on Iran. More sanctions are coming, and they will continue until Iran and its proxies change their behavior. Iran must follow the same rules that every other civilized nation follows and renounce terrorism as a basic tool of statecraft. We will continue to ratchet up the pressure until Iran joins the community of civilized nations and ceases its support for murder and mayhem around the globe.

Thank you very much.

MS NAUERT: Have time for a few questions. Nick, we’ll start with you. Nick Wadhams from Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Can you tell us – you said I think it’s Aruri is living freely in Lebanon. So what pressure are you putting on the Government of Lebanon to detain him, if any, and will they face any punishment or sanction for allowing them to go free? And then can you also just explain, given that these men have been on various terrorist lists since 2013, why now with the rewards?

AMBASSADOR SALES: Let me take the first piece and then turn it over to the assistant secretary. What we expect of Lebanon is what we expect of any government when dealing with a designated SDGT. So a person who is designated as an SDGT is subject to having all of their assets that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction frozen, and individuals are prohibited from engaging in any kind of transaction with them. Doing so subjects those individuals to secondary sanctions.

It’s intolerable, as I said, for a senior Hamas figure to enjoy freedom of movement in any country. And what we expect of Lebanon is what we’d expect any responsible country to do, and that is crack down on any terrorists in their borders.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY EVANOFF: The Rewards for Justice Program is an interagency program with the Secretary of State having the final say in it. This has taken time to get processed, and once the time has come, we have now unveiling it. So it’s nothing – there is nothing that shows that we have an issue with it right now. It’s just coming up through the process.

MS NAUERT: Next question, Laurie from K24.

QUESTION: The Treasury Department – the Hizballah people that Treasury Department designated today include people from Iraq, Kata’ib Hizballah. Could you explain the relationship between Kata’ib Hizballah and Lebanese Hizballah? Is it the same organization? And secondly, the lead figure there in Kata’ib Hizballah is actually the head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Are you doing anything against him, al-Muhandis?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY EVANOFF: Let me speak about the relationship between groups. We see a number of similarities in objectives and tradecraft between these various Iran-backed terrorist groups. They seek to destabilize the regions where they’re active. They have access to weapons and training provided by Iran. They receive funding from Iran. And that’s the reason why we are grouping them together in today’s announcements. Today’s announcements are about increasing our pressure campaign on Iran proper but also on the various different proxies that Iran uses throughout the region and around the world.

MS NAUERT: Nina from i24, did you have a question?

QUESTION: No, (inaudible).

MS NAUERT: Okay, got it. Said, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Is it just Salih al-Aruri or other Hamas leaders? Because the other Hamas leaders are constantly going and coming back to Cairo, one of your allies, where you can freely take them if you wanted.

AMBASSADOR SALES: Well, we have –

QUESTION: They are different because they are involved in negotiations.

AMBASSADOR SALES: We have used a number of tools to amplify the pressure on Hizballah, so today’s announcement, as assistant secretary – Hamas, thank you for correcting me. Today’s announcement is limited to Mr. al-Arouri, but in the past we have taken a number of other steps against Hamas as an organization and Hamas-related individuals. Hamas was one of the first groups we ever designated as at FTO back in the late ‘90s after Congress enacted the statute providing for that authority. In addition, in January of this year, we designated Haniyeh, Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas’ political bureau, as an SDGT. So today is just the tip of the iceberg.

MS NAUERT: Conor Finnegan from ABC.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, thank you for doing this. Two quick questions for you. The first one: There had been some reporting that the administration is considering designating the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Can you speak to whether or not that is actively under consideration? And then secondly, the administration’s been in office for nearly two years now with this unprecedented sanctions regime on Iran and their proxies. Have you seen any change in their behavior to date because of these sanctions?

AMBASSADOR SALES: On the Houthis, I’m not going to comment on speculation in the press. What I can tell you is that we’ve been very clear. It’s intolerable that the Houthis are launching Iran-origin munitions into Saudi Arabia. We expect that any country will abide by the standard rules that apply to the international system, one of the most basic of which is do not lob missiles at your neighbors.

And your second question about the effects of our sanctions. The President has been clear. We want to squeeze the Iranian regime as tightly as possible. And the reason to do that is to deprive them of the resources they need to commit terrorism and acts of violence around the world. Sadly, this is a core component of Iranian policy, so we’re going to have to keep squeezing them. Seven hundred million dollars a year for Hizballah can buy a lot of bullets and a lot of bombs, so we’re going to continue to ramp up the pressure.

