Climate, Environment, and Conservation: Daily Press Briefing - June 15, 2016

2:19 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Just a quick update on the Secretary’s travel. As I think you saw in the readout earlier today, the Secretary met in Oslo with his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Zarif, to discuss progress on the continuing implementation of the JCPOA, including issues related to banking and relief of nuclear-related sanctions. They also addressed the situation in Syria, where the Secretary stressed the need for full access for humanitarian and a nationwide cessation of hostilities. As always, the Secretary raised the status of Americans still missing or detained by Iran.

He also delivered remarks at the Oslo Forum – I think you’ve seen those remarks by now – and he meet with Norwegian King Harald V and the prime minister. He participated in a signing ceremony at the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Conference, and he attended a working dinner hosted by the Norwegian foreign minister. Tomorrow, I think you know the Secretary heads to Denmark where he will also have bilateral discussions with the Danish prime minister and the foreign minister.

With that, Brad.

QUESTION: I don’t really have a lead today, so I’ll yield.

MR KIRBY: You want to yield?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Can we start with Afghanistan?

MR KIRBY: With what?

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: There are sort of conflicting reports about how – well, maybe not conflicting, but there are reports that the British defense secretary told reporters that Secretary Carter told them that the question of whether or not to cut troops is under review, the U.S. troop commitment to Afghanistan is under review. The White House says there’s no timetable for making such a decision, and I’m trying to understand how the U.S. Government thinks it’s going to be possible to keep its NATO allies in the boat in Afghanistan if it is going to proceed with its plans to nearly halve its troop commitment by the end of the year, certainly by the end of the President’s term?

MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, you know I’m a little reluctant to get into military matters, so I’m not going to do that today. I’m not going to speculate about decisions one way or the other that the Commander-in-Chief hasn’t made, or recommendations, quite frankly, from his commander that haven’t yet been submitted, or at least decided upon as far as I know. All I can say is that we still remain committed to the mission. Certainly here at the State Department we continue to support the mission there in Afghanistan, which, as you know, is twofold. It’s got a counterterrorism element and then, of course, there is the advise and assist element for Afghan national security and defense forces.

So we’re very committed to that. The Secretary spoke to that very strong commitment when we were in Kabul not long ago at a press conference with President Ghani. And just as critically, we’re committed to a long-term strategic, even more normal, not just security-based, relationship with Afghanistan going forward.

What the troop presence looks like is really a matter between the commanders, the Defense Department leadership, and the Commander-in-Chief, and Secretary Kerry is not going to insert himself into that decision-making process.

Now, I understand that wasn’t exactly your question. Your question was really about NATO allies. And as I understand it, that the NATO foreign ministers reaffirmed back in May that the Resolute Support mission is going to continue beyond 2016; that they continue to look at force posture options that will support a flexible regional approach beyond this year; and of course, we support those deliberations. Obviously, it’s up to NATO to make these determinations themselves – each nation, each contribution nation.

Broadly speaking, we’re obviously mindful that many NATO countries remain keenly interested in the force posture decisions that we make. That’s been the case in the past as the numbers of U.S. troops fluctuated in Afghanistan over recent years. I have every expectation that that will remain the case going forward. We’re mindful of that. But ultimately, again, these are decisions that have to be made and have to be consulted in the defense lanes.

QUESTION: Are you getting complaints from your NATO allies about the President’s planned reduction?

MR KIRBY: I am not aware of any such complaints.

QUESTION: And why shouldn’t NATO countries all cut their troop commitments in Afghanistan nearly in half by the end of the year since you are doing the same? Why shouldn’t they do that? Is there any reason why they shouldn’t do that?

MR KIRBY: Well, these are sovereign decisions that each nation has to make. And not every nation – I mean, every nation contributes in their own unique way. And so it wouldn’t be for us to tell them how to manage force levels on this very important mission. What we have to do is look at it from our perspective and from the relationship that we want to have going forward with Afghanistan as well as our perspective as a NATO-contributing country. We are a member of NATO too, so we have to look at this from our commitment to the NATO mission, which obviously, as I just said, is very, very strong.

