2:39 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: So we needed a break because I, of course, need a step because I’m particularly short.
Anyway, Matt. I don’t have anything at the top.
QUESTION: You have nothing to start with?
MS. PSAKI: I do not. General Allen provided an extensive topper.
QUESTION: Yes, okay. So really briefly, just – do you have any update on the shooting in Saudi yesterday?
MS. PSAKI: I do not have an extensive update beyond what I said yesterday. We have no reason to question the comments, of course, by Saudi authorities. They’ve spoken to what their view is of what happened. In this case, they’re leading the investigation.
QUESTION: Okay. And was it deemed necessary? Did this incident make – did you decide, based on this incident, to do anything – take any specific or – not that you would get – you don’t have to get into the detail, but has there been any change in the security posture in Saudi as a result of this (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: No. All Embassy personnel, including local staff, are safe and accounted for. Of course, we always evaluate, but there isn’t any change in that regard.
QUESTION: Okay. So unless someone else has something on that --
MS. PSAKI: On Saudi?
QUESTION: -- If you want to go on.
MS. PSAKI: On Saudi Arabia? Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: No? All right. I just want to ask you about – there are reports out of Egypt that Egyptian planes are flying and attacking Islamist militants in Libya, and I’m wondering if you know if this is true. And whether or not you know if it’s true or not, is this something that you think is a good thing or a bad thing?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve certainly seen those same reports. You have, Matt. I’m not in a position to confirm reports about airstrikes by foreign governments in Libya. The international community, I would remind everyone, issued a joint statement – or joint statements, I should say – emphasizing that outside interference in Libya exacerbates current divisions and undermines Libya’s democratic transition. Libya’s challenges are political and violence will not resolve them, but I’m not in a position to confirm these reports.
QUESTION: Well, it’s fair to say that you would look disparagingly at foreign planes taking military action inside Libya. Is that --
MS. PSAKI: Well, not just the United States, but 13 partners --
QUESTION: Right, but I’m just asking --
MS. PSAKI: -- signed on to a communique.
QUESTION: Right, but you know that the Secretary met with the president of Egypt last – just a couple days ago as well as the Libyan prime minister. These statements have come out, but I just – speaking for the United States, you think that this would be a bad idea if it was happening and you would – would you caution or warn countries against taking such action?
MS. PSAKI: Well, broadly speaking, we would be concerned about outside interference in Libya, which is consistent with the communiques we’ve signed onto.
QUESTION: All right. And then just finally on this, the – one of the people that our story quotes says that they are Egyptian planes but being flown by Libyan pilots. Is that – would that constitute outside interference in the mind of the Administration?
MS. PSAKI: Again, I think outside interference is outside countries, but I don’t have any other confirmation of what the specific details are.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: So the only – sorry, I know I said it was the last one, but I’m just trying to make sure – I mean, if there were – if this was Libyan pilots flying an Egyptian plane or planes, plural, that would or would not be foreign or outside interference?
MS. PSAKI: We don’t have any confirmation of it, Matt. If those end up being the details, I’m happy to talk to our team, but obviously, outside interference means outside interference by any country in any capacity.
QUESTION: Right. Well, someone is dropping bombs there, and I don’t think the Libyans have an air force that can do it. So someone is doing it, and you think no matter who is doing it, it’s bad unless it’s the Libyans themselves?
MS. PSAKI: As we’ve said, outside interference we’d be concerned about.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Elise.
QUESTION: Just to kind of broaden that out, I mean, while the focus is on ISIL right now, I mean, you have this situation in Libya which is growing more dire by the day. You have a very weak government also in Yemen. I mean, isn’t there a concern that while – that it’s – you’re too closely focused on ISIS and not kind of looking at the broader kind of terrorism problem growing in the region?
MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I think it’s important for everybody to understand that while we are certainly focused on ISIL and our efforts with the international coalition, look at Secretary Kerry’s schedule over the last couple of days and look at the work by a number of officials that aren’t even at that level but still at a high level. Secretary Kerry had a meeting to discuss Libya. He met with Foreign Minister Lavrov to discuss Ukraine and other issues. We are continuing to work on a range of other issues at the same time while still working with the international coalition. That’s why it was so important to have General Allen and Ambassador McGurk in charge of the coalition on a day-to-day basis.
QUESTION: On the --
QUESTION: But – no, but I mean, isn’t there a concern that, like, things are getting out of control in both countries? I mean, can you talk to the – you just put out another Rewards for Justice for 45 million for eight people in Yemen. I mean, it seems as if there is just as much of a concern there.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t think we are taking our eye – just because we are focused on ISIL, it doesn’t mean we are taking our eye off on the ball – off the ball as it relates to other terrorist organizations and presences in other parts of the world. Look at al-Shabaab. We just put out a warning in Ethiopia. We are tracking – wherever terrorists are and they threat our interests or the interests – Western interests, we are tracking them and we’re going to go after terrorists where they pose a threat to us.
QUESTION: Can you also – can you just speak to this Rewards for Justice and why now for these eight individuals?
MS. PSAKI: I think we put out some details about this yesterday. Did you have – why now, specifically?
QUESTION: Yeah. Why now, specifically?
MS. PSAKI: There’s a constant --
QUESTION: I mean, is there growing concern about AQAP’s capacity to be able to launch attacks against the United States?
MS. PSAKI: There’s a constant review. I’m not aware of a new threat, Elise. I’m happy to take it and talk to our team and see if there’s anything recently.