MS NAUERT: Thank you, everyone. Oh, I’m sorry. Michel from Al-Hurra, final question.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. To what extent the Lebanese Government is coordinating with the U.S. to arrest these people?

AMBASSADOR SALES: Well, I can’t comment on any diplomatic conversations that may or may not be taking place. But what I can tell you is that whether it’s Lebanon or any other government around the world, if terrorists are present on your territory, we all have an obligation to prevent them from spreading bloodshed around the world.

QUESTION: Did you mean that there is a coordination or no coordination?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY EVANOFF: We believe the terrorists – these three will move around in the area, so it doesn’t have to be in Lebanon. It could be any country in the area. It’s – RFJ is a tip line. It’s an informational thing. So if they do move and the government that they are in spot them, they tell us, then it’s up to the interagency to decide how they pick them up, and the country.

MS NAUERT: Thank you, everyone.

AMBASSADOR SALES: Thanks, everyone.

MS NAUERT: Well, thank you. I’m a bit shorter than these guys, so I’ll take advantage of this box here.

QUESTION: Well, use the little fancy riser.

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure I know how to use that fancy button, but good afternoon, everyone. A couple quick announcements to bring you before I take your questions.

The first is Secretary Pompeo met earlier today with His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan here in Washington, D.C. During the meeting, Secretary Pompeo conveyed his condolences to the victims of recent flooding in Jordan and reaffirmed the United States steadfast support for Jordan. Secretary Pompeo underscored the importance of the bilateral relationship between our two countries and thanked the king for his efforts to promote peace and stability in the Middle East, and sought King Abudllah’s views on regional developments and other matters of mutual interest. Secretary Pompeo also congratulated King Abdullah on his receipt of the 2018 Templeton Prize.

Next and final thing is Secretary – Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan is traveling right now to Japan, Singapore, Australia, and Papua New Guinea through November 18th on behalf of Secretary Pompeo. The deputy secretary will accompany Vice President Pence as he represents President Trump at the U.S.-ASEAN Summit and the East Asia Summit in Singapore, as well as the APEC Economic Leaders Meeting in Port Moresby. The U.S. participation in these events demonstrate our continued commitment to advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific. President Trump outlined our vision for the Indo-Pacific, a constellation of nations that are sovereign, strong, and satellites to none in his speech last November at the APEC CEO Summit in Vietnam.

One year later, we’ve effectively advanced our vision by building on our principles that are widely shared throughout the region: ensure the freedom of the seas and the skies; raising our concerns about sovereignty with other nations who may be open or – to external coercion; and promoting market-based economics, open investment environments and fair and reciprocal trade; and supporting good governance, transparency, and respect for individual rights. In bilateral meetings and in multinational events throughout this trip, the deputy secretary, the Vice President, and other U.S. officials will continue to work with our allies and partners to ensure an open, rules-based system, which has benefitted the entire region and will remain essential for future prosperity of all countries in the region.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions. Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Matt.

QUESTION: Hello, welcome back to the podium.

MS NAUERT: Thank you. And I --

QUESTION: A speculatively long absence.

MS NAUERT: I should thank – after having done this job for a year and a half solo briefing all of you, which has been quite a job, it’s been wonderful to have a deputy in place, as you can imagine. And Robert gave his first on-camera briefing last week, so he’s done terrific work in getting prepped up for those briefings. And Robert, it’s been a pleasure sitting in the back of the room and watching you take on this effort as we continue to staff up here at the State Department. So thank you.

QUESTION: All right. That wasn’t a farewell address, was it?

MS NAUERT: Absolutely not. Thanking Robert for all his hard work.

QUESTION: All right. I wanted to start with something that’s – what I assume is – will be related to the Secretary’s meeting with King Abdullah, and that is the issues of – regional issues of mutual concern that you mentioned. Is one of those issues the flareup of – or intense flareup of violence in Gaza over the course of the last 48 hours?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. In my experience, when the Secretary has sat down with the king, that has been a big topic of conversation, Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and the situation going on there. I wasn’t at the meeting that took place just a short while ago today, but I would imagine that was a part of the conversation too, but I have not confirmed that yet with the Secretary.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, as you are – you’re probably aware, it looks like there is a chance that a ceasefire could be arranged, or maybe even has been arranged and is in its early stages. I’m just wondering, in the reporting on this, Egypt has been involved, some European countries have been involved in this, but there’s been no mention of the United States, of this administration at all. Are you at all engaged in trying to bring an end to this current round of fighting or are you guys just sitting this one out?