But these are sovereign decisions these nations have to make. We respect that and we understand that some of them may be on different timelines due to domestic concerns to make these decisions, and certainly we respect that.

QUESTION: Well, without telling them what to do, if every other nation that currently has troops in Afghanistan besides the United States cuts them in half by the end of the year, is that okay with you?

MR KIRBY: It’s – these are decisions for them to make and for the alliance to consider, not for the United States to pass judgment on. We are proud of the contributions that we have made unilaterally because we had for – until recently there was a U.S. presence or a U.S.-only mission. And obviously now we’re very focused on contributing to the NATO mission and we’re proud of our commitment and contributions to that NATO mission, a mission that we believe is important and which we have already said we’re going to continue to support.

But we also are mindful that every nation, every contributing nation, certainly every NATO nation, has got to make these decisions for themselves, and it’s not for us to pass judgment one way or the other.

As I said earlier, we have always recognized that many nations make their considerations based on knowledge of what the United States will do. We understand that. And we’ve always been mindful of that as these decisions have been made. But that doesn’t mean you rush to a judgment. General Nicholson is, as far as I know, still working through his review, and when he’s done with that it’ll get reviewed there in the Pentagon. It’ll be reviewed by the Commander-in-Chief and decisions will get made. And those decisions, just as importantly, will be communicated to our NATO allies so that they have a better understanding of what direction we’re going to go in, and then they can use that as they wish to inform their own decisions.

QUESTION: Absent word to the contrary from the White House, is it not fair to assume that the decision that the President announced last October still stands, that he’s going to 5,500 or so before he leaves office?

MR KIRBY: I have seen no – I have seen nothing that would indicate that the President has made any other decisions.

QUESTION: Change topic?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: Where do you want to go, Said?

QUESTION: Syria.

MR KIRBY: Syria? Let’s go to Syria.

QUESTION: Okay, very quickly to the statement that the Secretary made in Oslo. He said something – I’m paraphrasing – that we would not sit by, idly by, while one party breaks the so-called cessation of hostility and so on. So what is the message that is meant by that? What is step two then in this process once the whole issue collapses or the regime goes on, let’s say, the offensive?

MR KIRBY: I mean, look, Said, it’s been no secret – and we’ve talked about this – that we’ve been thinking through our options should the processes that we have labored so hard to put into place ultimately fail to stop – to help the international community bring peace to Syria. We’ve made no secret of that. And I’m not going to get into internal discussions or decision making, so I want to put that aside. But broadly speaking, beyond any options we might pursue, there’s going to be absolute, inescapable consequences for the region, for Russia, for Syria if the current track we’re on continues unabated.

QUESTION: When will you get – I mean, when will you recognize that you are – you hit the brick wall, so to speak, that there is nothing beyond this? When do you get to that point? What kind of marker do you have?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. And I don’t believe that there is a marker for that, Said. I think you’ve seen the energy and the effort that the Secretary has applied to this effort and that he continues to apply to this effort. And I think you’re going to see that – I think you’re going to see that going forward. But I don’t – I couldn’t put a date on the calendar for you. I couldn’t give you a list of metrics that would say, well, this is – this is how we know that we’re at the bitter end. It’s a Navy phrase, “the bitter end.”

QUESTION: Sure, yeah.

QUESTION: It’s not --

QUESTION: If everybody in the country dies or leaves, then it’s failed, right, because there’s nobody left in Syria?

MR KIRBY: All I --

QUESTION: There’s got to be a point where, like, you say this failed, otherwise --

MR KIRBY: I’m sure that there will be a point, Brad. I just can’t sit here and describe it for you right now and I wouldn’t try to.

QUESTION: Are you – my last question. Are you in discussion with the Russians on this very point, that you guys raised – that time is completely run out? Are you telling them, “We can’t sit idly by, we’ve got to take some action”?

MR KIRBY: I think I’d let the Secretary’s comments --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- speak for themselves. He said, “Our patience isn’t infinite here.”