QUESTION: Jen.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah, Jen, on the Libya issue, the Egyptian airplanes are bombing on the side of General Hiftar. Whose side are you on? I mean, how do you figure out who is fighting who in Libya and who are the good guys and the bad guys, in your own terminology?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I think, as we’ve said in the past, one, let me just reiterate I don’t have any confirmation or not in a position to confirm details in the reports. We continue to believe there’s only a political solution in Libya. We call on all parties to accept an immediate comprehensive ceasefire and engage constructively in a peaceful political dialogue to resolve the ongoing crisis, abstaining from confrontational acts. But again, I’m not going to go further with you because we don’t have confirmation of details.
QUESTION: I guess my question: Is there a – like a legal standard or is there like a legitimate standard that you recognize as these are the entity that we recognize as the representatives of Libya that you can be on their side?
MS. PSAKI: There are certainly officials from Libya that we speak to, that our ambassador speaks to, the Secretary speaks to, absolutely.
Did you have – do you --
QUESTION: I have one on Libya --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- because we had a story yesterday about the self-declared government setting up and taking over the websites of the state administration and the national oil company. Do you have anything on this one?
MS. PSAKI: I had not seen that. I’m happy to check into it. Was there a specific question about it or there is --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, I was wondering if you had also – if you can confirm that this is – because it’s – it’s getting – there’s confusion about who’s running the country now. So my specific thing was: Do you also have – I mean, have you figured out what this group is doing? I mean, they did take over in August, as far as we can tell. But in taking over the websites, as – what does this mean?
MS. PSAKI: Let me take a look at the story and I’ll check with our Libya team.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Libya?
QUESTION: Well, just – is it your – I mean – (laughter) – she raises an interesting question. Do you think that anyone is actually running Libya right now?
MS. PSAKI: We certainly do.
QUESTION: You do?
MS. PSAKI: I just want to check on her question about the websites question.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yemen.
QUESTION: Yeah, but they’re taking over the national oil company.
QUESTION: I have one on Libya.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Libya related.
QUESTION: It might be a big deal.
QUESTION: He’s talking about (inaudible).
MS. PSAKI: Uh-huh. Go ahead.
QUESTION: There was a recent report of a group declaring its allegiance to ISIL in Derna, I believe, in Libya. I mean, what’s your level of concern about the possibility for the spread of ISIS along – in Libya or maybe North Africa, generally?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think in one of – not one of your colleagues – I should say another reporter asked yesterday about Morocco. And there are certainly countries that have spoken about their concerns about the threat of ISIL. Many of them are part of the coalition. And so there’s more than 60 countries and entities, as you know, who are part of the coalition, some from Northern Africa. So I think that speaks to the concern about the threat not just to countries directly right next to Iraq and Syria, but certainly throughout the region.
QUESTION: Well, you got the instability in Libya, which is distinct from other parts of North Africa.
MS. PSAKI: You’re correct. But I would point you to the government to speak more about their specific concerns there.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Iran.
QUESTION: On Yemen, Jen, the Houthis have made more progress on the ground in the last couple of days, and they’ve got more provinces without any resistance from the Yemeni army. How do you see these developments?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I know we spoke about this a little bit yesterday. We’ve, of course, seen the reports about the Houthi presence in areas around the port. We’re not clear on their intentions, and the status in Ibb remains unclear. We do – of course, seizing control of state institutions and territory by the use of force, broadly speaking, is inconsistent with the agreement – the national partnership agreement and must cease. And that’s certainly the message that we are communicating.
QUESTION: And how do you view the Houthis? How are you dealing with them?
MS. PSAKI: How are we dealing with them?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: In what capacity?
QUESTION: Because now they are controlling a big part of Yemen and they are part of the government.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I mentioned, we don’t have a clear understanding at this point about their intentions. Obviously, we continue to encourage all parties to implement fully all of the provisions of the Peace and National Partnership Agreement. That’s what we’re communicating.
QUESTION: And do you think that the agreement is still there after the military developments during the last week?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we still think it is there, but there are pieces of it that have certainly not been implemented, including giving up checkpoints and weapons and pieces that still need to be implemented.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. concerned that President Hadi’s government may fall?
MS. PSAKI: Not – that’s not a concern I expressed, Roz.
QUESTION: Just back to Libya for one second.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Who – am I correct in thinking that when you say you certainly do think that someone is running the show in Libya, that that is the person that Secretary Kerry met with --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- and his people around him?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: This is the – this is the --
MS. PSAKI: Earlier this weekend, I believe it was.
QUESTION: Right. This is the group that had set up shop in Tobruk?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yeah? And you think that they actually have control?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly, we think there are a range of government officials we are in close contact with. It’s a difficult situation in Libya. There needs to be more effort on the political front, and that’s part of what the Secretary is communicating.
QUESTION: All right. And then last on Libya, just the status of reopening the Embassy. Nothing in sight?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that. I don’t believe there’s been a change in that status.
QUESTION: I have a question on Iran.
MS. PSAKI: On – let’s just finish Libya. Any more on Libya? Okay, on Iran. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Khalid Azizi – he’s the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran; he’s an Iranian opposition figure. He said that he met with a State Department official form the Near East desk for more than one hour. So my question is: While you are negotiating with Iran over a nuclear program, what level of, like, relationship do you keep with the Iranian opposition figures such as Mr. Azizi?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any confirmation of that meeting. I’m happy to check and see if that took place.
QUESTION: Do you have – broadly speaking, do you have any sort of relationship with the Iranian opposition figures at the moment?