MS NAUERT: No, we are hardly sitting this one out. The United States Government at many levels remains engaged in talking to our partners, our allies, and others in the region about our concerns. We certainly want regional peace and stability. What we’re seeing right now take place is not regional peace and stability. We condemn in the strongest terms those rocket missile and mortar attacks that are taking place from Gaza into Israel. We call for the sustained halt of those attacks. We stand with Israel as Israel defends itself against these attacks. It is simply unacceptable to target civilians.

As you know, we have an ambassador over there, Ambassador David Friedman. He has been hard at work in voicing his concerns about the situation over there. Our presidential advisor Jason Greenblatt as well has been involved in this, and the United States Government continues to have conversations with the various governments of the region at different levels.

QUESTION: But can you be a little bit more specific? I mean, who – has anyone from this building actually picked up a phone or gone to see anyone to help try and organize a ceasefire?

MS NAUERT: We have been engaged at the highest levels in this, but we’re not going to get into our diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: And the reason I ask is it just seems that previous administrations would – were in similar situations extremely active at very high and very public levels with secretaries of state flying out to the region, trying to – and really exerting some pressure, and this administration seems to be content to do – whatever it is it’s doing, to do it completely behind the scenes. Is that an accurate characterization?

MS NAUERT: I would not confuse hopping on a plane and flying all over the world with positive activity necessarily. Just because you’re hopping on a plane does not always bring about positive results. We can have conversations, whether it’s by phone or in person with our representatives on the ground that we think can effectively advocate our views and concerns.

QUESTION: Right. Well, forget about getting on a plane. At least tell us who they’re – who it is that’s – from the U.S. who’s talking to --

MS NAUERT: At this time, I’m not prepared to get into our private diplomatic conversations. If at some point that changes, I’d be happy to let you know.

Said, go right ahead, certainly.

QUESTION: I want to follow up on this. There was quiet and there was agreement – in fact, the Israelis allowed money to go into Gaza and so on, but then they sent in special forces into Gaza and killed seven Palestinians. I mean, that’s how this whole round, this latest round --

MS NAUERT: Understood. I can’t --

QUESTION: Do you condemn the Israeli action?

MS NAUERT: I can’t comment on Israel’s decision to make its – go with its operation that took place over the weekend. That would not be the United States Government --

QUESTION: But you just condemned the Palestinians for responding to Israel. So --

MS NAUERT: Rocket attacks, certainly without a doubt. But I cannot comment on --

QUESTION: So if they go --

MS NAUERT: -- the specific details of the Israeli operation. I’d have to refer you to the Government of Israel and its military for that.

QUESTION: So if, let’s say, the Palestinians or Hamas were to send in a group of armed men into Israeli territory and do the same thing, you will not comment on that?

MS NAUERT: I think that’s entirely a hypothetical. Okay?

All right. Next question. Hi.

QUESTION: Yes, hi. The President this morning criticized again the statement from President Macron on European army. Does that mean that the U.S. are not reassured about what President Macron told them during this weekend, that this is part of an effort to step up European defense, precisely to do what President Trump is asking, to share the burden with NATO?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Well, as you know, I was not there on that trip. Robert Palladino was kind enough to have gone on that trip with the Secretary and the President. That was the President’s trip, so he had those meetings, so I can’t comment too much on that.

But what I can tell you, the Secretary met with the French foreign minister over the weekend. They had good, productive conversations. They discussed U.S.-French cooperation on resolving global security challenges, including – and I’d like to highlight this – how to strengthen NATO. That is something that’s important, the NATO alliance, to the United States Government and to many others, and we feel that whatever should be done should not take away from NATO’s efforts. That’s been a sustained entity that the United States Government and many others have supported for many years, and so we would not want the weakening of NATO.

QUESTION: And aren’t those good, productive meetings undermined by President Trump’s tweets saying the opposite?

MS NAUERT: I don’t think so. I don’t think so.

Okay. Next question.

QUESTION: Hey.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Michelle.