QUESTION: I understand. But did you, let’s say, today, discuss this with the Russians?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Did he talk to his Russian counterpart, let’s say in the last 24 hours, conveying that message directly to him?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any calls with Foreign Minister Lavrov to read out.

QUESTION: John, on this --

QUESTION: Here’s a mike.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you. On this issue, when the Secretary said that our patience is not infinite, and in fact it’s very limited with whether or not Assad is going to be held accountable, what were you expecting from Russia to do to hold President Assad accountable?

MR KIRBY: The same thing that we have expected Russia to do for quite some time, which is to use their influence in a constructive way to help us bring an end to the conflict in Syria, to help us make sure that the cessation of hostility is fully adhered to by the regime all across the country, to help us ensure that humanitarian access can get to communities that are still in need, and to help us get the political talks back onto a track – a successful track – get the process moving towards political discussions between the regime and the opposition.

QUESTION: And since your patience got very limited, what are you planning to do? What are your options now?

MR KIRBY: I just answered that, I think, with Said. I said that it’s been no secret that we’ve been thinking through our options. If – if we get to a point where all the processes that we’ve worked to put in place with the international community fails to help us get success in Syria, we are – we still are as we must, it would be imprudent not to – I’m not going to discuss here at the podium internal discussions or decision making. I wouldn't – I think you can understand why that wouldn't be a prudent thing to do.

But beyond that, aside from that, there are very real consequences for Russia, obviously for Syria, for the region, but for Russia. More war in Syria, the attraction of more terrorist elements in Syria, the potential attraction of terrorist elements in Russia as the war continues to go on as well as a much worsening – potentially much worsening migration crisis, as Brad alluded to, with people just continuing to flow out of Syria looking for some kind of safety. Certainly, there’s going to be more pressure put on already pressurized refugee situations in Turkey and in Jordan, which all puts more pressure on the whole region.

So there are very real consequences for Russia and the region if they don’t start to use their influence in a productive way.

QUESTION: My last --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) --

QUESTION: Sorry, Brad. My last question is: Was the Secretary trying to draw a new redline for the Syrian regime, for Russia, for the international community?

MR KIRBY: I’m just going to let the Secretary’s comments speak for themselves. I think he was very open, very candid, very honest about his frustrations.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: The problem with saying your patience is not – it’s finite or not infinite or whatever – time is running out on this Administration. So if you have a year of patience, that doesn’t mean anything because you’ll be out of office by the time it runs out. So if you can’t define a point in time where you will have had enough, it doesn’t mean much because you’re not going to be around that much longer. Do you understand that that doesn’t carry much of a threat when you’re going to be out the door fairly soon?

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t – I just don’t – I’m not going to dispute the reality of the political calendar, Brad, but I don’t think that given the strong influence of American leadership and the strong capabilities that we have at our disposal – not just militarily – and given the real need and the desire for U.S. leadership in this process, I don’t think that we don’t have leverage. I don’t think it’s fair to say that just because the clock is ticking on the Administration, we still don’t have options available to us that are real, that can be consequential. And I don’t think that you’re going to see this Secretary of State in particular slowing down or ceasing to be as strident as possible as – on these issues just because --

QUESTION: Strident doesn’t --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- necessarily lead to a policy outcome. He can be as strident as he wishes, but the policy outcome has not – has – the – the – the --

MR KIRBY: Well, we – look, we can debate – we can debate that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, two weeks ago today --

QUESTION: Hold up. My point on patience was that if you say it’s not infinite, if – can you tell me at this point if this situation, as it currently stands, is the same on January 20th or 21st, 2017, there will have been a U.S. policy change? Because if you can’t say that, you can’t say that your policy – that your patience is finite.

MR KIRBY: If I can’t say that --

QUESTION: If you can’t say that this situation, if it stays all the way through to the end of the Obama Administration – stays the same – that you won’t have a policy difference, then you can’t talk about your patience ending.