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check and see. Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: On Russia?
MS. PSAKI: On – let’s just finish Iran.
QUESTION: On Iran.
MS. PSAKI: Let’s finish Iran and then we can go – we’ll go to Pam and then we’ll go to you, if that’s okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, is it correct that – and I realize that Marie in Vienna is probably a better person to speak to this – but there’s some indication that there might be another meeting tomorrow?
MS. PSAKI: There is another meeting tomorrow that’s happening at the political directors level.
QUESTION: Not – okay. So it’s not – so this thing tomorrow is the political directors and Secretary Kerry still plans to come back --
MS. PSAKI: He’s coming home.
QUESTION: -- tonight?
MS. PSAKI: But they’ll be – I believe there will be – they’ll be reconvening later this evening.
QUESTION: So --
MS. PSAKI: At his level.
QUESTION: At Secretary Kerry’s level?
MS. PSAKI: Yes. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you provide – I mean, where things are right now, recognizing that they’re going to be meeting again tonight --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- why is it that – or do you think that there is any progress? Do you think that you’re still on track for November 24th to meet the deadline?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think as the Secretary said just yesterday, I believe it was --
QUESTION: Yeah, but that was before the meeting today, so --
MS. PSAKI: Sure. We continue to have – I don’t have an update from the meeting. They’ve obviously reconvening this evening because it’s an opportunity to talk through these issues. We still have some tough issues to resolve. That hasn’t changed. But we remain focused on the 24th and our intent is to get a comprehensive agreement by the 24th.
Any more on Iran? Okay, we’ll move on. I promised Pam we’d go next. Go ahead, Pam.
QUESTION: Two questions on Syria. The first one deals with Kobani. White House spokesman Josh Earnest has said while the U.S. does not want Kobani to fall, airstrikes alone can only do so much. So my question is: This comes at a time when we have Syrian Kurds that have been begging for international coalition help and providing heavy weapons to help them protect the border town. Does the United States have the authority under its own laws to arm the Kurdish fighters? And if so, will the U.S. move in the direction to do so?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our policy hasn’t changed in that regard. Our focus continues to be on airstrikes, which we’ve increased, as you know, over the course of the last several days. And I think what Josh was referring to is the fact that, obviously, there needs to be action on the ground in order to work with the airstrikes or complement the airstrikes and to push back on ISIL. We’ve seen some of that, but clearly more needs to be done. So I’m not going to speculate on legal authority when we haven’t made the decision to do that.
QUESTION: On that topic, Jen. Today, deputy – the prime minister, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said that Kobani was empty of civilians – there were no civilians in Kobani, only fighters, about 1,000 fighters. Is that true? Can you confirm that? And if that is true, how does that figure in terms of sort of the bombardment strategy? Would that give the U.S. more latitude to bomb more and so on?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I think that’s a reflection of the fact that Turkey continues to – and General Allen spoke to this – continues to allow refugees across the border. And we’ve seen over the course of the last several days more and more refugees continuing to go across the border. I said a couple of days ago that we believe there were very few civilians who were left. I don’t have any confirmation of the number zero or any specific number for you.
QUESTION: But can you confirm that most of the civilian population has already took – has taken refuge in Turkey, (inaudible) Kobani?
MS. PSAKI: I think as we’ve been saying, there were very few left as of a couple days ago.
Any more – let’s finish --
QUESTION: Kobani.
MS. PSAKI: Let’s finish Turkey. Go ahead. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I actually – I have a question about ISIS in Iraq.
QUESTION: Kobani.
MS. PSAKI: Okay – go ahead, go ahead. Sorry, you’re sitting in a different place. It’s throwing me off. (Laughter.) Go ahead.
QUESTION: You just stated that in addition to airstrikes also there needs to be an action on the ground in Kobani. What do you mean by there needs to be action on the ground?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not referring to, obviously, U.S. forces. I’m referring to – obviously, there are – there’s work on the ground by the PYD and others to push back on the ISIL threat in that part of Syria. That’s what I’m referring to.
QUESTION: So they are – I think they are doing what they can, but they say they need heavy weapons, and I think that’s the dilemma or the problem now. Are – you are saying that action needs to be done, and PYD says they do what they can but they need heavy weapon.
MS. PSAKI: Our focus remains on airstrikes. We think that is a step that helps push back. As has been noted, there are very few civilians left. I don’t think I have any other update on Kobani than that.
QUESTION: On Turkey.
MS. PSAKI: On Turkey, go ahead.
QUESTION: The Turkish air force conduct airstrikes against the Kurds at the same time they operate in an area closer to what the coalition is conducting airstrike. Are those airstrikes from the Turkish air force coordinated with the coalition? Does United States have a previous knowledge of those airstrikes that occurred in the past and any future airstrikes?
And one more thing about training the opposition. Now, it’s been divided now between Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Who’s going to take the lead in training those? Is it going to be a rivalry, going to be competition? What’s the situation?
MS. PSAKI: It’s unlikely, I think, that Saudi Arabia or Turkey would put it that way. As General Allen mentioned, the discussion with Turkey about this, specifically how this will work and the role they’ll play, is ongoing. So I don’t have an exact breakdown and I expect to the degree we give that, it would come from the military.
And relate – as it relates to your first question, I addressed this a bit yesterday. I’m not going to get into any specifics of what we – our conversations with Turkey. Certainly, if they partake in airstrikes or more military action as it relates to the coalition, we would be engaged in that, and that would be coordinated through our military counterparts.