QUESTION: Hi. On the same subject, so right after this dispute or a series of tweets or whatever you want to call it happened, the French president explained through his spokespeople what he was saying. I mean, he was explaining that he – this would be in tandem with NATO, not taking away from it. And now we’ve heard the German chancellor saying that no, she sees it being an actual European army. So in Secretary Pompeo’s interactions with his counterparts from these countries, does he have a problem with a European army or no?

MS NAUERT: Look, our position, I think, on this is very clear: We have a longstanding relationship with NATO. NATO is America’s most important alliance. It has been and will continue to be central to the collective defense of North America and also European member-states. NATO will become stronger, in our view, when all members assume greater responsibility for that. We’ve seen many countries step up to the plate and contribute more in terms of its – their GDP to NATO’s collective defense. We support the European efforts to increase defense spending at NATO, and also their military capabilities as a means to achieve a more equitable burden-sharing in the transatlantic security relationship.

QUESTION: So does that he mean he supports a European army or not?

MS NAUERT: Look, I have been clear, and let me say it once again: We support NATO. We support NATO and think that NATO should only be strengthened. Okay?

QUESTION: You just said that NATO was the most importance alliance that the United States has, but France is actually the oldest ally that the United States has, and the President sniping at them via tweet is engendering some really – some real ill will on the other side of the Atlantic. What’s this building do to try to minimize the damage that’s caused by this?

MS NAUERT: I think I can only say in my experience, in hearing from my counterparts, from some of these foreign leaders, some of this is much ado about nothing. There are news reports, people like to make a big deal out of what they see as a falling out, a rift. And from my experience, and I think from the experience of many of my colleagues at the State Department, that is not the case. We have a close alliance with France. It’s one of our oldest and most critical allies, and nothing with regard to that relationship has changed.

QUESTION: Okay. So in other words, much ado about – when you say much ado about nothing, we should just ignore the presidential tweets?

MS NAUERT: No. What I would say is, though, many in – and I’m not criticizing my colleagues here in this briefing room, but often people publicly make a lot more out of a situation than really is the case.

QUESTION: The President of the United States got on his Twitter account and insulted the president of France.

MS NAUERT: I would --

QUESTION: That’s not us or anyone else making a big deal out of it. That’s him doing it.

MS NAUERT: I would say, Matt, that – really not a big deal, okay?

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: I think you’re making a big deal out of really nothing, okay?

QUESTION: North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead, Rich.

QUESTION: Hi, Heather. Has there been any progress towards rescheduling the meeting that was canceled because of a scheduling conflict between the Secretary and his North Korean counterpart?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So I think we addressed this issue last week, where we talked about the scheduling matter between the United States and also North Korean officials. We look forward to scheduling a meeting when the time is right. That is something that is important to us. As the President spoke last week, he talked about a possible upcoming meeting early next year with Chairman Kim. The communications that we have with the North Korean Government are regular communications and we continue to stay in contact with the North Koreans. When we have additional information on any rescheduled meeting, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Does the State Department believe that there should be a meeting between the Secretary or officials before they – the President and the chairman meet again?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get ahead of that, but as you well know, our meeting we expect to be rescheduled.

Yeah. Yeah. Hi, Janne. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. Follow-up, North Korea issues. And do – I think you know already, reading on New York Times article, and CSIS reported that there are 13 uncleared secret missile bases in North Korea. So North Korea continues to develop their nuclear and missiles. What is your comment or what is Secretary Pompeo’s reaction of this article?

MS NAUERT: Sure. Some of these are intelligence matters, so I’m not going to comment on that. I can refer you to the President’s tweet from earlier today in which the President said – addressed this very thing, so I’m not going to go beyond what the President said. However, I will highlight in the UN Security Council resolutions, those resolutions included ballistic missiles, recognizing – as do so many other governments – that ballistic missiles continue to be a threat from North Korea.

Now, we have come an awfully long way since last summer, when ballistic missiles were being launched. Recall when there was a ballistic missile launched over Japan, how frightening that was for those in that country. Nuclear weapons were being tested. We had three Americans who had been detained by the North Korean Government. We have still come a long way from where we were in our relationship and our posture with North Korea in the past year. We see that as progress. A lot of people like to poo-poo that idea. There is still a long way to go, and we go into this with our eyes wide open, recognizing and acknowledging that there is work that’s left to be done.

QUESTION: But do you still expect CVID or FFVD from North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Our policies have not changed, okay?

Hey, Ben.