MR KIRBY: Now, look, Brad, I --

QUESTION: You have – I mean, otherwise, it’s a hollow threat.

MR KIRBY: We don’t make hollow threats. It wasn’t a hollow threat. It wasn’t even a threat. The Secretary was simply expressing his frustration with the fact that the Russians have not used their influence in a manner which we know they can and have in the past to have the right effect.

I totally understand the line of questioning, and I can also appreciate that you would like me to be able to provide some clarity in terms of what exactly we’d be prepared to do on exactly what date or when you’re going to know, but --

QUESTION: I wasn’t even asking for what exactly. I was asking if anything different would happen between now – if this policy doesn’t – if the situation as it currently stands doesn’t change by the end of the Administration.

MR KIRBY: Well, the whole point is we don’t want it to stay the same. The whole point is we want the situation to get better and we’re still going to work towards that end. And even as we continue to push on processes which admittedly have struggled – the political talks, the cessation of hostilities, the humanitarian aid – the Secretary’s been extremely honest about the fact that all three of those are struggling right now and facing challenges and have failed in some places and at certain times.

But even as we continue to push on those, we are, as we must consider to – must consider other options that are available to us. And you know what? That discussion is ongoing and I wouldn’t want to say anything here from the podium that would close it down or bound it in in terms of timelines.

So I think, if I understand your question, you’re assuming that we’re just going to – that --

QUESTION: I’m not assuming. I’m asking if anything will change if the situation doesn’t change, if anything in policy – if there will be a policy response before the end of this Administration, if the situation as it currently stands today – because if you can’t say that, then you can’t say that your patience is finite.

MR KIRBY: I can tell you we are actively looking at options available to us if – as I said, if the processes that we’ve labored so hard to put in place ultimately fail, to help the international community bring peace into Syria. We are actively considering. But I’m not going to get ahead of that process.

QUESTION: Because then –

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Is there any different – wait, can I follow up on this? Is there any difference --

MR KIRBY: Guys, we’ll – guys, guys, hang on, hang on. Let --

QUESTION: Is there any difference to the active consideration of policy options if the current policy proves to be a failure now than, say, six months ago or a year?

MR KIRBY: It’s been --

QUESTION: Is there any qualitative difference or is this just part of the ongoing review of options that I think any prudent administration does?

MR KIRBY: I think everybody – everybody is – and you heard it in the Secretary’s voice today – everybody’s mindful that the situation is not on a good trajectory right now and that our frustrations are growing and are mounting.

QUESTION: But that doesn’t answer my question, which is whether there is a qualitative difference to the review of options now than a month or six months or 12 months or 18 months --

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to talk about internal discussions.

QUESTION: -- or 60 months.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into the details of internal discussions.

QUESTION: Okay. One other one. You guys said – and you talked about “We don’t make hollow threats,” but you made a commitment that as of June 1, you would support the immediate commencement of airdrops. It’s been – humanitarian airdrops if there wasn’t sufficient access. It’s been two weeks. Why hasn’t that happened?

MR KIRBY: We said that we would by June 1, if the humanitarian aid hadn’t gotten in, we would support the WFP exploring options for humanitarian airdrops. Nobody said that we expected airdrops to happen on June 1st.

QUESTION: I’m looking – I don’t think the word was “explore options,” and I will find the exact language.

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that we expected airdrops to begin on June 1st. In fact, I’m positive that I didn’t say that.

QUESTION: Right. But I’m not saying that you said that. But you did say that you would support --

MR KIRBY: The WFP moving forward with planning to do airdrops.

QUESTION: The word “immediate” was in there, whether it was – maybe it was --

MR KIRBY: Okay, well, let’s – let’s --

QUESTION: -- immediate planning. But it’s been two weeks. How finite or infinite does the patience of people who are starving have to be?