QUESTION: But can I follow up on this?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Isn’t it odd that you’re having airstrike around Kobani to help the Kurdish while the Turkish air force is hitting the people who are attempting to help the Kurdish.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, where these strikes went from Turkey, as I understand it, is more than 100 miles away from Kobani. We’re talking about – there were reports that – which I still don’t have confirmation of, and you certainly all could seek those – from Turkish officials that they had been struck by the PKK into Turkey, and they were responding to that. That in my – in our view is a separate issue from the coalition and the effort to go after ISIL.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Can we finish Turkey first?
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. PSAKI: Turkey? Turkey? Any more on Turkey? Go ahead. Ali.
QUESTION: Well, I just have a logistics question.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I don’t believe General – he mentioned it, General Allen did, but I may have missed it. Did he say how long that joint CENTCOM, EUCOM team has been in Turkey and how long they will be there, and where exactly are they? Are they in Ankara? Are they in Istanbul?
MS. PSAKI: He did not say. I’m happy to check with DOD and see how long they have been, will be there. Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. And he mentioned also that he was going back out to the region --
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: -- next week?
MS. PSAKI: Later this month. I’m not sure when his exact departure date is.
QUESTION: Okay. So he did not talk about specifics of where and when?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe he gave an exact date.
QUESTION: No, he said he’s going next week.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: The Gulf next – did he say next week?
QUESTION: Next week? And do you know – do you have details of --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have the details in front of me. I think this trip is still coming together.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on something?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: You had said about a week ago that while what was going on with Kobani was horrible and terrible to see, that you were striking strategic targets in Kobani, going after the leaders, and this was more of a kind of strategic operation.
MS. PSAKI: Well, in general, that’s our approach. I don’t think I said that specific to Kobani. Yes, part of it was we were getting convoys and trucks that were in that area, yes.
QUESTION: But today, General Allen seemed to be emphasizing the humanitarian reason that you were going after, which seems kind of – a kind of change in focus as to last week, where Kobani was seen as more kind of trying to tick off Syrian leaders – ISIS leaders in Syria kind of thing.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I mean, I am not going to get too much into military strategy, but I think, one, our focus in Syria has always been on military leaders, on convoys, on oil refineries, on specific targets that will degrade their capabilities.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: So a lot of those haven’t been – they’re all over the place, I should say.
QUESTION: I understand.
MS. PSAKI: Obviously, my DOD counterparts can speak more efficiently to this. In terms of the specifics, of Kobani, I mean, obviously, there is a – there has been a humanitarian challenge there. I don't know that I have anything more to particularly answer it.
QUESTION: But I mean, like, he seemed to be kind of emphasizing the humanitarian nature of the operation similar to the way that the Yezidis and what you did on the mountain was more of a humanitarian operation, not any kind of strategic targeting.
MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s – I don’t – I mean, I think – obviously, I think we can all look at the situation in Kobani and see that the suffering of the people there and the video that we’ve seen has certainly raised humanitarian concerns, but I don’t think I have much more to add to what he said.
QUESTION: Turkey?
MS. PSAKI: Turkey? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes. You said that the Turks bombing the PKK was a separate thing from what’s happening in Kobani in terms of military action, but they are obviously related because the conflict is stirring up again because of the PKK’s anger about Turkey’s position on Kobani. How much of a concern is there that the action in Syria is going to destabilize Turkey because of the Kurdish issue?
And then a small follow-up to General Allen’s briefing: Could you clarify the meaning of white space?
MS. PSAKI: The first question, I think – just to clarify a little bit the first question, can you spell that out or can you --
QUESTION: Well, you said they weren’t directly related, right? The Turks were going after the PKK a hundred miles or whatever away from the front line, and that was a different conflict in Kobani. But I mean, there is – they are related to a degree because the PKK is active in Kobani. It’s angry that the Turks aren’t allowing fighters to come across, and so it’s resumed its attacks. So there is a connection of some kind, and how concerned are you that the military action in Syria, especially along the border there, is going to --
MS. PSAKI: In Kobani, in that area?
QUESTION: -- in Kobani, yeah – is going to contribute to destabilization in Turkey?
MS. PSAKI: I have not heard that concern raised specifically by our people who are working on that issue. Obviously, we’re all seeing what’s happening in Kobani, but there will be – as we’ve said before and as my counterparts at DOD have said, there will be towns that fall as a part of this. I can’t predict for you what’s going to happen there. But this is a larger effort that relates to going after ISIL wherever we face it, and it’s bigger than one town.
And sorry, your second question on white space. As I heard and understood what he said, I think he was referring to – he talked about it in the context of gaining back area. I’d have to check with him and see exactly what he meant. I’m happy to clarify that for you.
QUESTION: Could you? Because white space sounds a lot like a buffer zone, and if that’s – if he’s referring only to Iraq, that might be one thing. But if he’s also referring to what’s going on in Syria, I mean, it would seem to be a concession or a concession – at least a nod in the direction of what the Turks are looking for.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think Margaret asked a specific question about the buffer zone or a --
QUESTION: Yeah. White space would – seems to imply an area where there is – there’s nothing, right? Is that not a buffer? Is that not a --
MS. PSAKI: That is, but --
QUESTION: That’s creating a buffer zone.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe he was intending to say that we are --
QUESTION: Right. Which is why I think it would --
MS. PSAKI: -- considering that our policy has changed.