QUESTION: Hi. Just an update on inspectors going to Punggye-ri and other sites – it’s been a month since the Secretary said he’d like to get inspectors in as soon as logistically possible. So are we any closer to sending inspectors in? Are there any kind of logistic hurdles that you’re having trouble with?

MS NAUERT: Let me look into that and see if I have anything for you on that one, okay?

Okay.

QUESTION: Just on North Korea. So the story just said basically that you have come a long way with North Korea, and that is that North Korea is far more dangerous now than it was at the beginning of this administration. It has more bombs, it has more missiles, and probably it now has the technical capability to hit the United States.

MS NAUERT: Gardiner, as you can appreciate, I’m not going to comment on the details of a specific story like that. Some of these would be intelligence matters. I can tell you that we have made significant progress. We have met more times, had more negotiations with the North Korean Government in the past six or seven months than the United States Government has within the past 10 years. We see that --

QUESTION: But it hasn’t reduced the threat, has it?

MS NAUERT: We see that as progress, okay? I think some of our officials, from the President to the Secretary of State to Ambassador Haley, have addressed concerns about the threat of North Korea, but we are working hard. We are giving diplomacy a chance, and that’s something that we’ve said from the very beginning of this administration: We’re giving diplomacy a chance.

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, Nazira. How are you?

QUESTION: How are you? Welcome back, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah, two question. One question: Any comment about Moscow conference? And the second question: Any update for Ambassador Zal Khalilzad? Because this is the second round that he started to travel to Pakistan, Emirate, Qatar. There are so many different opinion and idea. What’s going on? Do you have any update?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I think it shows the fact that Ambassador Khalilzad is in – that he’s in the region shows our commitment to a lasting peace agreement, hoping that we can facilitate the Afghans and the Taliban coming to some sort of lasting peace agreement. Our officials have long said, including the DOD, that we don’t see a military solution to this outcome – to this in Afghanistan. Ambassador Khalilzad has been hard at work. I think he’s spent more time on an airplane or traveling overseas than he has back in Washington in the past month and a half or so since he’s taken on these duties.

In terms of the first part of your question, with regard to the Moscow meetings, we see Russia, the Russian Government doing this, where they will hold meetings related to hot topics around the world. That is certainly their right to do so. The United States Government sent a representative simply at the working level, not to participate but just to observe in those discussions, and I don’t have anything more for you on that today, okay?

QUESTION: Did you see the report that the administration is trying to push for the Afghanistan election to be delayed? Do you have anything to say about that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I mean, I’ve seen that report. One of the things that is important to us is we’re committed to the overall electoral process. If there were to be any changes made to the scheduling, that would entirely be a decision on the part of Afghanistan, one in which we would not interfere.

QUESTION: But you’re not – so you’re not suggesting or advising one way or another?

MS NAUERT: As you can see, I’m not there with Ambassador Khalilzad, but I can tell you that our support for an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process is our policy. In terms of elections and if they were to make any changes, that would entirely be up to the Government of Afghanistan and not the United States Government.

Laurie, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi, how are you? Welcome back.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: Both the Iraqi prime minister and president have said that they are too dependent on Iran specifically for its gas and oil, for its electricity, to abide by U.S. sanctions. You’ve given them a 45-day waiver. Are you considering their appeal or do you consider the matter settled?

MS NAUERT: Well, I mean, we watched, right, over the summer how Iraq suffered from a lack of electricity, especially in the south, and that was a real problem. That is part of the reason that the United States Government granted a 45-day waiver to allow Iraq to continue to pay for electricity that its people desperately need. We also saw some of the rioting and protests that took place in the southern part of the country. So we recognize that and understand that. We’re confident that this waiver will help Iraq limit its electricity shortages into the south. I’m not going to get ahead of any of the decisions or actions that we might take in the near future, but 45 days we think is important. We’ll continue to discuss this with Iraq.

QUESTION: And are they reducing their import of Iranian energy? I mean, that’s one of your conditions for these waivers.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I don’t have any information for you on that at this time, but I can take a look and get back to you, okay?

Hey, Abbie.

QUESTION: Hey. I actually wanted to ask about the announcement you made today regarding the Humanitarian Assistance Steering Council. Can you explain a little further on what the intention of this is, that – what it will accomplish that it hadn’t accomplished before?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: And what role that it will play in the foreign assistance review.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think what this is – and we just put out this statement today, and I can get you more information after discussing this with my colleagues over at USAID. This is a new approach, a new way to be able to come together in the U.S. Government and look at some of our assistance proposals and how money is being spent, but I don’t want to say much more without having the opportunity to discuss this with USAID first. I’ll gladly get back with you.