MR KIRBY: We all share the same sense of urgency, Arshad. And I can tell you that we’re all committed to trying to get humanitarian aid to the people in need. The best way to do that is through ground missions. And there have been several – not enough. Clearly not – nobody’s doing a victory lap here, but there have been additional ground support relief efforts in the last couple of weeks. And we continue to support the WFP in their potential planning for airdrops. As far as I know, the WFP has made some proposals, has been in communication with and has made proposals to the regime for airdrops. And I don’t believe that those proposals have gotten all the way through. But they have done the planning, they have submitted proposals, as well as they’ve worked with the regime on ground deliveries. And some of those ground deliveries have made it through.

QUESTION: John --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- on the calendar. Conversely --

MR KIRBY: One more point there. One more point there.

QUESTION: I want to finish – I got another question on this. Please, yeah.

MR KIRBY: The airdrops – because you had focused on the airdrops. The airdrops are the least efficient way of getting aid assistance – food, water, medicine – to people in need. The best way to do that is on the ground.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: And those – and there have been some convoys that have gotten --

QUESTION: Some.

MR KIRBY: -- through in the last couple of weeks.

QUESTION: Not adequate – correct? I mean, you yourself said it’s not adequate.

MR KIRBY: Not enough. Not enough.

QUESTION: So here’s what the exact statement said, from the May 17th ISSG statement: “Starting” – quote – “Starting June 1, if the UN is denied humanitarian access to any of the designated besieged areas, the ISSG calls on the World Food Program to immediately carry out a program for air bridges and airdrops for all areas in need,” close quote. Not options, not planning.

MR KIRBY: “Carry out a program.”

QUESTION: And “immediate.”

MR KIRBY: “Carry out a program.”

QUESTION: So that means what? Not actually delivering food to people?

MR KIRBY: It means coming up with a plan, Arshad. You can be as indignant as you want today, but it’s about conducting a program and putting something in place so that they can do this. And they did do that, Arshad. They did make proposals.

QUESTION: Carried out a program?

MR KIRBY: They submitted proposals and plans to the regime, and they have not gotten to a point where they have been able to carry it out. But there have been --

QUESTION: So submitting proposals to a regime is equivalent – to a regime that’s denying access on the ground – is equivalent to carrying out a program to begin immediate airdrops?

MR KIRBY: They did what they were supposed to do, which was to start to work on proposals, which they did.

QUESTION: You talked about stridence, right? But the issue is it doesn’t matter – your words don’t matter if you don’t carry through on them. And your words here were – if any ordinary person were to read this, it would imply that starting June 1 --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and here we’re two weeks beyond June 1 – that there would be air deliveries, right?

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And it hasn’t happened.

MR KIRBY: But there have been additional deliveries on the ground, hasn’t there?

QUESTION: Yes, I concede that.

MR KIRBY: Okay. So --

QUESTION: But not to all areas.

MR KIRBY: So since that statement was made --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- it’s fair to say that more people have gotten aid, probably more than would have had the pressure from that statement not been had.

QUESTION: That I don’t know.

QUESTION: But it said any aid, any humanitarian deliveries – I think.

MR KIRBY: In any event, there are additional ground deliveries. They are happening. That is the best way for this to happen. And who’s to say that the statement itself and the proposals put forth by the World Food Program to conduct airdrops didn’t in fact have some measure in helping induce the regime to allow additional ground deliveries to make it through.

QUESTION: In fact, there was like 17 convoys to 15 different places on the ground last week.

Let me ask you on the calendar --

MR KIRBY: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- on two things.

QUESTION: I mean, do we now praise countries for allowing starving people to get aid?

QUESTION: No, I’m not --

QUESTION: It’s just getting crazy.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I mean, you – it’s like praising somebody who didn’t beat their kids for four hours yesterday. I mean, it – the point is all people who are in need of aid should get aid. You shouldn’t get credit for allowing some people to get food.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t ask for credit.

QUESTION: But then why do you keep repeating the line that some aid is getting through as if that’s a virtue or something? That should be normality.