QUESTION: Right. But I think that it would be interesting to know exactly what --
MS. PSAKI: Sure. But I can confirm for you that that was not the intention of his comment.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Let’s just finish Turkey.
QUESTION: Can we just do one more on Turkey?
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I want to go back to what Pam asked a few minutes ago about the United States arming, or not arming in this case, the Kurds. Some members of the coalition have, in fact, provided some arms to Kurdish fighters. So I’m just wondering if, as part of the coalition, does the United States view it as contradictory to the policy of the broader coalition if you guys are saying we’re not doing that right now and some other countries are? Is there a – is that a problem? Is that problematic if some countries are doing that?
MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to check with our team, Ali. I don’t believe we see it as an issue, to my awareness. As a policy, we have not changed our position as the United States. But as you know, there are different countries doing different things. There are some countries doing airstrikes in Syria and not Iraq, or Iraq and not Syria. And so there are different decisions that different countries have made.
QUESTION: Right. It just seems like this could be, because it’s an active act, rather than not doing airstrikes in one country versus the other, that you guys might have – take a position on this particular --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I’m not aware of a concern that we have, but I’ll – I’m happy to check with our team on that.
Turkey?
QUESTION: On Iraq.
MS. PSAKI: Let’s finish Turkey. Any more on Turkey?
Okay, Iraq.
QUESTION: Iraq.
QUESTION: One thing --
MS. PSAKI: Let’s go to Roz. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. One thing I noticed in the Secretary’s comments overnight was the discussion he had with secretary – with Foreign Minister Lavrov about helping to train Iraqi Security Forces. What more details do you have about this – what appears to be the first time Russia has offered to actually provide some concrete help in the fight against ISIL?
MS. PSAKI: I think – obviously, the Secretary read this out quite extensively yesterday during his press conference. I really don’t have additional details to brief from here. Certainly, as is the case with many countries, there’ll be an ongoing discussion with Russia about their contributions and what role they may play.
QUESTION: Just one --
QUESTION: Is it significant, though, that even though the U.S. and Russia have had many disagreements about the civil war inside Syria, that in the U.S.’s view, Russia sees ISIL enough of a threat to be willing to come into this coalition at least in this part of the ongoing campaign?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Roz, I would remind you and everybody that there are certainly areas where we have disagreed, and clearly there have been areas where we have very firm principles as it relates to Ukraine and other issues that Russia doesn’t agree with us on. But we’ve also worked with them on a range of issues in the past, whether it’s reducing our nuclear stockpiles, cooperating on Syria chemical weapons, and certainly we view it as a relationship where we can work together on issues where we do have agreement, and this certainly seems to be one of them.
QUESTION: Just on --
QUESTION: Did the Russians indicate in any way to the Secretary and his team any concerns that they have about any radicalization of Muslims within Russia and any potential security threats that they themselves might be seeing?
MS. PSAKI: Not that I have heard as a readout from our team. I’d point you really to the Russians to ask them that specific question, if that’s a concern they have.
Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: This is kind of off the wall. I’m just wondering, since everyone and their mother, it seems, is saying that this is not just a military operation, that the coalition is involved in all sorts of things and there is a big diplomatic component to it --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- did you guys have any say in the name that has been given to this operation? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Inherent --
QUESTION: -- Resolve.
MS. PSAKI: I think we – we are aware of it, but I believe it was chosen by the Pentagon.
QUESTION: You wouldn’t have preferred something different? “Negotiated Compromise” or something like that? (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: We are the diplomats over here, Matt. But we will allow our DOD colleagues to name their projects.
QUESTION: So you’re okay with Inherent Resolve, even as it covers the diplomatic portion of it?
MS. PSAKI: We support the naming rights of our colleagues at the Pentagon.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: On Iraq, can you --
MS. PSAKI: Hold on. We’re getting a little out of order here. Said, I promise I’ll get to you, but I just want to get to these two because they’ve been raising their hand. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: On Russia. Yesterday after talks was --
QUESTION: Can we talk about Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we kind of jumped around because we went to Russia and then Iraq. But we’ll – we can come back to Iraq. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday after talks with Minister Lavrov, to me it seemed that Kerry – Secretary Kerry was sounding, like, a bit different from what he was previously in terms that he never mentioned any word “isolation” of Russia, for example. But he talked a lot with – about cooperation with Russia on other issues, like ISIS, Iran, and others. So obviously, differences on Ukraine are still there, but they don’t seem to be an obstacle for cooperation on those areas anymore. So would that be correct to say that U.S. is no longer seeking, like, isolation of Russia? I mean political – not economic sense, but political isolation.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think as I noted in response to, I think, Roz’s question – and now I’ve forgotten who asked the Russian question --
QUESTION: I did.
MS. PSAKI: -- there are still – Ukraine was an issue that was discussed at length during the meeting, and Secretary Kerry pressed in particular on the need for the full implementation of all of the 12 points of the September 5th Minsk Agreement. And he also emphasized that the only legitimate – that only through legitimate elections in Ukraine and through additional steps that Russia needs to take can we return to a place where we have some agreement on the issue.
The fact is, though, we have disagreement on that and we’re hoping to get to an area of more agreement, but there are still areas where we can work together. There was – there have been a range of conversations with Russia over the course of the last eight months to a year, even while we’ve had disagreement on Ukraine, and we think we can work together on issues even when there are some we disagree on.
QUESTION: Okay. And just to follow up on her question, was – did Russia offer the help on ISIS, or was that United States who asked for help?