QUESTION: And on the foreign assistance review, do you have any update on that? I know you’ve been saying it’s ongoing, but is there anything further?

MS NAUERT: I don’t at this time.

Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: A few quick questions: Have the Saudis been forthcoming in their dealings with the U.S. in this investigation?

MS NAUERT: Well, I can tell you the Secretary spoke with MBS over the weekend and had a conversation with him in which we reiterated the importance of holding all of those involved in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi accountable. The Secretary has spoken to the fact that the United States Government is compiling some of its own data and taking a look at those facts. We’re getting information from a variety of sources, as any government would. And we’ll --

QUESTION: But have the Saudis been forthcoming?

MS NAUERT: And we’ll take a look at all of the information. I’m going to get – I’m not going to wade into our private diplomatic conversations at this time, but we have been very clear with the Government of Saudi Arabia that we expect transparency and accountability and also speed to the ability that those countries are able to make a speedy determination in terms of what happened to Jamal Khashoggi.

QUESTION: And in working with Turkey, can you say whether the Secretary has now viewed all of the evidence that the Turks have?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware if he has or has not. The Secretary is not an investigator. I imagine that he will be looking at some information, but I just don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Well, but there have been reports that he has heard the audio.

MS NAUERT: Okay, let me make this clear one more time.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay. The State Department has not heard any audio. There was one report about that, and I think we attempted to clarify that. I think the Secretary was very clear that he had not heard any audio.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: So that still stands today?

MS NAUERT: That still stands today.

QUESTION: So Ambassador --

QUESTION: Why not, though?

QUESTION: Ambassador Bolton said this morning in Singapore that the tape that the Turks turned over does not directly implicate the crown prince. Is that your understanding?

MS NAUERT: I have not seen Ambassador Bolton’s actual quote from what he had apparently said this morning, so I’d have to refer you to the NSC for questions about what Ambassador Bolton had said. But I will reiterate that the Secretary has said that we will hold those accountable – people will be held accountable. The Secretary outlined some visa revocations a couple weeks ago. We are also blocking some Saudi officials from coming into the United States. But the Secretary was also clear in saying that things will not end there. So you know we don’t forecast sanctions, but our actions that we take did not end and will not end with the visa revocations and the blocking of certain Saudi officials from coming into the United States, okay.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Heather, why has the Secretary not heard the audio? Why? I would think that as the former director of the CIA he’d be very interested in it.

MS NAUERT: I think the Secretary is in the role of being the nation’s chief diplomat at this time, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to hear. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather, was the --

MS NAUERT: Michel, go ahead. Final question. We have to wrap it up.

QUESTION: -- the last step that the U.S. took regarding the Arab coalition in Yemen related to Khashoggi’s killing?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. What is the question?

QUESTION: Stopping the refueling of the Arab coalition in Yemen, was it related to the killing of Jamal Khashoggi?

MS NAUERT: Oh, you mean the air refueling? Is that what you’re asking about?

QUESTION: Correct.

MS NAUERT: Well, that was – that was something more in the Department of Defense’s lane, but no, those things were not related.

QUESTION: Heather, I’m sorry. I didn’t understand your answer to Carol. Why would it be inappropriate for the top diplomat of the United States to listen to this tape or to look at all of the evidence? I mean --

MS NAUERT: The Secretary – and guys, I don’t want to go down this road another time. The United States Government has said that people will be held accountable.

QUESTION: Well, I --

MS NAUERT: We expect accountability. We expect a speedy investigation. We expect a thorough investigation in which people are held accountable.

QUESTION: I get that. I’m not --

MS NAUERT: The Secretary has not listened to a tape, and I’m not going to get into it beyond that, okay.

QUESTION: Well, okay. But why? Does he think it would be inappropriate for him to listen to it?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into it beyond that.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t get why it would be inappropriate. You would think that even that anyone who is going to be looking into how you respond to this would want to have the entire plate of evidence to – would want to review the entire docket.

MS NAUERT: Matt, we will be taking a look at a lot of different pieces of information and developing our own data set.

Okay. Thanks, everybody. Good to see you all again.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:24 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, 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.