MR KIRBY: It’s better than – it is better than none happening, Brad. Look, we’re all – look, nobody’s saying it’s enough. I said it at the outset. It’s not enough. We don’t want to see anybody in need. We don’t want to see them barrel bombed or gassed either. But – and that’s why I think you heard some frustration in the Secretary’s voice today about this. But it is at least some progress. It’s not enough. Nobody’s saying we’re happy about it, nobody’s saying it’s okay, and this notion that just because there haven’t been airdrops that we’ve failed here or that we’re not – our stridency is not being heeded to I think is a false argument. Airdrops --

QUESTION: I think he was saying the rhetoric wasn’t matched by the action, which I thought was a pretty fair assessment.

MR KIRBY: What rhetoric?

QUESTION: The rhetoric that if any humanitarian aid is blocked, that you will proceed – you will call on the WFP to proceed with immediate airdrops.

MR KIRBY: Right, and up until – up until that time --

QUESTION: And that didn’t --

MR KIRBY: Up until that time --

QUESTION: That didn’t happen. Whether or not the pressure somehow had an auxiliary effect – I mean, that’s theory. I don’t know, but the action didn’t --

MR KIRBY: Up until that time there had been virtually none, and now there’s been several. Is it enough? No, but it’s an indisputable, mathematical fact that more aid on the ground is getting through now than was just two, three weeks ago, and we want to see that continue. We want to see it expand.

QUESTION: Quick follow-up on the refugees. You mentioned the refugees. Now, we’re – the calendar is also running out on the fiscal year, which is in October.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And so far something like 2,500 Syrian refugees have been allowed in as part of the 10,000. What is going on --

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry, what number did you give me?

QUESTION: About 2,500. I think you guys said that something like 2,500 refugees have been taken in.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think we’re actually up around near 4,000 now.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

QUESTION: 4,000?

QUESTION: -- it is likely to accelerate over the next few weeks?

MR KIRBY: I think you’re going to see – we take the goal very seriously and we’re working at this real hard. We’ve devoted more resources there in the region to it. The number is going up, and I would expect that you’re going to see that number continue to go up. We take the goal that the President set very seriously.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: I have some non-Syria questions --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- if we can. One, there was some to-do over the White House’s response to the NDAA draft from the Hill, particularly regarding Israeli missile defense figures.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I was wondering if you could explain why the U.S. or the Administration thought that the amount suggested was too much money for Israeli military defense.

MR KIRBY: Well, what – our view is is that the request to increase U.S. support by some $455 million above the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request is the largest such non-emergency increase ever and, if it’s funded, would consume a growing share of a shrinking U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s budget. So given that the funding for Israeli missile defense comes out of the same account as U.S. domestic missile defense systems – I’m sorry, defense programs – additional support for Israel means fewer resources that are available for critical U.S. programs at a time when the missile threat from North Korea, in particular, is increasing.

QUESTION: Why not just ask for more for the U.S. as well?

MR KIRBY: Again, we believe that the request made in the President’s budget was the appropriate amount to deal with the threat.

QUESTION: It was on a long sheet of complaints, so I realize it was one of several objections, but is that a vetoable – there was a veto threat in that statement. Is that something you would consider vetoing a NDAA over?

MR KIRBY: That is a question for the White House, not for the State Department.

QUESTION: And then separate from Israel, I wanted to ask, in Russia the St. Petersburg Economic Forum is taking place. In years past – well, at least in the last two years, I think – the U.S. has discouraged American companies from attending, but it seems like a growing list of American CEOs are returning, including, I think, the CEO of Exxon-Mobil is there. Is this something you think is okay now, or would you still discourage American CEOs from attending?

MR KIRBY: I think, first of all, our position hasn’t changed on this. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has continued since President Putin’s forum in St. Petersburg last year. And the U.S. Government will not attend on any level, and we’ve been very clear in our engagements with U.S. companies that we believe there are clear risks both economic and reputational associated with top-level engagement with a government that is flouting the most fundamental principles of international rule of law by intervening militarily in a neighboring country.