MS. PSAKI: Of course, ISIL was a discussion during the meeting, but certainly, it’s Russia’s decision to make about what their contributions would be.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, can we finish – do we have any more on Russia? I’ve sort of lost control in here a little bit today. Let’s go back to Iraq. Is that right? Okay.
QUESTION: I have a quick question.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: On the plan to arm the Sunni tribes, the Anbar Sunni tribes, there is apparently a plan to arm and equip about six divisions. Would that be akin to the Awakening Councils that General Petraeus began back in 2007? Would it fall under General Allen or would it fall under a different group, since it is in the fight against ISIS?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Said, what you’re referring to is our effort to create a national guard, which is slightly different from the Sunni Awakening. Certainly, it’s working with Sunni tribes, but there’d be some slight differences in the sense that we want this to be a part of the Iraqi Security Forces and something that is – I shouldn’t say “we.” The Iraqi Government does, and it certainly is something we support and think is a wise way of going about it, so that there’s a longer-term strategy here and it’s not just a temporary though effective approach.
Any more on Iraq?
QUESTION: Iraq.
QUESTION: Egypt.
MS. PSAKI: Iraq, okay. Barbara, Iraq? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Amnesty International has released a report documenting Shiite militias abducting and killing Sunni civilians in retaliation for Islamic State attacks without any response from the government. Is this something that you’ve raised with Baghdad? And also, how do you see this playing into these efforts to reform what is the Shiite-dominated army? How much of an obstacle is that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say we are deeply concerned by these reports. It’s clear that terrorist attacks by ISIL in Iraq have aimed at sowing divisions among Iraqis, and certainly, part of the effort of the new government was to govern in a more inclusive manner and bring in all of the political factions as a part of one effort to unite as a government but also oppose ISIL. So we believe and agree that it’s critically important that the Government of Iraq regulate volunteers under the security structure of the state to ensure that there is accountability in the fight against ISIL. And certainly, Prime Minister Abadi has also noted this importance.
So broadly speaking, we’ve raised the issue of the importance of governing in an inclusive manner and having accountability. In terms of this specific report, Barbara, I’d have to check and see if this specific report has been raised.
QUESTION: But this issue itself, which has been around for a while – to what – how much concern is there about how that affects the reform of the security forces and how much of an obstacle it is?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think as we saw with the last government with Prime Minister Maliki, one of the deep challenges there was certainly the inability or the unwillingness to govern in an inclusive manner and what we saw as divisions among many of the different groups in Iraq. And certainly, ISIL was able to come in and take advantage of that. So --
QUESTION: But it’s still going on.
MS. PSAKI: Well – but my point is that in all of the discussions we’ve had with Prime Minister Abadi, the issue of inclusiveness, the issue of governing in an inclusive manner, the issue of creating a national guard to include the Sunni tribes, the issue of doing things differently than how it was done last time – has certainly been a prominent topic of discussion.
Iraq? Iraq. Any more on Iraq?
QUESTION: Iraq.
MS. PSAKI: Iraq. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. So the Kurdish forces in Iraq have been very slow in regaining – basically have been very slow in regaining the territories they lost to ISIS, such as the predominantly Yezidi town of Sinjar, which is – which continues to be under the control of ISIS. So when you ask the Kurdish officials, why haven’t you been able to control those lost areas, they say because they have not received the heavy weapons they have demanded the United States and other Western allies. What’s your take on that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, not just the United States but a range of countries have been providing a range of resources, including military resources, in coordination with the central government to the Kurds. I’d have to check and see if there’s an update we can provide to you, but I know that we have been sending a vast array of materials.
QUESTION: Just one more question on the – General Allen said that he had met Prime Minister Abadi and he believes that he wants to lead an inclusive government.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So I want to know why he believes that, because, like – I mean, is there any concrete evidence that really Abadi – that you have in Abadi? For example, the Sunnis continue most largely to be without – outside the government. Large parts of Sunni areas, including Anbar and Mosul, are still under ISIS control. And the Kurdish – the Iraqi – the Kurdistan Regional Government says the outstanding issues, such as oil, remain unresolved. Like, what are the things that make him believe so?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’re combining a couple things into one. I think what we’re referring to is the fact that Prime Minister Abadi came in with the desire to govern more inclusively. Now, with any case of governing around the world, we have to see what happens. But he announced a national plan; that’s being implemented. There have been efforts to reach out to a range of groups across the country. Obviously, there are unresolved issues that need to be resolved, but there’s a long history here, as you know, from how things were occurring in the previous government, and that’s something that will take some time to repair.
Any more on Iraq? Okay, new topic.
QUESTION: On Iraq.
MS. PSAKI: On Iraq, okay.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the New York Times report that abandoned chemical weapons has been kept secret by the U.S. Government?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the Department of Defense on that. I think they have a comment that they have put out today, and they’re most appropriate to speak to that question.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: Let’s just finish Iraq. Any more on Iraq? Okay. Elliot.
QUESTION: I was wondering what your reaction is to the most recent police crackdown in Hong Kong. There have been some rather disturbing images and videos coming out over the past 24 hours or so.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, we are deeply concerned by reports of police beating a protester in Hong Kong, and encourage Hong Kong authorities to carry out a swift, transparent, and complete investigation into the incident. Hong Kong’s well-established tradition of respect for the rule of law and internationally recognized fundamental freedoms, including freedom of peaceful assembly, remains crucial to Hong Kong’s longstanding success and reputation as a leading center of global commerce. We renew our calls for the Hong Kong Government to show restraint, and for protesters to continue to express their views peacefully.
