Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • MS HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to a Friday daily press briefing. I have a few items at

  • the top, and then I will turn it over to you, Matt, in your summer jacket, which I like.

  • QUESTION: Thank you.

  • MS HARF: On Libya, the United States welcomes today’s announcement that the UN-facilitated

  • Libyan political dialogue will resume again on June 8th in Morocco. Libya’s crisis can

  • only be solved through a political, not a military solution. Libyan stakeholders participating

  • in the UN dialogue are working to preserve Libya’s sovereignty and territorial integrity

  • as they finalize discussions on a draft political agreement that will form a national unity

  • government. We commend the efforts of the United Nations and Special Representative

  • to the Secretary-General Bernardino Leon in facilitating these discussions.

  • In support of these talks, Deputy Secretary Blinken spoke this morning to Libyan House

  • of Representatives President Aguila Saleh Issa and Nouri Abusahmain of the former General

  • National Congress. Blinken highlighted our strong support for both groupsdecisions

  • to attend the upcoming political dialogue and urged their support of the finalized political

  • agreement and the establishment of a new national unity government as soon as possible. All

  • Libyans will benefit from the end of the military conflict and increased security and stability.

  • A strong, unified government will, again, be the best defense against any terrorist

  • threat which is taking advantage of the current political environment.

  • A couple more items, guys. Thanks for hanging with me here.

  • On Macedonia, Deputy Secretary Blinken met this morning as well with EU Commissioner

  • Hahn to discuss the recent EU Eastern Partnership Summit in Riga and EU policy to the east,

  • particularly focusing on Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia, and Moldova. With

  • respect to Macedonia, the deputy secretary welcomed Commissioner Hahn’s successful

  • mediation efforts earlier this week and praised Macedonia’s government and opposition leaders

  • for reaffirming on June 2nd their commitment to Euro-Atlantic principals, interethnic relations,

  • and good neighborly relations and good neighborly relations in preparation for early elections

  • by the end of April 2016. The deputy secretary underscores that while the path forward will

  • not be easy for Macedonia, the United States together with our European partners will be

  • actively engaged to support Macedonia in meeting these challenges and ultimately the goal of

  • Euro-Atlantic integration.

  • Two more quick things, and then I promise the floor is yours, Matt.

  • An update on Secretary Kerry: Secretary Kerry continues to recover in Massachusetts General

  • Hospital in Boston. His doctors feel he is on schedule with his recovery, which is proceeding

  • normally if not better than expected. He has been exercising, walking several times yesterday

  • and again today, and also resting though, and letting his broken bone heal. He plans

  • to take advantage of the weekend to continue this routine and then make decisions about

  • the days ahead. This morning he has already spoken with National Security Advisor Susan

  • Rice, received briefings from Chief of Staff John Finer, Counselor Tom Shannon. I believe

  • if he hasn’t already, he will be speaking again with Under Secretary of State Wendy

  • Sherman, who you all know is in Vienna continuing the Iran negotiations.

  • And then the last item at the top, which is more of a personal item, I think as many of

  • you know, I started my new position on Monday as senior advisor on strategic communications

  • to Secretary Kerry. That’s focused on big strategic priorities and most importantly,

  • of course, the Iran negotiation. So it’s time to get to work on that, so today will

  • be my last briefing at this podium after about two years, just about two years. And it’s

  • been an exciting, interesting two years if you think the Iran talks were still in the

  • secret channel when I started this, Cuba policy was, what, decades --

  • QUESTION: Also in a secret channel?

  • MS HARF: Also on a secret channel, that is true. Good point, James Rosen. Russian tanks

  • weren’t in eastern Ukraine, and also just sort of the daily business of diplomacy. So

  • given all that’s going on, that’s why we do this every day, why I know you do this

  • every day as wellthe only podium who briefs every day no matter where the Secretary

  • isand I appreciate the last two years. It’s been fun, it’s been interesting,

  • it’s been, at times, very difficult for all the issues we all cover and face. So with

  • that I won’t get too emotional, but thank you, and well do a good briefing today.

  • Well make it a good one to go out on.

  • QUESTION: Well try.

  • MS HARF: And Jeff will be briefing next week, and then John and Mark as soon as theyre

  • ready will be up here as well.

  • QUESTION: Right.

  • MS HARF: And there have been things like the lights going off. You remember when the podium

  • broke. Weve had some interesting times in the last two years.

  • QUESTION: Yes. Yes, we have. It certainly is the end of an era.

  • MS HARF: It is.

  • QUESTION: I’m not sure what era it will be called. Well leave that to --

  • MS HARF: The Psaki and Harf --

  • QUESTION: -- historians and internet philosophers. But thank you --

  • MS HARF: Philosophers is a nice word for them.

  • QUESTION: -- for showing up every day and doing what you did.

  • MS HARF: It’s been fun.

  • QUESTION: It – I’m not sure that youreis that an honest assessment of it being

  • fun?

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: The spokesperson who launched a thousand memes, your Twitter legions of fans

  • and foes I’m sure will be --

  • MS HARF: I’m sure they will miss --

  • QUESTION: -- disappointed in your --

  • MS HARF: -- will miss it.

  • QUESTION: But anyway, we will --

  • MS HARF: But well still all be talking on these issues. Well also be working together.

  • Youll still all be coming to me for questions on things. It will just be not at the podium.

  • And so it’s been a long and interesting and important few years. So thank you all.

  • QUESTION: We will certainly miss you. Right. Getting down to business.

  • MS HARF: Getting down to business.

  • QUESTION: I’m touched by that display of emotion on your part by the way. (Laughter.)

  • MS HARF: For Matt, that’s actually – (laughter) – that’s actually, guys --

  • QUESTION: That was effusive. (Laughter.)

  • QUESTION: Well, I don’t know, James. Would you like to say a word or two?

  • QUESTION: I think I speak for everyone who is a regular in this room, which I can’t

  • even include myself in that grouping, in saying that we all appreciated the grasp of the issues

  • and the passion and conviction you brought to your defense of this Administration and

  • your engagement with us.

  • MS HARF: Thank you.

  • QUESTION: And to the extent there was very harsh criticism, only some small measure was

  • probably self-inflicted – (laughter) – and it tended not to come from people who dealt

  • with you on a regular basis.

  • MS HARF: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.

  • QUESTION: Arshad.

  • QUESTION: I’d like to say one thing. Best of luck.

  • MS HARF: Thank you. Thank you.

  • QUESTION: And thankswell, thanks for your late night endeavors. I know that a lot

  • of this stuff had been going on late into the night, and youve taken our emails and

  • MS HARF: That’s true.

  • QUESTION: -- responded, and we appreciate that.

  • MS HARF: Thank you. Well, look, in some respects youre coveringwe all care about the

  • same issues. Were coming from itfrom a different perspective, but were all doing

  • this so the American people and the world knows what we do in this building. So with

  • that, let’s get down to business.

  • QUESTION: Right. So --

  • MS HARF: Ask a good first question, Matt. Come on.

  • QUESTION: Well, I’m afraid it’s not particularly good.

  • MS HARF: No pressure.

  • QUESTION: But it isit is an important question.

  • MS HARF: Okay.

  • QUESTION: And itbut it goes back to this IAEA report and the Iran and the --

  • MS HARF: What better place to start today?

  • QUESTION: Yes. And the uranium. So I don’t know if youve seen this two-page thing

  • that ISIS --

  • MS HARF: David Albright?

  • QUESTION: Yes.

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: The good ISIS.

  • MS HARF: The good ISIS, yes. I actually have it right here.

  • QUESTION: Okay. So --

  • MS HARF: I briefly looked at it earlier.

  • QUESTION: Okay. Well, the main point other than the stuff about shooting messengers is

  • not going to make the issue go away, blah, blah, blah --

  • MS HARF: Right.

  • QUESTION: That the crux of this is that they say, as they were cited in this story that

  • you took issue with, that they are skeptical about whether Iran is actually going to be

  • able to --

  • MS HARF: Correct.

  • QUESTION: -- take this problem, to deal with it. And --

  • MS HARF: Right, right. They say that sort of the notion that they have to get back down

  • there at a certain timethey sort of agree with many of things weve said. I think

  • theyre skeptical --

  • QUESTION: Right.

  • MS HARF: -- that Iran technically can do it.

  • QUESTION: But they say given the stridency of their criticisms, meaning this Administration’s

  • --

  • MS HARF: Meaning ours. Yes.

  • QUESTION: -- of those who have raised the oxidation issue, the State Department should

  • explain the basis for their confidence. Can you do that?

  • MS HARF: Well, again, as weve said, in both the original JPOA and in the first extension,

  • Iran converted enough of this material, this LEU, from uranium hexafluoride, the form that

  • it was in as it was produced in the centrifuges, to another chemical form such that Iran reduced

  • the overall stockpile back under the limit. The other chemical form of uranium is much

  • for difficult for Iran to use in a breakout scenario. Our experts anticipate Iran will

  • have no problem converting the excess uranium hexafluoride produced during the second extension

  • in the same way.

  • So again, we have seen them do this twice. The IAEA has taken note of this process before.

  • And we and our experts anticipate Iran won’t have challenges doing that. I understand that

  • David Albright is skeptical. And again, if were standing here on June 30th and Iran

  • hasn’t done it, then they would be in violation of the JPOA.

  • QUESTION: But can you explain the reasonis the basis for your confidenceis that

  • is your confidence based on the facton only the fact that theyve managed to do

  • it --

  • MS HARF: No -- to do it before.

  • QUESTION: -- before?

  • MS HARF: I think it’s based on two things, primarily. One is that they have done it before,

  • which shows that they know how to do it and theyre capable of doing it. And also, weve

  • had technical discussions at an expert level with them about this process, and that is

  • why our assessment is that we believe and anticipate they will be able to get back down

  • where they need to.

  • QUESTION: Okay. But I’m stillthat doesn’t really explain the – I mean, I can understand

  • why you would say that the basis for your confidence was that they have done it in the

  • MS HARF: In a process that’s been --

  • QUESTION: – that theyve managed to do it before.

  • MS HARF: -- outlined publicly.

  • QUESTION: But I don’t get the second part of why that’s – I mean, youre basically

  • taking them at their word that --

  • MS HARF: No, because --

  • QUESTION: No?

  • MS HARF: -- weve had technical discussions with them about how they are going about doing

  • this and will go about doing it. Theyve proven they can do it technically and from

  • a technological perspective. And I’m not exactly sure what the skepticism is on David

  • Albright’s side from a technical perspective. I’m happy to get one of our nuclear experts

  • to debate the finer points of this with him. But having talked to our team, the fact is

  • they know how to do this, theyve done it before. Were talking to them about the

  • current stockpile and how theyre going to get it down to the form that is acceptable

  • and the level that’s acceptable.

  • QUESTION: Wouldn’t it bewouldn’t it be in the best interests of the deal and

  • the Administration and the rest of the world who are watching thisthese negotiations

  • unfold if you were to be a little bit more skeptical of Iran’s intentions and abilities

  • in this?

  • MS HARF: Well, I’m – look, Matt, on this oneone issue, which is a – one smally

  • defined issue, rightthis isn’t about their intentions overall, this isn’t about

  • their capabilities overallon whether they can get down under 7,850[1], on that

  • very narrow issue, technically they know how to do it, technically theyve demonstrated

  • twice before that they can, and weve talked to them about how theyre going to. So it’s

  • not that we just take them at their word; weve seen their actions to do so. And again,

  • if they don’t, that will be a problem.

  • The bigger technical question when it comes to a final deal, rightthis a question

  • for JPOA implementation; this actually isn’t really a question for the final negotiations

  • is how they will get down to 300 kilograms. And so these are both important issues, but

  • theyre just a little separate, and the discussions are ongoing about how theyll

  • get down to 300 kilograms. There’s several ways they can do it. They can down-blend it,

  • they can ship it out of the country, they can sell it on the open market. But those

  • are two separate processes from getting down to [7,650]. That is something, quite frankly,

  • technically weve seen them do. We don’t have reason to think they won’t be able

  • to do it now when they could six months ago.

  • QUESTION: Can I follow on this?

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: Can I go on this? Sorry. There’s just – I want to --

  • MS HARF: You can both ask questions about this.

  • QUESTION: Yeah. I want to concentrate on the process of turning it from the uranium hexafluoride

  • into the oxide.

  • MS HARF: Into the other chemical form. Mm-hmm.

  • QUESTION: Yeah. So what isyouin previous days this week you have said that

  • your experts fully understand why it is that Iran has notwhy it is that the amounts

  • have gone up and down --

  • MS HARF: Right, correct.

  • QUESTION: -- that the LEU has gone up and down. What ultimately is the reason for the

  • increasenot so much for the increase, but for their apparent inability or choice

  • not to convert the increased amounts of low enriched uranium into the other form?

  • MS HARF: Well, they are doing that. I think, again, going back to the IAEA report, it’s

  • a snapshot of its stockpile on one date. So it’s notthis isn’t stagnant. That

  • it’s not that they have an inability to convert it; in fact, they have been. And

  • weve seen thembecause in a basicvery basic level, the reason the stockpile goes

  • up and goes down is because they are allowed to enrich this very small stockpile and type

  • of uranium hexafluoride. And so this is the product of that. But under the JPOA they have

  • to convert it before the end of the time. And theyve been able to do that. Again,

  • I would not – I would venture to guess that the stockpile today probably isn’t the same

  • as it was on that snapshot and time the IAEA reported, and they have said publicly and

  • to us that by June 30th they will get where they need to be. And our experts anticipate

  • theyll be able to do so.

  • QUESTION: The question that I still don’t understand, though, isand I fully understand

  • that theyre allowed to enrich --

  • MS HARF: Right.

  • QUESTION: -- up to --

  • MS HARF: Right.

  • QUESTION: -- 5 percent, right?

  • MS HARF: Right.

  • QUESTION: And I fully understand that theyre under an obligation by the six monthly deadlines

  • to have converted --

  • MS HARF: Right.

  • QUESTION: -- beyond the January 2014 levels. So my real question is: What is itwhat

  • is your understanding of why the conversion has happened at a – at such a pace that

  • there has been the buildup? You say that it’s not an inability; is it just theyre just

  • choosing not to convert at the --

  • MS HARF: This is a good question. So I would have to go back and look at the numbers for

  • what the up and downs where, the highs and lows during the previous two time periods.

  • But I guess I can’t stand up here and make the assumption that this is being converted

  • at a slower rate. This may have been the exact same way they did it earlier. And I’m not

  • surewe would have to all go back and look at the numbers. It’s an interesting

  • question. I don’t think, though, I have the evidence in front of me. I don’t think

  • any of us – I don’t think weve seen any evidence that they are converting it more

  • slowly. Now, I can check on that.

  • QUESTION: Could you? And then --

  • MS HARF: Yeah.

  • QUESTION: -- if it does happen --

  • MS HARF: Sort of when it went up and down and at what point they converted it.

  • QUESTION: Well, the reason I’m trying to get at it is it’s not just how much uranium

  • theyre enriching, but it’s also the speed at which they are converting that enriched

  • uranium. And you said that you guys, that your technical experts understood all of this.

  • MS HARF: Yes, they do.

  • QUESTION: And so I’m particularly interested in their understanding --

  • MS HARF: The speed.

  • QUESTION: -- of why it is that the conversion process has been at a pace that there have

  • beenthat there’s been this buildup in the LEU.

  • MS HARF: Right. And myand yes, and I understand the question. I’m happy to check

  • with our team. To follow up on that, though, I’m not sure it’s a different pace than

  • it was before. I just don’t --

  • QUESTION: I’m interested in both. I’m interested in both questions.

  • MS HARF: I – right. I just don’t know that.

  • QUESTION: Okay.

  • MS HARF: So I will check on that.

  • QUESTION: Thank you.

  • MS HARF: Yes, James.

  • QUESTION: Speed matters, but also timing matters. And so the question I have for you is whether

  • the two previous instances you keep alluding to, where the Iranians successfully came down

  • to the levels they were expected to come down to, involved timeframes similar to the one

  • we see now, or --

  • MS HARF: In what way?

  • QUESTION: -- is the current timeline less than the time they had to reduce the stockpile

  • previously?

  • MS HARF: Right. It’s the question I just – I don’t know the answer to. And I’m

  • happy to check.

  • QUESTION: You have twice in recent daystoday and one previous day this weekacknowledged

  • that if the Iranians fail to reduce their LEU stockpile by June 30th to the required

  • level, they would indeed be in violation of the JPOA. From where Secretary Kerry sits

  • and we know he’s just sitting right now --

  • MS HARF: He’s been up today.

  • QUESTION: Okay. From where Secretary Kerry sits, would the fact that the Iranians would

  • be in violation in such a scenario, as you yourself have raised, on the 30th of June

  • prevent the United States or any of the P5+1 from going forward with an agreement?

  • MS HARF: That’s a good question. I think there are so many things that could happen

  • on June 30th. Look, the goal of June 30th is to get to a comprehensive agreement, and

  • in an ideal world, we would have an agreement on that day that says what their stockpile

  • is on that day – [7,650] is where they need to beand how they are going to get very

  • quickly, early in implementation, down to 300 kilograms.

  • QUESTION: You yourself from the podium have stated that it would be a problem if theyre

  • not at that level --

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: -- by June 30th.

  • MS HARF: That is true. What that might --

  • QUESTION: So it’s --

  • MS HARF: How that might impact, I’m just not going to speculate.

  • QUESTION: But in other words youre not prepared to say that if the Iranians are not

  • in full compliance on the 30th of June with all of their JPOA obligations, that that presents

  • any particular impediment to going forward.

  • MS HARF: I think I’m just quite honestly not going to speculate on how that would impact

  • exactly what happens on that day. There’s a --

  • QUESTION: One different way --

  • MS HARF: Yeah.

  • QUESTION: -- if I might. It is not a condition for going forward with an agreementit

  • is not a condition for finalizing an agreement that Iran be in compliance with all JPOA terms

  • at the end of the negotiating period?

  • MS HARF: Well, let’s justfirst, to make a few points: Iran has, and continues

  • to be, in compliance. So as of today they are in compliance with all of their obligations

  • under the JPOA, as are we and all of our other parties who are party to the JPOA. What we

  • are trying to do is translate the parameters document, which is separate from the JPOA,

  • translate that into a comprehensive agreement and all the detailed annexes.

  • So of course Iran needs to be in compliance with the JPOA. That’s very important to

  • us. What is equally as important to us is getting a comprehensive agreement that they

  • will also live up to. So those things are working at the same time right now.

  • QUESTION: But it’s not a deal-breaker if theyre not fully in compliance?

  • MS HARF: I just don’t want to speculate on what this might look like on June 30th.

  • We can have that conversation wherever we are in the world on June 29th. Let’s say that.

  • QUESTION: So can I --

  • QUESTION: One --

  • QUESTION: -- ask you a real quick question real quick?

  • MS HARF: Yeah.

  • QUESTION: A snapshot in time? What does that mean? Is that just --

  • MS HARF: The IA --

  • QUESTION: Particular to that particular moment in which it --

  • MS HARF: Yeah, so the IAEA reports, the monthly reportsthey also do quarterly reports

  • and othersare a snapshot on that day that they issue the report of what the stockpile

  • is. It’s not a snapshot of where it’s been or where it’s going necessarily. But

  • when we look at that number, it’s a fixed date in time.

  • QUESTION: Okay. And so when you see the snapshot, you tell the Iranians and they can rectify

  • or fix this situation or whatever it is?

  • MS HARF: This isn’t a mystery to anyone.

  • QUESTION: Okay.

  • MS HARF: It’s – they just need tothey need to fix it by June 30th.

  • QUESTION: And I wanted to ask you: There are reports that the Israelis are now sayingan

  • Israeli army general, in a closed meeting, said that the --

  • QUESTION: Can we stick with the Iranian hexafluoride stuff just to get it out of the way?

  • QUESTION: It’s on Iran.

  • QUESTION: Oh, sorry. Well --

  • QUESTION: I know it’s on Iran; I’m talking about hexafluoride. (Inaudible.)

  • MS HARF: Let me just finish this one and then I’ll go back. Yeah.

  • QUESTION: Okay. No, I just wanted to see if you have coordinated with the Israelis or

  • are they beginning to sort of reduce their opposition to the Iran deal?

  • MS HARF: Well, I’m certainly not going to comment on reports of closed-door meetings.

  • What I would say is that we have had a very large number of conversations and briefings

  • and discussions with the Israelis throughout these nuclear negotiations with Iran, at the

  • both political level and the expert level, and the intelligence level and a number of

  • other levelsdiplomatic level. So those conversations have certainly been ongoing.

  • And I’ll go back to Arshad now.

  • QUESTION: Justaccording to the good-ISIS report, Iran has not fed any low enriched

  • uranium hexafluoride into the EUPP plant that converts it into the other form --

  • MS HARF: Right.

  • QUESTION: -- since November of 2014. If that’s correct, then it means that they have not

  • done any conversion for the first five months of this year.

  • MS HARF: Unless there are other ways to convert it, which I just don’t know.

  • QUESTION: Okay. I thought that they had to do it that way.

  • MS HARF: Let me check with our experts.

  • QUESTION: Okay, so that’s --

  • MS HARF: Were getting --

  • QUESTION: No, no --

  • MS HARF: -- another level down in the weeds here where --

  • QUESTION: I hear you, but it’s – if one’s talking about the question of pace, then one

  • also has to look at, well, gee, in the previous six-month periods did they in fact do nothing

  • or do it in some different way, or not?

  • MS HARF: Well, and that’s why I said there are two reasons, I think, having talked to

  • our experts, that they believe Iran will be able tonot only the fact that theyve

  • done it in the past, but also the technical conversations theyre having now about how

  • theyre going to proceed. So even if, hypotheticallyand I don’t know this to be the case

  • the pace is different, our experts, based on the conversations now, believe they will

  • be able to do this.

  • QUESTION: Great. Thanks.

  • QUESTION: So I also wanted to follow up on that. You did say that theyour confidence

  • is based on these technical discussions taking place. Is that discussion on the stockpiles

  • happening now?

  • MS HARF: I – on the 7,650 or on the --

  • QUESTION: Yeah.

  • MS HARF: -- how to get to 300? Because the how to get to 300 conversation is absolutely

  • an ongoing one --

  • QUESTION: Right.

  • MS HARF: -- as part of the comprehensive negotiation.

  • QUESTION: And 7,650?

  • MS HARF: I know weve discussed with them. I’m not sure how ongoing it is, given we

  • believe they have a path forward here to do this.

  • QUESTION: Is ittwo things briefvery briefly. Is it your understanding that this

  • U – EUthis whole thing is loaded with acronyms --

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: -- that are completely impossible --

  • QUESTION: Bear with it, Matt. (Laughter.)

  • QUESTION: The EUPP, is there something wrong with it?

  • MS HARF: Not that I’ve heard of. I’m happy to check and see if there are more technical

  • details to share.

  • QUESTION: All right.

  • MS HARF: There may be, there may not be. A lot of this also I would say Iran can speak

  • to. Iran can and should speak publicly to how they plan to do this. It’s not --

  • QUESTION: Well, as you noted, they don’t do a daily briefing. So --

  • MS HARF: I know. But they do have a female spokesperson at their ministry of foreign

  • affairs --

  • QUESTION: And then the second thing --

  • MS HARF: -- I would point out.

  • QUESTION: The second thing in your response --

  • MS HARF: But theybut really, I mean, all joking aside, they also can speak and

  • should speak publicly about how they plan to do this. This is their stockpile they have

  • to get down. Our purpose in defending what’s happening here is solely to make people understand

  • that the JPOA, which we negotiated, is being upheld and iscurrently everyone’s in

  • compliance.

  • QUESTION: Right. And one of your responses to one of Jamesquestionsyou said

  • something about in an ideal world you would have this dealyou’d have everyone in

  • compliance on the 30th and the deal would get done.

  • MS HARF: Yep. That is my ideal world.

  • QUESTION: But as we all know that we don’t live in an ideal world --

  • QUESTION: What?

  • QUESTION: -- right?

  • MS HARF: I’m holding out hope, Matt.

  • QUESTION: Maybe James might live in an ideal world. But the most of the rest of us don’t,

  • including --

  • QUESTION: And it’s open late --

  • QUESTION: Yes.

  • MS HARF: (Laughter.)

  • QUESTION: It’s open 24 hours. But --

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: -- the rest of us don’t have that luxury.

  • MS HARF: That is true.

  • QUESTION: And so wouldn’t – that’s -- which is why I’m going to go back to my question

  • before is: Wouldn’t it be better and more responsiblenot to say that youre being

  • irresponsible, but wouldn’t it be more responsible to approach this from the standpoint of the

  • skepticism that this ISIS has about whether they can actually do it?

  • MS HARF: We approach ourand we calibrate our level of skepticism based on the technical

  • underpinnings of the assessments, Matt. And I’m going to go with my nuclear experts

  • who are out there, who have talked to the IAEA and the IAEA’s nuclear experts who

  • have eyes on this program, who knowDavid Albright knows quite a bit about it, but our

  • experts who have been talking to the Iranians and dealing with them every single day for

  • all of these yearsmany months and years nowtheir assessment isit’s not

  • based on an ideal world, it’s based on technical facts, technical realities, technical capabilities,

  • and those conversations theyre having with the Iranians. It’s not --

  • QUESTION: Okay.

  • MS HARF: Believe me, our experts have a healthy dose of skepticism about many, many issues,

  • I can promise you that, for those of you whove met them.

  • Yes.

  • QUESTION: I have a related question to the Iran talks.

  • MS HARF: Okay.

  • QUESTION: But first of all if I can add a personal message. You will be missed, and

  • as a European journalist, I really appreciate your commitment to defend and to explain the

  • complex U.S. foreign policy, not only with clarity but also with passion and emotion

  • sometimes. So I wish you all the best for the rest of your career.

  • MS HARF: Thank you.

  • QUESTION: That said – (laughter) – are you --

  • MS HARF: I love the transitions in this. This transcript is going to be one of my favorites.

  • I just want to say that.

  • QUESTION: About your recent lies. (Laughter.)

  • MS HARF: I’m really going to frame this transcript and put it in my office.

  • QUESTION: I’d like to have your thoughts on the meeting which took, apparently, place

  • yesterday between a former Saudi officialgovernment official and a former Israeli

  • official --

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: -- who will be again an Israeli official on Sunday and apparently trying to

  • find some common grounds against a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran.

  • MS HARF: So a couple of points on that. A), these are reported meetings between private

  • citizens, as you mentioned. And I think they are probably best able to explain their conversations

  • and their remarks. And I also think the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel are both well able

  • to speak for themselves on this issue, as they have. As for us, we continue to keep

  • our partners in the region updated. As to the status of these negotiations, weve

  • done that many, many, many times with all of our partners, including the Israelis and

  • the Saudis.

  • QUESTION: But were you aware of these discussions between the closed-door – I mean, were

  • not asking youyouve said already you don’t want to comment on the closed --

  • MS HARF: Right.

  • QUESTION: -- on the discussions, but was the U.S. aware of these closed-door meetings,

  • or --

  • MS HARF: I’m quite frankly not sure. Again, these were reports about meetings between

  • private citizens, so I’m happy to check with our team and see if there’s more to

  • share, but I just don’t have much more comment on it than that.

  • QUESTION: Marie, withnot the non-official statements like Dore Gold and Eshki, but official

  • statements coming out of this closed meeting in Israelstatements by Khalid Attiyah,

  • the foreign minister of Qatar and so onthey all seem to be on board or they look at the

  • positive aspect of this potential deal. Do you feel that you have overcome the hurdles

  • along the way to sort of getting to the point where this deal is actually signed and sealed?

  • MS HARF: In terms of what?

  • QUESTION: In terms of --

  • MS HARF: Support in the region?

  • QUESTION: Yes, and on terms of the deal is done, so to speak.

  • MS HARF: That the nuclear deal is done?

  • QUESTION: Yes, the nuclear deal.

  • MS HARF: The nuclear deal is far from being done, Said.

  • QUESTION: Okay. So --

  • MS HARF: I would say we have a – some intense weeks of work ahead of us to see if we can

  • get this finalized. But I will say, coming out of the GCC meeting at Camp David and other

  • conversations Secretary Kerry’s had in the region and others, we believeand you

  • can just look at the statements coming out of that meeting from our partners in the Gulf

  • that they appreciate the incredibly detailed level of briefings that weve given them

  • on these talks, that they believe diplomacy is the best way to solve this. And I do think

  • that those conversations have been very beneficial.

  • QUESTION: As someone who is probably as much of an expert as anyone can be on this issue,

  • since youve been very closely tied to it, what could possiblywhat could potentially

  • sort of sabotage this deal at the end? What could make it unravel?

  • MS HARF: Well, I thinklook, I think there are an incredible amount of very technical

  • details that have to be worked out to make sure our bottom lines are met, to make sure

  • Iran can get to a place where they support the agreement, and all of our P5+1 partners.

  • I think there are very tough political decisions that have to be made on many of those technical

  • issues that are not going to be easy, and if this were easy, it wouldve been done

  • months or years ago.

  • So the fact thatagain, going back to what I started with, two years ago I was standing

  • at this podium, and we weren’t even having public meetings with the Iranians about this.

  • In that time, weve gotten an agreement that’s frozen the progress of their program

  • and rolled it back in some key areas; that’s led to us being a few weeks away from possibly

  • a comprehensive agreement to deal with this issue once and for all. Does that mean were

  • going to get there? No. But we have the best chance weve ever had for diplomacy to solve

  • this problem.

  • QUESTION: And finally, could this deal --

  • MS HARF: And that’s why Secretary Kerry’s up on his feet walking around today and committed

  • to a very rapid recovery.

  • QUESTION: Well, that leads to my question. So is there any kind of likelihood that this

  • deal could be signed at the United Nations, for instance?

  • MS HARF: I’m just not going to speculate about locations for the possible ending of

  • these discussions.

  • QUESTION: Can we change the subject --

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • you expect this tohas this been raised in any phone calls over the last 24 hours

  • or more?

  • MS HARF: Well, this is an active investigation, as you all are aware. The FBI is working with

  • other agencies, including DHS, on this investigation, and at this time we don’t have more details

  • to share publicly about who was behind it.

  • QUESTION: Do you know if youif this building has been instructed or if this building has

  • instructed any embassy anywhere to file any kind of a protest or a complaint about what

  • is being investigated?

  • MS HARF: I’m just not probably going to have more details on that today to share with

  • you. Again, the investigation’s ongoing and were still gathering all the details.

  • QUESTION: What is the status of the U.S.-China cyber security working group? Because it was

  • has been suspended since last year, and in two weeks youre going to have the seventh

  • dialogue. (Inaudible) meetings on this subject?

  • MS HARF: Well, you are right; in late June we will have the seventh S&ED, the Strategic

  • and Economic Dialogue, here in Washington. Although China suspended its participation

  • in the cyber working group, we continue to raise our concerns and exchange views with

  • Chinese officials about general cyber issues in a variety of channels, and certainly that

  • has been ongoing. But that’s a general comment not related to this specific case.

  • QUESTION: How do you respond to Chinese Government’s call that such allegation to link with the

  • hacking with the Chinese-sponsored hackers irresponsible? How do you respond to --

  • MS HARF: Well, I certainly haven’t prescribed any responsibility from this podium; neither

  • have my colleagues. Again, the active investigation is ongoing.

  • QUESTION: Regardless of whether you or anyone else wants to come out publicly and blame

  • China or any other country or anyone else for this, do you foresee there beingbecause

  • this is out there, do you foresee any difficulty with the S&ED at all?

  • MS HARF: As I’ve said, were committed to the S&ED. It’s going forward in the same

  • way it was yesterday and the day before.

  • QUESTION: You haven’t heard anything from the Chinese that they might be less than eager

  • tofor full participation --

  • MS HARF: I haven’t. I’m --

  • QUESTION: -- given the accusations of --

  • MS HARF: I haven’t.

  • QUESTION: All right.

  • MS HARF: I’m happy for the Chinese to speak for themselves, though.

  • Anything else on this?

  • QUESTION: Yes.

  • MS HARF: Yes, go ahead. Okay.

  • QUESTION: Have you already reached the conclusion who is behind or youre still investigating?

  • MS HARF: The investigation’s ongoing.

  • QUESTION: So --

  • QUESTION: Marie --

  • QUESTION: Could you please explain what’s the difference? Because this is not economic

  • espionage or other, like, attack we mentioned before. This is targeting the U.S. Federal

  • Government. So would you consider this as intelligence gathering, as the U.S. Government

  • is also doing around the world?

  • MS HARF: Well, any offensive cyber attackweve seen this before on the U.S. Government;

  • weve seen this at the State Department, as weve talked about beforeobviously

  • is something we take very seriously. It’s a threat we take very seriously. We take mitigation

  • steps in the U.S. Government to certainly prevent this kind of thing from happening.

  • Yes, James.

  • QUESTION: But can’t you see this affecting the S&ED discussions in any way?

  • MS HARF: Again, it’s – moving forward, were heldit’s being held in late

  • June here in Washington. The Secretary will be there. And we remain committed to moving

  • forward with the S&ED.

  • James, yes.

  • QUESTION: Has the investigation to date made any progress toward determining the origins

  • of these attacks?

  • MS HARF: You’d have to check with the FBI on that.

  • QUESTION: Is it a serious concern for U.S. national security?

  • MS HARF: Well, certainly, any time personal informationthis really was focused on

  • personal information of federal employeesisfalls into hands it should not

  • be in, that’s a security concern for the variety of nefarious ways it can be used.

  • I think OPM spoke a little bit more specifically to what was taken and how that could impact

  • MS HARF: I can check with OPM on that. I’m not positive on that.

  • their personal data breached, and 100 employees at the Agriculture Department, for example,

  • correct?

  • MS HARF: I – yes.

  • QUESTION: Why?

  • MS HARF: I’m not surelet me check on that. I’m not sure about that. Although

  • from a personal security standpoint, anyone getting information that’s personal and

  • being able to impersonate a Federal Government employee, regardless of what department they

  • work in, would be concerning to us, certainly.

  • QUESTION: But those with clearances, as were led to understand was the situation in this

  • case, could then be susceptible to coercion or blackmail on that basis, and I think that’s

  • what occasions the even greater concern here. Do you understand?

  • MS HARF: I understand. I just – I am sorry, I can’t confirm the piece about it was people

  • with security clearances.

  • QUESTION: In other words, we hear all the time about breaches of data, it seems anyway,

  • and I just wonder if this instance is more serious than the others or most.

  • MS HARF: I can’t remember a similar situation happening to Federal Government employees,

  • certainly, across the board. I just can’t remember, certainly since I’ve been here.

  • Ros, yes.

  • QUESTION: Marie, the Chinese Government has objected to the suggestion from some in the

  • U.S. Government that hackers with links to the Chinese Government may have been behind

  • the security breach, and theyve been pretty forceful about it. What do you, as a representative

  • of the U.S. Government, say to them that the U.S. has not actually decided who did this?

  • MS HARF: Well, that’s why I just said very clearly the investigation is ongoing. And

  • I’m not going to prescribe blame for that at this point.

  • QUESTION: But certainly the time we got to 7 o’clock Eastern yesterday evening, there

  • were numerous reports, numerous unnamed sources from other parts of the U.S. Government, who

  • were leaving the impression that they had every reason to think that the Chinese had

  • something to do with it. Doesn’t that create some level of tension?

  • MS HARF: Well, again, I’m not going to speculate on what drives people anonymously to go out

  • and talk about these kinds of issues. As I’ve said, the investigation’s ongoing. And as

  • we have facts to share about it, well make a decision about what makes sense to share

  • publicly.

  • QUESTION: Rosquestion is an interesting one, which is: Do the mere appearance of such

  • reports create tensions? And even if there’s an investigation going on, is there any tension

  • that youre aware of between the U.S. and Chinese governments simply over the reports,

  • regardless of their veracity?

  • MS HARF: I’m happy to check with our team on this. I haven’t heard of any. I’m happy

  • to check.

  • Said.

  • QUESTION: Change topics?

  • MS HARF: Oh, wait. Let’s stay onone more on this?

  • QUESTION: Yes. Is there --

  • MS HARF: I’m not sure I have much more to say.

  • QUESTION: Is there any initial indication of the impact of the data breach on the State

  • Department specifically?

  • MS HARF: So OPM has said they will be contacting current and former federal employees who were

  • affected by this. I know theyre in the process of doing that right now, and I don’t

  • want to get ahead of that process.

  • QUESTION: Change of subject. Yesterday, the Taiwanese DPP presidential candidate came

  • to State Department to visit Deputy Secretary Blinken. Do you have any readout? And because

  • it didn’t happen before, does this mean that U.S. Government has adjust its policy

  • guideline to interact with the Taiwanese Government or politician?

  • MS HARF: Well, weour position has not changed. We appreciate that Democratic Progressive

  • Party chairwoman visited here. We had constructive exchange on a wide range of issues with her.

  • Our policy has not changed. From time to time, we do meet with Taiwanese officials; certainly

  • the Secretary has, and others have as well.

  • QUESTION: But not in this building. So --

  • MS HARF: I’m not sure that’s true, actually. I’m happy to go back and check.

  • QUESTION: Okay. Please.

  • MS HARF: We dowe have met – I know thatbefore. And I’m happy to check

  • where those meetings took place. But our position in no way has changed on Taiwan.

  • Yes.

  • QUESTION: A follow-up on that. How do you respond to the Chinese Government’s call

  • that the meeting is sending the wrong signal to Taiwan?

  • MS HARF: Well, again, our policy hasn’t changed. We have developed a strong unofficial

  • relationship with Taiwan. This is based on the One China policy, the three joint communiques,

  • the Taiwan Relations Actthings weve talked about for years and years and years

  • now. So really there’s been no change in our policy here.

  • QUESTION: Are you --

  • QUESTION: Is there --

  • MS HARF: Go ahead.

  • QUESTION: Are you confident of the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait in coming

  • years?

  • MS HARF: Well, we certainly have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan

  • Strait, and that is certainly something weve encouraged both officials in Beijing and Taipei

  • to continue their efforts that support cross-strait stability.

  • QUESTION: How would you characterize Chairman Tsai’s meeting here with the different officials?

  • MS HARF: Well, as I just said, we had a constructive exchange on a wide range of issues with her.

  • QUESTION: Marie, regardless of whether or not the policy has or hasn’t changedand

  • you say it hasn’t, so --

  • MS HARF: It hasn’t.

  • QUESTION: Exactly. But you mustve realized that having this kind of a meeting in this

  • building was going to raise the ire of the Chinese, no?

  • MS HARF: Matt, I’m not sure I have much more to say on this. We have an unofficial

  • and a strong unofficial relationship with Taiwan and this is just part of that unofficial

  • relationship.

  • QUESTION: I understand that, but you know how sensitive the Chinese are about this issue,

  • which is why for decades the guidance on Taiwan always has the three communiques, the Taiwan

  • Relations Act, and the One China policy --

  • MS HARF: And it will long after I’m gone from this podium, I’m sure.

  • QUESTION: -- which isexactly, and which is why in every single meeting that you have

  • that the secretaries of state have with the Chinese, this goesis gone through

  • in rote form. That saidgiven that, wasn’t there any kind of an awareness that a meeting

  • with a Taiwanese official in this building was going to cause some angst?

  • MS HARF: I’m not sure thiswe see this as different from other meetings weve had

  • with Taiwanese officials in this unofficial relationship we have, so I’m happy to check

  • and see if there’s more to say on this.

  • QUESTION: Put it a slightly different way: There’s nothing in the communiques or the

  • other documents that were just referenced here that prevent the United States from conducting

  • meetings in this building or elsewhere with Taiwanese officials, correct?

  • MS HARF: No, correct. That is correct. And weve done so for a long time.

  • Said, yes.

  • QUESTION: Can we move to another topic? Today marks the 48th anniversary --

  • MS HARF: I think there’s – hold on. One more.

  • QUESTION: Right. Marie, in your recollection, when is the last time a Taiwanese official

  • or a presidential hopeful was meeting with the State Department official at this building?

  • MS HARF: At this building? I’m happy to check. I know weve had many meetings with

  • Taiwanese officials in a variety of places that weve talked about publicly. I’m

  • happy to check on that.

  • Said.

  • QUESTION: I have --

  • MS HARF: I think were going to move on. I don’t have much more to say.

  • QUESTION: The same question. Same question.

  • MS HARF: Okay. Yeah. I --

  • QUESTION: So did she meet with the Deputy Secretary Antony Blinken yesterday?

  • MS HARF: I’m not going to confirm the details of her meetings here.

  • Yes.

  • QUESTION: Marie, just – I realize this is harping on this, but it’s --

  • MS HARF: Why would the last day be any different?

  • QUESTION: Exactly. But I mean, look --

  • QUESTION: You did start on time. That suggested --

  • MS HARF: I know.

  • QUESTION: -- redemption for all sinners, so --

  • MS HARF: Aren’t you proud of me today? (Laughter.) I was actually ready like five minutes early.

  • I was just hanging out back there.

  • QUESTION: Punctuality. The Chinese get upset when you meetwhen the President meets

  • with the Dalai Lama as well, and you know, and you expect them to get angry about it

  • and youre willing to take that hit. So my question is simply the same as what I asked

  • before, which is that whatwere you aware that this was going to cause consternation

  • in Beijing? And if you could take the question or have someone look into it --

  • MS HARF: Yeah, okay.

  • QUESTION: -- that would be great. Thank you.

  • MS HARF: I’m not sure I’ll have much more to say on that. I’m just going to take a

  • lot of questions today for Jeff on Monday.

  • Yes, Said.

  • QUESTION: Well, yeah, with that --

  • MS HARF: I’m sure he’s appreciative over there.

  • QUESTION: -- I mean, I want to add my voice to Nicolas --

  • MS HARF: Thanks.

  • QUESTION: -- and thank you for always being there and being responsive and so on. And

  • as he said, having said this, I want to ask you on theon this occasion, which is

  • the 48th anniversary of the occupation of the West Bank, half of that time the United

  • States has been involved in trying to reach some sort of a resolution. And I want to ask

  • you: How much longer should the Palestinians wait under occupation before they have this

  • occupation end?

  • MS HARF: Well, I think if youveif I’ve learned anything in these last two

  • years, Said, it’s how committed this Administration, Secretary Kerry is to seeing, despite enormous

  • odds, if we can get some movement towards a two-state solution. You all have been through

  • all of this with us throughout those last two years, certainly, and it’s difficult,

  • and the two parties have to take steps to show they are willing to move forward here.

  • But we are certainly incredibly committed to see if we can do it. We can’t do it for

  • them. We can’t want it more than they do. But it certainly remains a top priority.

  • QUESTION: But you have taken the leadership. I mean, the President said the other day that

  • Israel will lose credibility if the settlementshe told the Israeli press, or the Israeli

  • Channel 2, if they continue with their settlements and occupation and so. What about your credibility?

  • I mean, you have taken the lead on this since at least 1991.

  • MS HARF: Well, the reason the United States has taken the lead is because we believe it’s

  • important to have people who can bring both sides to the table, to encourage both sides

  • to not take steps that escalate tensions or that make peace more difficult, and that we

  • have been a party that’s been able to play a role in that, certainly. This doesn’t

  • mean it’s easy, certainly, and that’s, I think, another thing weve learned again

  • over these last few years.

  • QUESTION: And finally, Human Rights Watch issued a report yesterday or the day before

  • saying that you and the Israelis are trying to exert pressure on Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General

  • of the United Nations, not toto removeor to remove Israel from, let’s say,

  • the list of shame for mistreating children and people in prison under occupation. Are

  • you exerting a lot of pressure on the United Nations?

  • MS HARF: Well, I honestly hadn’t seen that report so I’m not going to speak to the

  • specifics in it. But generally, we have stood up for Israel in international fora, including

  • the UN, when they are unfairly singled out in a way that other countries are not. But

  • again, I haven’t seen that specific report and I don’t want to comment on that specific issue.

  • QUESTION: Going back to the same --

  • MS HARF: Yes, I’m going to go to the front and then around.

  • QUESTION: -- same subject but going back toor same area but going back to the whole

  • Orange --

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: -- France thing from yesterday.

  • MS HARF: Yes. And I believe Foreign Minister Fabius has spoken to this now as well.

  • QUESTION: Yeah. But he talked about --

  • QUESTION: Yeah.

  • QUESTION: Well, he talked about France is opposed to boycotts, but this really isn’t

  • a boycott, is it? Do you regard what Orange did or is going to do or wants to do --

  • MS HARF: I think Orange may have also spoken to their future plans as well.

  • QUESTION: Do youexactly. Do you regard that as --

  • MS HARF: And said they may not be going forward.

  • QUESTION: Yeah. Do you regard what was being discussed or what has been discussed as a

  • boycott or something that you would oppose? Or is it just a private company doing what

  • private companies do?

  • MS HARF: Well, as a matter of principle, the U.S. opposes boycotts directed at the state

  • of Israel. I said that yesterday; weve said this for many, many months and years

  • now. I’m not familiar with the exact details of what these alleged plans that Orange was

  • going to do were. And private companiesyou are rightcan make their own decisions

  • about their own businesses.

  • QUESTION: So --

  • MS HARF: That doesn’t mean we can’t oppose boycotts. We of course do.

  • QUESTION: Yeah. But I’m – what I’m --

  • MS HARF: Would I call what they propose --

  • QUESTION: So if I – if company X does business in Israel and wants to pull out and no longer

  • do business in Israel because it is getting pressure from its shareholders or whoever

  • about settlement activity or the activity of the Israeli Government in the West Bank

  • or Gaza, you do not have a problem with that. Is that correct?

  • MS HARF: Well, no, that’s not what I’m saying. We opposeyoure looking for

  • a definition of boycott, I think.

  • QUESTION: No, I’m trying to find out if you --

  • MS HARF: Well, we opposewe oppose boycotts of the state ofdirected at the tate of

  • Israel.

  • QUESTION: I understand that.

  • MS HARF: Now, we oppose them; we also understand private companies can make their own decisions.

  • That doesn’t mean we won’t oppose those decisions, if that makes sense. So without

  • knowing company X --

  • MS HARF: -- or company X’s rationale or the details behind what company X is going

  • to do, I just can’t venture to guess hypothetically what we would say. But as a principle, we

  • oppose boycotts directed at the state of Israel.

  • QUESTION: Well, does that mean, though, that then you would encourage every company in

  • the world that has an international branch to do business with Israel?

  • MS HARF: That’s --

  • QUESTION: Orand that if they don’t that that’s a bad thing?

  • MS HARF: I’m not sure the converse is true.

  • QUESTION: Or is it just pulling out of --

  • MS HARF: We --

  • QUESTION: What is it that you are opposed to in terms of --

  • MS HARF: -- oppose boycotts.

  • QUESTION: I understand that, but in terms of private companies.

  • MS HARF: Right. We oppose boycotts.

  • QUESTION: But a private --

  • MS HARF: That doesn’t mean they have to do --

  • QUESTION: I know, but a private company taking itself out of a market isn’t a boycott.

  • MS HARF: Well, again, without knowing the details, I have no idea why that private company

  • would be taking themselves out of that market. There could be business reasons.

  • QUESTION: So it’s a case-by-case basis, is that what youre saying?

  • MS HARF: Well, to determine whether or not something is a boycott, yes, it would be a

  • case-by-case basis I think.

  • QUESTION: If I may --

  • MS HARF: But it’s notif we determine something is a boycott aimed at the state

  • of Israel, we do notwe oppose that. We support thatwe do not support that.

  • QUESTION: Absent any kind of political process or any hope for the Palestinians, why not

  • why not support the boycott? After all, it is really a peaceful kind of resistance.

  • It does bring pressure. It has worked in the past. It’s something that may force the

  • Israelis to do something that you want them to do, which is pull out of occupied areas.

  • MS HARF: We just don’t support this. Our position on this is longstanding and will

  • not change.

  • Yes.

  • QUESTION: This is a question or a set of questions relating to the decision-making surrounding

  • the release of six longtime inmates at Guantanamo Bay detention center to the state of Uruguay

  • in December 2014, decision-making in which the State Department participated.

  • MS HARF: Correct, along with five other --

  • QUESTION: Agencies.

  • MS HARF: -- departments and agencies. Yes.

  • QUESTION: That’s right. When these six inmates, whom we will call for the purposes of our

  • discussionsthe Uruguay six,” were dispatched to Uruguay, the State Department’s special

  • envoy for the closure of Guantanamo, Cliff Sloan, wrote on Department of State letterhead

  • to Uruguay’s president to assure him, and I quote, “There is no information that the

  • abovementioned individuals,” meaning the Uruguay six, “were involved in conducting

  • or facilitating terrorist activities against the United States or its partners or allies,”

  • unquote. And yet on the books, thanks to WikiLeaks, is a large set of DOD assessments of Guantanamo

  • inmates that is now published in The New York Times online archive from 2007-2008 that encompassed

  • the Uruguay six. And the DOD assessments of 2007-2008 concluded that five of the Uruguay

  • six posed a high risk for release because they would likely pose a threat to the U.S.

  • and its interests and its allies. The DOD assessment for one of the Uruguay six, Mr.

  • Ourjy, concluded in June 2007, and I quote, “Detainee participated in hostilities against

  • U.S. and coalition forcesend quote. It further goes on to say that that particular

  • individual was a senior explosives trainer for al-Qaida, had prior knowledge of the 9/11

  • attacks, and had reported associations with senior al-Qaida members, including Usama bin

  • Ladin.

  • I just wonder if you can explain how we get to a situation in which the Department of

  • Defense concludes that a particular detainee, quote, “participated in hostilities against

  • U.S. and coalition forces,” and lo and behold, five years later, Cliff Sloan of this agency,

  • this department, could assure the head of state of Uruguaythere is no information

  • that the abovementioned individuals were involved in conducting or facilitating terrorist activities.”

  • MS HARF: Yeah. Well, I would also noteand I’m going to go through a little bit on

  • this casethe Department of Defense later then joined with the five other agencies and

  • departments in unanimously approving them for transfer. So the Defense Department’s

  • official position, when they were up for transfer, was to approve that. So --

  • QUESTION: The Defense Department’s position changed?

  • MS HARF: I mean, you’d have to ask them. I don’t know if these assessments were the

  • Defense Department’s position or just sort of assessments that were part of a larger

  • body of information. You’d have to ask them. But the six detainees transferred had been

  • approved for transfer for nearly five years prior to their transfer in December 2014.

  • They were approved for transfer through the Executive Office task force process. It includes

  • representatives from State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director

  • of National Intelligence. This rigorous interagency process collected and considered all reasonably

  • available information concerning these detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The decision to approve

  • a detainee for transfer required the unanimous consensus of these six departments and agencies,

  • including the Defense Department, and reflects the best predictive judgment of senior government

  • officials that any threat posed by the detainee can be sufficiently mitigated through feasible

  • and appropriate security measures in the receiving country, as weve said many, many times.

  • QUESTION: Okay. So in the course of your answer, you yourself just now went from saying you

  • didn’t know if DOD had changed its position to telling us that

  • MS HARF: Well, I don’t know if what youre quoting was their official position or just

  • information they had. I know when they came upwhen the decision was made they should

  • be transferred, it was the unanimous decision of all the six agencies, including the Defense

  • Department. I don’t know if they had a different position before then or if they just had information

  • youre referencing.

  • QUESTION: No, the official assessment of the Department of the Defense as is now accessible

  • online --

  • MS HARF: Again, I haven’t seen that document. All I know is that whenin the official

  • interagency process determining whether someone should be transferred, the Defense Department

  • was supportive.

  • QUESTION: Last question on this: Would you at least agree that there is a stark difference

  • between our government saying that a given detainee participated in hostilities against

  • U.S. and coalition forces and our government saying that a given detainee, there was no

  • information that the above-mentioned individual was involved in conducting or facilitating

  • terrorist activities? They would seem to be to any commonsensical approach starkly divergent

  • assessments of the same individual, correct?

  • MS HARF: And, well, a couple points here first. I really haven’t seen this assessment that

  • youre quoting from, so I don’t want to speak for the Defense Department or speak

  • for that assessment that I just haven’t seen. We certainly stand by the information

  • in Special Envoy Sloan’s letter. And again, this taskforce takes all of the information

  • that’s available to them concerning detainees and considers all of it when determining transfers

  • and why people are allowed to be transferred. There are some possible explanations which

  • I would let others whoDOD speak to. Perhaps the additionalthere was additional information

  • that showed the previous information was incorrect. I don’t know that to be the case, but there

  • may have been. There was an assessment made based on all of the pieces of information

  • that they could be released, that the threatthat any threat could be mitigated, and

  • we stand by what was said in Special Envoy Sloan’s letter.

  • QUESTION: Last question: Representative Ed Royce, Republican of California, chair of

  • the House Foreign Relations Committee wrote to Assistant Secretary Frifield on May 20

  • requesting access to the 2009 interagency assessment for the Uruguay six and also copies

  • of all correspondence from Mr. Sloan to any other heads of state containing assurances

  • that were similar to those contained in Mr. Sloan’s letter to the president of Uruguay.

  • Mr. Royce informs Fox News he has not received any reply to that letter. Is there a reply

  • to that letter?

  • MS HARF: We reply to every letter we get from Congress, so I am confident someone’s working

  • on it. But in terms of one of the specific questions, I can say were not aware of

  • any additional letters from the Office of the Special Envoy to foreign governments that

  • are similar to the one that you mentioned.

  • QUESTION: Thank you.

  • QUESTION: Do you know --

  • MS HARF: -- respond to Chairman Royce.

  • QUESTION: Just based on this issue, do you know if this assessmentthe DOD assessment

  • that James is referring to, was that one of the pieces of information that was available

  • MS HARF: I’m not familiar with --

  • QUESTION: -- to the --

  • MS HARF: -- what he’s specifically referring to --

  • QUESTION: I know.

  • MS HARF: -- but as I said, this interagency team collected and considered all reasonable

  • available information that theythat anyone had, so I would imagine anything that dealt

  • with any of these six was considered.

  • QUESTION: Right, which would --

  • MS HARF: I know this is a --

  • QUESTION: -- include that document.

  • MS HARF: If it was about one of these detainees, then yes, it would have.

  • QUESTION: Marie --

  • QUESTION: How is it thatjust a simple question. How is it that the United States

  • Government could have imprisoned so many people for such a long time without actually having

  • evidence that it itself found persuasive they should be incarcerated? How is this possible?

  • MS HARF: Well, it’s a very good question, Arshad. I think we inheritedthis Administration

  • inherited a situation where there were a large number of detainees in Guantanamo. And as

  • you know, one of the President’s top priorities has been closing Guantanamo. And to do that,

  • you have to transfer detainees that can be transferred in a way that they don’t pose

  • a threat or that that threat can be mitigated, as weve talked about. That requires a pretty

  • lengthy diplomatic process and talking to other countries, making sure other countries

  • are willing to accept these detainees. Often they don’t go back to their home countries

  • for a variety of reasons. There’s a group of people that have been identified that can

  • be charged and prosecuted, and those are moving forward. And then there’s a group in the

  • middle that might be put forward with charges but haven’t been yet.

  • And so determining the final outcome of what will happen to them is ongoing. But I mean

  • on top of that, weve had incredibly restrictive congressional action that has made it much

  • more difficult for us to move forward closing Guantanamo. This really is one of the situations

  • we inherited in this Administration when the President took office that we have worked

  • very, very hard to rectify, but the problem is you have a lot of detainees, and there

  • need to be some place for them to gothe ones you can transfer, the ones you can’t,

  • the ones you can charge, and unfortunately Congress has put incredibly restrictive limitations

  • on what we can do to get this thing actually closed.

  • QUESTION: Putting the onus, as you seem to be doing, on the previous Administration --

  • MS HARF: In part. In part.

  • QUESTION: -- though, suggests that --

  • MS HARF: Only in part.

  • QUESTION: -- suggests --

  • MS HARF: I’m also putting a lot of it on Congress.

  • QUESTION: -- suggests, though, that these guys were once or at least one of them were

  • deemedwas deemed to be a serious threat and then --

  • MS HARF: I’m not going to speak to why --

  • MS HARF: -- they incarcerated people.

  • QUESTION: -- deemed to be a serious threat, which suggests that the bar --

  • MS HARF: No, I –

  • QUESTION: -- for determining was lowered by this Administration --

  • MS HARF: Not at all.

  • QUESTION: -- in order to carry out

  • MS HARF: Not at all.

  • QUESTION: -- what the President wanted to do.

  • MS HARF: Not at all. I would say a few things. First, the recidivism numbers under this Administration

  • because of the strict guidelines weve put in place for transfer have dropped. Since

  • January of 2009, they have dropped for those returning to the battlefield. So if you look

  • at the recidivism numbers, actually, the opposite of what youre arguing is true. And we can

  • get those all around to you again.

  • Second, again, I can’t speak to that assessment that James is quoting. I can’t speak to

  • any one piece of information that may have argued something about someone in Guantanamo.

  • And I certainly can’t speak to why they were incarcerated in the first place.

  • QUESTION: But you can --

  • MS HARF: What I can speak to is the process we in this Administrationand believe

  • me, the people that do this at the Defense Department and the intelligence community

  • take this incredibly seriously. They will not sign off on someone to be transferred

  • unless they are confident we can prevent them from being a threat to the U.S.

  • QUESTION: But you can speak to a body of information. And in fact, the particulars of this 2007

  • DOD assessment about this particular detainee I provided to you in advance of the briefing and --

  • MS HARF: That assessment?

  • QUESTION: Yes.

  • MS HARF: Oh, okay. I’m sorry, I didn’t see the assessment.

  • QUESTION: I provided the specific quotes that I read off to you.

  • MS HARF: Okay. I haven’t seen the whole thing. I’m sorry. I’d have to take a look

  • at the whole thing.

  • QUESTION: But you would have to acknowledge, just on hearing it from me and assuming that

  • I’m not misrepresenting the facts in this briefing --

  • QUESTION: A large assumption.

  • QUESTION: -- you would havebecause I live in an ideal world – (laughter).

  • QUESTION: Manifestly false. (Laughter.)

  • QUESTION: If youre in the briefing room, then youre not in an ideal world.

  • MS HARF: Hey.

  • QUESTION: No, I’m joking. You would have to agree that there is a large body of information

  • about this particular detainee that would have be overlooked or overcome somehow --

  • MS HARF: Well --

  • QUESTION: -- to result in --

  • MS HARF: Let’s --

  • QUESTION: -- saying he poses no risk.

  • MS HARF: Okay. But let’s saytwo points here. First, youre quoting one assessment.

  • I don’t know if I would call that a large body of information. Youre quoting one

  • piece of information. But I guess I would put the question back on the Defense Department

  • then. Youre quoting information of theirs. They are part of an interagency team. They

  • were one of the people that approved this detainee for transfer. So I can only speak

  • to the fact that there was a process done for these individuals that looked at all available

  • information, and all of those agencies approved them for transfer.

  • QUESTION: Including yours, and that’s why I’m asking it.

  • MS HARF: And including the Defense Department, though. So if you think there’s a contradiction

  • between their assessments, I would probably point you to them.

  • QUESTION: Can I --

  • QUESTION: New topic?

  • MS HARF: Yes, let’s move on.

  • QUESTION: About Japan, they announced the next G7 site for 2016, and it’s going to

  • be near this historical shrine that’s important to the imperial family. And I was wondering

  • if maybe youre looking forward to the State Department --

  • MS HARF: I hadn’t seen that announcement. I always look forward to the G7, though, I

  • can tell you.

  • QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts on thisthe fact that it’s not going to be --

  • MS HARF: Lubeck was lovely. It was. Yes, go ahead.

  • QUESTION: Any thoughts on the fact that it’s not going to be in Hiroshima and the delegation

  • perhaps --

  • MS HARF: I don’t have much more assessment of the location of the G7 for you.

  • Yes.

  • QUESTION: I have some question on the upcoming general election in Turkey --

  • MS HARF: Okay.

  • QUESTION: -- on this Sunday. AKP, the ruling party, is reported to be leading at the moment,

  • but PKK is also expected to win some seats as well. And some reports say that there is

  • some disagreements between U.S. and Turkey over Syria, as in the U.S. is focused on fighting

  • ISIL but Turkey is more focused on getting rid of the Assad regime. And so do you think

  • the election results are going to influence U.S.-Turkey cooperation in dealing with the

  • situation in Syria and ISIL?

  • MS HARF: I’m certainly not going to hypothesize before an election has even taken place. We

  • believe that, look, in any democracy the electorate should have the opportunity to make informed

  • choices about parties or candidates or platforms, and that’s certainly what were looking

  • forward to happen here.

  • QUESTION: And I have two more questions.

  • MS HARF: Okay.

  • QUESTION: If the AKP wins enough seats, itll try to implement a new constitution that would

  • increase Erdogan’s presidential powers. Aren’t you concerned at all by this?

  • MS HARF: I’m just not going to speculate on the outcome of the election.

  • QUESTION: And also one moresorry, one more question on Turkey and Syria. What about

  • reports indicating that Turkey is joining with Saudi Arabia in helping extremist groups

  • such as al-Nusrah in order to topple the Assad regime? Do you have any comments on this?

  • MS HARF: I mean, weve talked about this for a long time. Turkey is a key part of our

  • anti-ISIL coalition. They have been helping in a number of fronts, including to crack

  • down on foreign terrorist fighters. And really, beyond that I don’t have much more to share.

  • Yes.

  • QUESTION: Independent of the elections --

  • MS HARF: Yes.

  • QUESTION: -- how do you react to reports that Turkey has been quite active in ferrying jihadis

  • and so on into Syria ever since this rebellion took place back in 2011?

  • MS HARF: Well, I think weve said for some time that weve been working with the Turks

  • on how to increasingly crack down on foreign terrorist fighters along their border. And

  • they have taken steps. Certainly, theyveunderstand this is a problem, but there

  • is a lot more that they could do, certainly. Weve talked about this with them. I think

  • theyve said so publicly. So it’s an issue were certainly working on together.

  • QUESTION: So do you think that Turkey has been aiding and abetting the entry of foreign

  • jihadis into Syria all along?

  • MS HARF: Turkey has been a key partner in this anti-ISIL coalition, period, Said. This

  • has been something weve worked with them quite a bit on. It’s a tough challengeit’s

  • a porous border, it’s a long borderand it’s one were working with them on.

  • QUESTION: Despite reports that keep saying they support al-Nusrah, which you have placed

  • on thein the terror list, and not really fighting and aidingnot fighting ISIS.

  • You agree with that?

  • MS HARF: As I’ve said, they are a valuable partner in the counter-ISIL coalition, and

  • I don’t have much more to add.

  • QUESTION: But what aboutsorrywhat about Turkish president’s crackdown on critics

  • in Turkey? The latest came this week when he accused the editor of Cumhuriyet, which

  • is a very major newspaper in Turkey, of espionage. And his lawyer, Erdogan’s lawyer, has filed

  • a criminal lawsuit against the editor of Cumhuriyet. Aren’t you concerned about the way Erdogan,

  • ahead of the election, is cracking down on the dissent?

  • MS HARF: Well, as I’ve said a couple times this week, an independent and unfettered media

  • is an essential element of any democratic and open society. We support freedom of expression,

  • certainly. Weve been concerned and remain concerned about government interference and

  • freedom of expression in Turkey, and urge Turkish authorities to ensure that their actions

  • uphold democratic values, including freedom of expression.

  • QUESTION: Change of subject? Can we talk about --

  • QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait.

  • MS HARF: Anything else on Turkey?

  • QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. Just --

  • QUESTION: Syria. Syria.

  • MS HARF: I’ll go to Syria, but well finish Turkey --

  • QUESTION: Well, I just want to know: If youre speaking out on this, do you have anything

  • to say about the spat with theErdogan’s spat with the opposition leader over whether

  • this palace has golden toilets or not?

  • MS HARF: I don’t think I have anything to say on that.

  • Yeah, Syria.

  • QUESTION: Do you have any comment about what been reported today, that the Russian are

  • evacuating some of their staff from Latakia?

  • MS HARF: I don’t have any comment on those – I just haven’t seen them.

  • QUESTION: Change of subject?

  • MS HARF: Sure, Lesley.

  • QUESTION: Can you comment on thethese reports that eight of the ten men jailed for

  • the attempted assassination of Malala have been released?

  • MS HARF: Yeah. So weve seen them, and were trying to get some more information. It appeared

  • it may have happened some time ago, or a few weeks ago at least. Were trying to get

  • a little more information on this, and well have probably more to say when we do. Obviously,

  • we absolutely want those responsible to be brought to justice. We also have repeatedly

  • called on Pakistan to ensure due process in general on this case and others, but we just

  • don’t have much more on this specifically.

  • QUESTION: New topic.

  • MS HARF: Yes, and then Abigail, and then --

  • QUESTION: Okay. On relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

  • MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

  • QUESTION: Has the Administration decided yet when to notify Congress about its decision

  • to open an embassy?

  • MS HARF: I don’t think were probably going to share that publicly before we share

  • it with Congress. We just don’t have any updates for you on that.

  • QUESTION: Are there any plans for another round of meetings, or do tight-knuckle discussions

  • continue on the outstanding issues?

  • MS HARF: We don’t have any date for another rounds, and I just don’t have much more

  • detail about what happens next.

  • Abigail.

  • QUESTION: Following up from yesterday.

  • MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

  • QUESTION: Do you have any response to the letter from Representative Chaffetz and Vela

  • to the Secretary asking about the security situation in certain cities in Mexico?

  • MS HARF: In Mexico. I got a little bit on that. Of course, we take security situation

  • very seriously no matter where. That certainly includes Mexico. We take every threat seriously,

  • certainly. We constantly assess our security needs. Weve also said that multiple times.

  • But we think it’s important to have a diplomatic representation in these places and locations,

  • and that’s why we do. And I remind people that millions of U.S. citizens safely visit

  • Mexico each year for a variety of reasons. So that, I think, is one of the reasons it’s

  • so important for us to have a very robust diplomatic presence, A, to help American citizens

  • who are there, but also to engage with the Mexican Government.

  • QUESTION: One the questions the letter asks is about the elimination of danger pay for

  • employees working in those consulates and areas that they say the security situation

  • is deteriorating. Do you have any response to that question?

  • MS HARF: I don’t. I mean, I know in general how danger pay is determined; it’s one of

  • the allowances that may be provided at a post depending on the conditions of the post related

  • to terrorism and political violence. I don’t have much more to say on that. We regularly

  • review all of our allowances to evaluate whether theyre appropriate. And again, well

  • respond, but in general, that’s what I know on danger pay.

  • QUESTION: (Inaudible) about Okinawa. Yesterday I asked you, but you didn’t answer yet.

  • So Okinawa Governor Onagahe say he will visited at Washington D.C. again, and also

  • he want to meet with U.S. official again. So does the U.S. Government andcontinue

  • to dialogue, hold a dialogue with the governor?

  • MS HARF: Well, we just a meeting with the Okinawa governor. I don’t have any future

  • meetings to preview for you, certainly.

  • QUESTION: So continue to the dialogue with the governor?

  • MS HARF: We just had – I mean, we just had a meeting. I know officials on the ground

  • at our embassy certainly dialogue with a wide range of people there. But I don’t have

  • any specifics to share.

  • What else? Anything else?

  • QUESTION: Yeah. Is there any update on the discussions with the Qataris about the --

  • MS HARF: There is not. The restrictionsstaying on Gitmo. The restrictions remain in place

  • while the discussions are ongoing.

  • QUESTION: Are you aware of any effort to recruit those Taliban Five, so-called, since their

  • release?

  • MS HARF: Well, what I can say since their release is that none of the five individuals

  • has returned to the battlefield. All five men are subject to a travel ban and none have

  • left Qatar. None of the individuals has engaged in physical violence. Many actions have been

  • taken to restrict their activities, of course. And so I know there was a lot of discussion

  • about this earlier about their possible re-engagement, and none of the five have returned to the

  • battlefield.

  • QUESTION: That speaks to the outcome, but I wonder if you could speak to the question

  • that’s been raised about inputs.

  • MS HARF: Whether anyone’s tried to? I can’t speak to that. I just know that they have

  • not returned to the battlefield. The discussions remain ongoing.

  • QUESTION: Thank you.

  • MS HARF: That’s it.

  • QUESTION: Thank you, and enjoy your new job. (Applause.)

  • MS HARF: And we all will still be talking, particularly about Iran, so I’m sure we

  • will all have a lot of contact still going forward. And youll see me around, so don’t

  • hesitate to come say hi.

MS HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to a Friday daily press briefing. I have a few items at

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

日刊プレスブリーフィング - 2015年6月5日 (Daily Press Briefing - June 5, 2015)

  • 167 4
    Shyuan に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語