QUESTION: And just one follow-up. Given that a number of the sanctions on Russia related to oil and natural resource exploration, does this – does the idea of a major American energy company sending its top official undermine the sanctions, you think, in any way?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, again, we’ve communicated our policy on Russia to the U.S. business community in multiple fora. Ultimately, each company’s leadership needs to make its own decision. Most U.S. companies, however, recognize that attending this forum sends a poor message out there about the acceptability of Russia’s actions.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MR KIRBY: Huh?

QUESTION: Pakistan.

MR KIRBY: Let me go back here and then we’ll come up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Going to Japan. A Chinese naval vessel entered Japan’s territorial waters for the first time since 2004. What is your reaction, and do you have any concerns about this Chinese activity?

MR KIRBY: I’m going to refer you to Japanese authorities on this. This is really for them to speak to. I’ve seen the reports, but this is really something for the Japanese Government to speak to.

Nike.

QUESTION: Quickly on Russia, according to a Russian news report, a gay couple outside the U.S. embassy was – were arrested by Russian police when they were trying to lay the flowers and then lay the sign to express condolence after the Orlando shooting. My question is: Was any embassy staff or other officials informed about this incidence?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know the degree that we were informed. We’re certainly aware of this – of reports of this incident. We again call on Russia to uphold the fundamental freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. We also remain concerned by the treatment of LGBTI persons in Russia and we fundamentally disagree with the idea that diversity poses a threat to Russia or to any society. We believe diversity, of course, helps societies thrive. But I don’t know the degree to which our post was informed at the time or how they got informed. We are aware of these reports here in D.C.

QUESTION: Generally speaking, what is your assessment of Russia’s practice in protecting LGBTI rights? Because I note – I noted that during the Annual State Department Human Rights Report there are some tough words about it.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think the report speaks for itself. And I just said in my answer to you that we remain deeply concerned by the treatment of LGBTI people in Russia, and we fundamentally disagree with the idea that diversity poses a threat to that country or any country.

QUESTION: Another question on His Holiness Dalai Lama’s meeting in the White House. Do you know if any officials from this building attended that meeting?

MR KIRBY: I don’t believe they did. No, no. Said.

QUESTION: Can I move to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, and then I’ve got to go back to (inaudible).

QUESTION: Okay, very quickly, there was a statement by the French foreign minister yesterday where he said – where he suggested that the train has left the station. He was addressing the Israeli prime minister in terms of the process for an international conference. If this comes to pass, will you support it? I know you have spoken about this before, but since this has occurred and is a new statement --

MR KIRBY: I’m just not going to hypothesize one way or the other, Said.

QUESTION: All right. But will you support the French effort in that direction in any way?

MR KIRBY: The Secretary – look, he attended the meeting in Paris. He said he’s open to all ideas from all corners, anything that can get us to a two-state solution. I mean, he’s interested in listening to all ideas. But I’m not going to speculate one way or another about this conference.

QUESTION: Two quick follow-ups. The Israeli – or the Jerusalem city council approved the building of a new Jewish-only or for-Jews-only building in Silwan. It’s an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. I thought I had something in here. I would just say, look, our policy on settlements in East Jerusalem or the West Bank have not changed. Don’t find them to be conducive to getting to a two-state solution and to peace.

QUESTION: And lastly, the Israelis increasingly are banning or accusing people on Facebook and Twitter of incitement for any – whatever posts and so on, and increasing the administrative detentions of journalists and others. The last one was someone named Hassan Safadi yesterday; they renewed the administration detention. It is not something that you have addressed before, how – where you stand on administrative detention in these cases. So is that something that you’re aware of?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of this case, Said. But we’ve talked about this before. I just don’t have anything new to offer. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Do you consider that Israel, let’s say, pressuring Facebook or Twitter to delete posts or not to accept posts and so on --

MR KIRBY: Again, I just don’t have anything – I don’t have anything on those specific reports, Said. You’re getting me blind here.

QUESTION: But you do have – but you do have a position. You do have – it’s okay; bear with me, Brad.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: It’s all right. I bear with you all the time, so calm down, okay?

So you have a --

MR KIRBY: Boy, it’s feisty in here today.