QUESTION: I believe they – the Hong Kong authorities did say they would be investigating the police officers involved and that they would be removed from the protests, but were – are you encouraged by that? Do you think that’s – that investigation will be credible?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly we support a complete investigation, so yes, we’d be encouraged by that moving forward.
QUESTION: And then more broadly, do you – are you concerned that this will more – re-galvanize the protests and cause them to drag out longer and strain further the patience of authorities?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our hope is certainly that it will not. And obviously, that will require restraint by authorities and restraint and action as it relates to an investigation, and we’ll certainly see what happens from there.
QUESTION: Jen, on this, do you think – you just mentioned how Hong Kong has well-established traditions of rule of law and as a center for global commerce. Do you think that that’s been compromised at all, if not its status as a safe place for and center for global commerce and a place where rule of law is established and followed all the time? Has that been compromised at all in the thinking of the Administration?
MS. PSAKI: Not in the thinking of the Administration, no, but it certainly is in the interests of everyone to see the current situation resolved peacefully.
QUESTION: And if – but you believe that it’s possible that that could be compromised should this continue to go on, or is that – am I --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get ahead of where we are or where this could go. Certainly, our hope is that it can be resolved peacefully.
QUESTION: Where is this discussion right now? I mean, how – after the foreign minister was here, where have you taken this discussion on Hong Kong?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve certainly maintained close contact with relevant authorities in Hong Kong as well as Chinese authorities, and we’ve been conveying the same message that we’ve been conveying publicly.
Any more on Hong Kong? Hong Kong? Okay, new topic.
QUESTION: Egypt.
MS. PSAKI: Egypt, yes, sorry. Go ahead, Egypt.
QUESTION: Thank you. It goes without saying Egypt is an important country. What role are they, the Egyptians, currently playing in the fight against ISIS? What role do you expect them to continue to play in the future specifically?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Egypt certainly is, and obviously General Allen and Ambassador McGurk were meeting with Egyptian authorities just last week. One of the significant steps that the Egyptians have taken is to increase their military-to-military coordination and work with the Iraqi Security Forces. We think that’s an incredibly positive step. There’s also a voice that many authorities in Egypt can play effectively to speak out against the actions of ISIL, and that’s a discussion that we’ve been having with them, but also something they’ve already taken actions on.
QUESTION: And in terms of the issue that General Allen addressed about inclusiveness, is Egypt a good example to tout to the rest of the Middle East in terms of countering ISIS?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think there are concerns, as we’ve – and we express them, including yesterday, I did, about cracking down on protesters, freedom of the press. And we obviously put out an annual report in that regard, but that’s – there – we raise those issues when I’m talking about ISIL and speaking out against the brutality of a terrorist organization. There are a range of officials in Egypt who have spoken out against that, and we do think that’s effective and important.
QUESTION: Just a final follow-up, if I may. Now in terms of the repressive course that President Sisi is currently pursuing as has been described by at least two major U.S. newspapers following John Kerry’s visit to Egypt, their concern is that by pursuing that course, President Sisi is actually fanning terrorism in the region because he’s telling young people the only way to get empowered is the gun. Do you share those concerns?
MS. PSAKI: I addressed this question yesterday.
QUESTION: Could I --
MS. PSAKI: Any more on Egypt?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: A quick – yeah, I have a – on Egypt.
MS. PSAKI: On Egypt. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. I don’t know whether you clarified it or not, the confusion on the issue of the helicopters, the Apaches. There was – the Government of Egypt said that they received them. Apparently you said that they have not been delivered. Could you please clarify that for us? Have they received them, or --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think there should be any confusion. I think we announced a couple of weeks ago that they were being delivered.
QUESTION: So the statement by the Egyptian Government that they are in possession of the Apaches is true?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: We announced several weeks ago that we were delivering them, so --
QUESTION: Because there was this – the other day, I think, there was a statement saying that you had not delivered them yet.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we announced – I believe it was – let me finish, Said. I believe it was the end of August where we – when we announced that we would be delivering the Apaches. In terms of whether they were physically delivered, I think the Egyptians would certainly know that. But we announced that they were going to be delivered.
QUESTION: Jen?
QUESTION: Does the U.S. play --
MS. PSAKI: On Egypt?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: On Egypt. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. play any role to reconcile Egypt and Qatar, especially both of them are members of the coalition?
MS. PSAKI: Are we – well, I think I’d point you to the fact that there have been a range of meetings, including one the Secretary was in Jeddah when we were in New York at UNGA, where officials from both countries, including other countries where there have been disagreements about a range of issues, have stood together, sat at the same table, and talked about their agreement about the fight against ISIL. So certainly in that regard we’re working with all of them, but we encourage them to have dialogues with each other.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is there evidence that ISIS and its followers have surfaced in North Africa?
MS. PSAKI: I think James asked the question about Morocco yesterday. I have a little bit of something --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- on that. And somebody else asked this sort of a little bit earlier. There are a range of countries that obviously are a part of our coalition – some in northern Africa – that have concerns. Each country is certainly the expert on where this threat is posed as it relates to Morocco. Let me just pull up – what we’ve seen is that Moroccan authorities have taken legal, judicial, and law enforcement steps to stem the flow of Moroccans traveling to Syria and Iraq to volunteer as foreign fighters. Morocco has since at least July issued statements and alerts indicating concerns about the possibility of terrorist attacks and has a variety of security and law enforcement measures in place to prevent attacks.