QUESTION: No, I mean, it’s okay. Because he does that many times. So --

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those reports. I think our positions on --

QUESTION: I want to ask you on this: What is your position on this increasing censorship of any post by Palestinian children, kids, students and so on, where the Israelis accuse them for the least kind of statement of incitement? I want you – your position on this. Does this fall under free press or free expression?

MR KIRBY: Said, I am not familiar with the reports that you’re citing. But you know that we have been very clear about freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of people to express their views. We’ve been clear about that in places all over the world, and nothing’s going to change about our views on freedom of expression. I just don’t have – you’re catching me a little blind here.

QUESTION: Can you take the question?

MR KIRBY: I just don’t have anything on that. I’m happy to take the question and we’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have any fresh comment on the situation on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where the Pakistanis – the Pakistan military says it has fired heavy artillery and mortars at Afghan positions?

MR KIRBY: We’re concerned by the recent clashes at the Torkham crossing point between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know – we’ve gotten reports that casualties have been taken on both sides. We’re also concerned about reports of the presence of heavy weapons at the border. We continue to encourage the governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan to resolve their disagreements at the crossing point and to de-escalate tensions. As we’ve said many times, we think good relations between the two countries are key to the stability to the region.

QUESTION: One small follow-up on this. You said that you received reports of casualties on both sides. Are those – is it clear from your guidance whether those are new casualties as a result of today’s heavy artillery fire, or is it the casualties over the last several days?

MR KIRBY: As I understand it, it was in the last day or so.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But I’m – I don’t have a timeline of exactly how many or when. But this was recent, over the last 24 hours or so.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: John.

MR KIRBY: Nic. Take us out, Nic.

QUESTION: Very – it’s very rare that I ask a question about France, for obvious reasons. But I have to --

MR KIRBY: What would that reason be?

QUESTION: I don’t know; you guess. I’d like to know if there is a concern for the safety of American citizens, thousands and thousands of American citizens who live or who visit France, because of the combination of threats and violence, whether it’s related to terrorism, to social strikes, to violence around the soccer Euro championship.

MR KIRBY: There concern about --

QUESTION: About the safety of --

MR KIRBY: -- safety of U.S. citizens traveling overseas?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, we talked about this when we put out the most recent Travel Warning¹ for Europe. And I said at the time we absolutely don’t discourage American citizens from traveling overseas or to Europe this summer. There are amazing things to see and to do in Europe, and we encourage Americans to travel abroad and to see those things and to do those things, and to share with people around the world a little bit of our own values and characteristics. So we want Americans to continue to travel, particularly to Europe.

The reason we put the warning out was just so that – to make sure that – because we have an obligation, as we always say, to look after the safety and security of Americans overseas to the degree we can, to give them information to inform them as they make their travel decisions. And as the Secretary has said himself, we want people to go, but we certainly want them to be vigilant. We want them to be mindful of their surroundings and aware – self-aware – of what’s going on around them and who’s around them, and just like here in the United States, if they see something, to say something to authorities, because the threats are real. No question about that. They’re real there, they’re certainly real here at home.

But no, there’s no overarching concern here from the State Department’s perspective in terms of Americans traveling overseas.

QUESTION: And the violence of the recent days, whether it was in Marseille or in Paris, didn’t raise your concerns?

MR KIRBY: Obviously, we’re concerned when we see violence like that. We haven’t issued any new travel warnings, if that’s what you’re asking, but certainly we’re watching these events closely and we’re always concerned about violence overseas, particularly any violence that could put in danger American citizens. And like I said, we take our responsibilities seriously to that.

But just as critically, it is – it’s important not to put on hold everything in one’s life because of the potential threat of terrorism in any one particular place. If you do that, then they win. And just as critically, our citizens lose. They lose the opportunity to see and to be exposed to people and cultures and history, art, all over the world, and we don’t want to see that happen.

Great. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:02 p.m.)

1 A Travel Alert for Europe was issued on May 31, 2016.  There is no active Travel Warning for Europe.