So ISIL poses a threat to the broader region, our international partners, and the United States. And we have specifically – and they have specifically, I should say, ISIL has specifically threatened Morocco and other members of the anti-ISIL coalition. So – hence they’ve taken steps.
QUESTION: Well, what are you telling American interests abroad there, like businesses and citizens, about this particular threat from Morocco or just anything that you’ve seen from ISIS in that part of the region?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as we have information that we should provide to travelers or citizens in Morocco or any country in Northern Africa, we’ll certainly provide that. I’m sure we can get you the latest Travel Warning from Morocco if that’s helpful.
QUESTION: And on the Rewards for Justice program, why did you wait four years when they had been leaders of AQAP since --
MS. PSAKI: Elise asked a question about why now. I’m happy to check with our CT team --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- and see if there are some more specifics that we can get to all of you on that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Ebola.
MS. PSAKI: Ebola. Ebola. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Not a country, but – Jen, Secretary Kerry – I believe it was just a little over a week ago – made an impassioned what he called “urgent plea” for more help and made the point that the U.S. is lifting a lot of the burden in the fight. Has he been pleased with the response so far? I mean, has that plea led to any significant changes, more ponying up cash or help, that the U.S. has seen?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Margaret, I think, one, we’ll – we’re venturing to update our numbers that we put out last week as more countries contribute more. But certainly what the Secretary felt and President Obama felt as well was that it was important to raise public awareness of this issue internationally, and the fact that we do need more from the international community. So that has been a point of discussion.
Since, the Secretary also has made a range of calls to officials from around the world, including Japan, including South Korea, a range of countries about what role and what contributions they can play. But there is more that needs to be done, and no single UN agency, no single country or NGO can meet the rapidly increasing demands alone. So we will continue to raise this issue, and that’s why we did it last week.
QUESTION: And you’re putting out those numbers when?
MS. PSAKI: We’ll venture to update them, and we’ll see when we can complete that and get an update around to all of you.
QUESTION: You just mentioned Japan and South Korea. The Secretary himself mentioned China. Should we assume from that these three particularly wealthy countries are ones that you do not think are shouldering – are carrying their share of the burden?
MS. PSAKI: I actually didn’t mention it for that purpose at all. I just know that he had spoken with them recently.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: He’s been doing a range of calls with countries about what we’re doing.
QUESTION: But he’s not calling people who are – right. But he’s not calling out people who are already contributing and saying, “Thanks.” Has he made – I mean, maybe he is. Does he --
MS. PSAKI: He is calling – sure he is. He’s calling a range of countries to --
QUESTION: But is it --
MS. PSAKI: -- even who have contributed a great deal.
QUESTION: All right. But isn’t his – his priority isn’t calling up other countries to get them to do more?
MS. PSAKI: That’s part of it. But it’s also about updating on our efforts and what we’re seeing as the emerging threat and our tracking from here.
QUESTION: Also on this, there are calls that are growing on the Hill for travel bans, that kind of thing. I understand that the White House has already spoken to that saying no, you’re opposed to it. But apart from that, and this is a State Department issue, there are also calls for visa operations to be at least temporarily suspended in the most affected countries. I – you said before, I think earlier this week, that they’re still operating as normal. Is that going to continue? They will continue operating as normal? You don’t plan to reduce or even suspend visa issuance?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re constantly evaluating, Matt. So we’ll see if anything is – required to happen in the future. But the reason why is the same reason why our health officials have recommended against a travel ban and said it would be counter-productive. And that’s because affecting – or closing the borders, in the view of health officials, would make it much harder to stop the epidemic or preventing individuals from traveling.
QUESTION: But – well, but stop – if you halt visa issuance in these countries, it doesn’t stop anyone from going there to help and it doesn’t stop anyone who already has a visa from coming in. But it would prevent new people who are newly getting visas from leaving the country. And I’m not – so it’s a separate issue than closing off the border.
MS. PSAKI: I understand. There is no planned changes at this point in time that I’m aware of, Matt, to that. And we obviously work with health officials to determine what steps need to be taken and we constantly evaluate that.
QUESTION: Jen, a quick question on the Palestine-Israel issue.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Ebola question.
MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s finish Ebola.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: How much of this appeal or discussion that the Secretary’s having with countries on giving more money towards this is about new funding and not repackaging aid, taking away from money that’s already been allocated in these countries?
MS. PSAKI: A big part of it is about new funding and the need for more resources and more equipment and more personnel, and that’s certainly a part of the discussion he’s having.
But I think it’s important to note there are a range of countries that are helping. And just because he’s calling countries, it doesn’t mean it’s because they’re not helping. Oftentimes, they’re countries that have been very involved that have asked to stay abreast and updated on what we’re doing from here.
QUESTION: No, but a lot of people are helping, but a lot of them are repackaging the aid, including the EU. So that has become a huge concern within the development community about where the aid is coming from, because once you’ve got – you take from already committed aid, who’s going to pay for those projects in these countries, which have – you’ve got huge needs? So that --
MS. PSAKI: Yes. You’ve raised a valid point. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay, well, what’s your answer? (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Well, no, I think as I said before, I think obviously additional aid and more assistance and more equipment and personnel, we’re doing that from the United States. We feel this is a national security issue and one that many countries can do more to assist on.
QUESTION: And then can I just ask: Are you proposing that the money go into the UN Trust Fund? Or where is this – where is all this money going into? Because as far as I can see from a list of countries, only Colombia has actually – stumped up cash, about $100,000.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve