ms. harf: hello, welcome to the briefing.i have a quick travel update at the top, and then i'm happy to get to your questions. asyou all now know, the secretary is in beirut, lebanon today meeting with a range of lebaneseofficials to discuss the impact of the syrian crisis on lebanon and other shared concernsas well. this - this is the first secretary visit in five years, and he will be goingback to paris this evening. tomorrow, he'll be following much of the president's schedulein paris. he will also be meeting with russian foreign minister lavrov. and i think that'sit. lara. question: great. thanks. so first off, justto follow up on that, he'll be meeting with
lavrov? what is the topic? ms. harf: i'm imagining they're going to bediscussing a range of topics, most importantly ukraine. question: ukraine. okay. so that's where iwanted to go. ms. harf: mm-hmm. question: i'm sure you've seen the reportsout of luhansk about the separatists overrunning two government bases there. i see that, inhis comments with president poroshenko today, president obama discussed additional assistancefor law enforcement, and - assuming that's a civilian law enforcement or police force,because he made the distinction between military
forces and civil - law enforcement? ms. harf: it's a little of both, i think.so let me just detail a little bit of it, and then we can -- question: great. ms. harf: -- go into that more. so the whitehouse, as you know, today announced $5 million in new security assistance. this new assistancewill go for night vision devices, body armor, and additional communications equipment. it'smy understanding that's going to the ministry of defense, actually. question: right.
ms. harf: and that, obviously, adds to whatwe've already given, which is 23 million in total, including the last 5 million. fifteenmillion has gone to the ministry of defense, and 8 million has gone to the state borderguard service. question: okay. he did make the distinctionbetween law enforcement and also military troops. he talked about the night vision gogglesfor the military forces. i'm just wondering if there's anything else that might be goingfor law enforcement forces in some of the eastern regions. ms. harf: i can check. i don't have any moreadditional details. i know they put out a fact sheet as well, but we can see if there'sanything else. and we continue to evaluate
requests from the government of ukraine. question: okay. what do you make of this newoffensive by the separatists? ms. harf: well, i would say a few points.look, the first is - and i have a little bit on this. just give me one second. we have- in addition to what you mentioned, noted that ukraine's operations in some of thoseregions you mentioned have also entered a new and more active phase. so we have saidall along that the ukrainians have shown remarkable restraint in the face of unacceptable russian-backedaggression, but that they do have a responsibility and a duty to protect their citizens. that'swhy you've seen us continue to support them, like some of the ways i just talked about.
so the situation on the ground is obviouslyfluid and fast-moving, but we have repeatedly throughout this called on the russians touse their influence with the separatists, to ask them to cease what they're doing, tostop taking government buildings, to stop their offensives. and have yet have not seenany movement in that area, but hope we will. question: are the ukraine forces still referringto this - or the government still referring to this as a counterterrorism operation, or-- ms. harf: i can check on the exact wordingthey're using. question: okay. i mean, i know there was somediscussion earlier about whether or not that was an appropriate term to use when we we'retalking about - i mean, whether or not they're
backed by russians, they're still ukrainecitizens, no? ms. harf: well, some of them. question: some of them at least. ms. harf: right. so some of them certainlyare ukrainian, some of them are from other places, as we've seen in the press. but look,in terms what word we use, i think that's less important, quite frankly, here than thefact that we've said the ukrainians have a responsibility and an obligation to protecttheir citizens, all of their citizens in all of their regions, including all of the partsof the east, and that the russians should use their influence with these groups, whateverwe want to call them, to pull back.
question: thank you. ms. harf: mm-hmm. anything else on ukraine? question: yes. ms. harf: yes, said. question: now, you are saying that you wantthe russians to use their influence with the separatists. the russians want you to useyour influence with the ukrainian government. they're saying that they should - you shoulduse your influence to stop attacks. ms. harf: that the ukrainian government shouldstop defending its own territory? question: okay. so --
ms. harf: see, that's a false logic on therussian part, though, said. question: okay. all right. so everything thatthe ukrainians are doing, i just want to understand your position correctly - everything thatthey are doing is actually self-defense, correct? ms. harf: they're - i mean, look, i mean,i don't want to use the term self-defense, but this is ukrainian territory that theyare defending -- question: they defend - right. ms. harf: -- from incursions from people thatare backed by another government, and in the case of crimea actually was annexed by anothergovernment. question: okay, so --
ms. harf: so it's not one-to-one. question: okay. you just preempted my nextquestion, which is they - what about crimea? does it fall under that? ukrainian? ms. harf: still part of ukraine. question: okay. now - and a quick follow-up:you're saying that they are - some of them are russians, suggesting that some or maybemany are not russian. do you have any percentage or breakdown? ms. harf: well, i said some are ukrainians. question: right. i'm saying, are some of them--
ms. harf: well, any percentages? i can checkwith our folks and see. i don't know if we have that kind of clarity. question: i mean, some of the ethnic russiansare ukrainian citizens; some are not. ms. harf: uh-huh. we've seen some chechensrecently. we've seen others. so -- question: okay, and that's my last question.are you - because the charge was made last week that some chechen fighters were beingsort of ferried by the russians across the border to go and fight in crimea. do you haveany more details on that? ms. harf: well, i mean, without a doubt, wehave seen the numerous reports now that armed chechen fighters have traveled from russia,particularly to donetsk, to support the russian-backed
separatists. how they get there i think we'restill looking for more details on, but there's no question that we've seen some go there.and i don't have more details for you on that right now. question: so marie -- ms. harf: yeah. question: -- the u.s. isn't concerned thatsome of the actions by the ukrainian forces, particularly in places like luhansk, are excessive?we see numbers of deaths on the part on the sides of the rebels. you're not worried thatsome of that is excessive actions? ms. harf: so i think i'd make three pointshere. the first is that in any armed conflict,
there are going to be casualties on each side,right? here, we have not seen any credible reports of things like human rights violationsby the ukrainian government. there are a variety of reports out there. obviously, it takessome time to run these down on the ground. i don't want to rule it out completely, butwe as of this point haven't seen credible reports of the kind of human rights violationsor things like you mentioned. question: yes, please. ukraine? ms. harf: uh-huh. question: i mean, at a certain point it wasan issue raised about - that ukraine is going to be - is at the edge of a civil war. youstill looking that way, or just --
ms. harf: we don't look at it that way, becausea civil war would imply that there are factions inside a country fighting each other. thisis a situation where you have a country with an outside force that's doing - that's encouragingthe fighting in some cases, like in crimea, annexing it themselves, so that's not a civilwar; that's another country messing around in its neighbor's internal politics, whichjust a different thing. question: and one of the things that you werepushing with the ukrainian government, or at least we call it the government of kyivat that point, you - the issue -- inclusiveness of the separatists or the pro-russianentities, whatever, it was - it is still push this issue or --
ms. harf: are you talking about the constitutionalreform process? ms. harf: okay. question: that - the term that you are using. ms. harf: uh-huh. yeah. so obviously, they'vesaid they're committed to that. president-elect poroshenko, who the president met with today- secretary kerry did as well - these are things that he is going to, as he moves forwardwith his government, will be dealing with. they've said they're committed to it. question: so the -- ms. harf: and we do believe it's an importantprocess.
question: what's your understanding of whatare the main challenges now facing ukraine? is the separatist movement or the economiccrisis or the presence of russian troops at the borders, or it's not there anymore? ms. harf: well, on the russian troops, we'vesaid they've been slowly moving back from the border, so obviously we believe they needto move quickly. but we have noted, in terms of the troops on the border, that they havebeen - many of them have moved, many of them have made preparations to move. they are movingslowly, but they're working on that. president-elect poroshenko himself announced,i think, right after his election, that his number one priority after taking office willbe to restore order in eastern ukraine by
increasing dialogue with citizens of thatregion, traveling to the area soon after his inauguration, and increasing the transparencyof the ongoing constitutional reform process. so i think there are a couple challenges,right? ukraine is coming out of a time when it had a leadership that stripped its citizensof money and rights and ways to choose their own government, and that's why you saw theukrainians come out and say that's not okay and we want a new government. so they have some economic challenges, certainly,which is why we've said we think it's important to support them economically. there is a hugesecurity challenge, too, and i think president-elect poroshenko is focused on that.
question: marie -- question: marie, how do you differentiatebetween this not being seen as a civil war in ukraine, even though, as you just said,there are some ukraine separatists - some of the separatists are at least are ukrainianfighting against their government - and a situation like syria, which i think the statedepartment, the administration -- question: -- everybody acknowledges is a civilwar -- ms. harf: there wasn't -- question: -- when there are also outside forces? ms. harf: that's true. the difference, i wouldsay, is in ukraine there was no violence before
outside forces intervened. so in syria, youhad a situation where the government - syrians rose up. question: except in, like, maidan and placeslike that. ms. harf: but there - that wasn't civil war-levelviolence, no. that was internal - it was things like we've seen elsewhere around the arabworld, for example. it was people rising up against their government. the government crackeddown, and eventually the government fled. that's not - we wouldn't term that a civilwar. in syria, when we started calling it a civilwar, right, is when you had this local opposition rise up against the government, the governmentputs them down, and the armed opposition emerges,
and there truly is a syrian-on-syrian civilwar raging throughout all of syria, basically. and in ukraine, there was no military-to-militarylevel or style of violence. i mean, what happened on the maidan was an uprising and the governmentputting it down violently. question: okay, but couldn't you also arguethat -- ms. harf: there was no large-scale violencelike we've seen until the russians started messing around there. question: okay, but you could - one, i guess,could also argue that so much - so many regions of ukraine at this point are fighting. ms. harf: a majority of ukraine is still completelycalm and violence-free - completely calm and
violence-free. that's why you saw with theelections a large, vast majority of the country go ahead to vote totally peacefully and freely. so i - actually, in terms of where the fighting'soccurring, it really is in a very limited area, which again -- question: but that would - that could alsoinclude crimea, could it not? ms. harf: right. still very limited. but again,there was no violent - i mean, you can talk about the violence in the square, but that'sa different kind of violence than we talk about with a civil war and that we talk aboutwith what we've seen in ukraine. question: the upcoming talks between secretarykerry and foreign minister lavrov.
ms. harf: yes. question: are you hoping that there may besome kind of way of resolving this? we've seen some troops move back - not all of them- but some move - troops move back from the eastern borders - two-thirds, you said. iwonder if you sort of see that there's some chink, some possibility of an opening? ms. harf: i mean, we hope so, right? i don'twant to get ahead of a meeting that hasn't happened or be overly optimistic. we obviouslyhave always said there was a diplomatic off-ramp here, and that that's why we were going tokeep talking with the russians. and if we can make some progress tomorrow, that wouldbe great.
question: what would constitute progress foryou? ms. harf: i think we'll wait and see. question: are there any carrots being offeredin these talks? is the secretary going to come offer some kind of - i don't know -- ms. harf: well -- question: -- olive branch or opening or -- ms. harf: i don't have anything to previewspecifically about what he'll say. but what we've said, broadly speaking, is that we haveput a lot of pressure on the russian economy, and that pressure will increase if we don'tsee changes. and so i think the russians know
that they have a choice to make to continuewith the actions and have more pressure, or to do the opposite. question: so you're talking about there couldbe an easing of the sanctions on the table if certain actions are taken by moscow? ms. harf: well, i think i was probably sayingthe opposite: that if certain actions aren't taken, there will be more sanctions. question: more sanctions. ms. harf: but no, i haven't heard anyone talkingabout easing of sanctions. but again, like, that's - eventually we would like to get toa place where we could do something like that.
but we haven't seen any indication that willbe possible. question: so is it purely coincidental, then,today that germany's just come out - warned again of - warned that there could be toughersanctions against russia? ms. harf: we've certainly been linked up withthe eu. i know people think we haven't been, but we've been linked up with the eu and allthe countries quite closely on this, and it's not coincidental. look, i think we're alltalking about the fact that there could be more. ms. harf: yeah. ukraine? question: change of subject.
question: afghanistan. have you seen the videoreleased by the taliban? ms. harf: i have. question: (inaudible.) ms. harf: mm-hmm. and you would like a comment? ms. harf: or a question? besides have i seenit? i think i'd probably refer you to the statement by my colleague at the pentagon,admiral kirby, who said we're aware of the video allegedly released by the taliban showingthe transfer. we have no reason to doubt the video's authenticity, but obviously they arereviewing it. regardless, we know the transfer was peaceful and successful. our focus, ofcourse, remains on getting sergeant bergdahl
the care he needs. i think dod - if they haveanything else to say, i'd point you there. question: but did you know in advance thatthe taliban had done a video recording of that? was there any -- ms. harf: i was not aware of that. i'm happyto check with my dod colleagues. question: was there any understanding betweenthe u.s. and the taliban that this process would be video recorded, or -- ms. harf: well again, we weren't negotiatingdirectly with the taliban. qatar was. i don't have any details on that topic. i'm happyto look into it further. question: can i follow up on that?
question: did any u.s. officials ever meetany members of the taliban in connection with the possibility of mr. bergdahl's release? ms. harf: over the five years? question: correct. ms. harf: i will have to check, arshad. idon't know. question: i'm pretty sure that - okay. pleasedo. ms. harf: do you mean one on one, or withother people in the - or just at all? question: at all. ms. harf: okay. i'll - i would need to check.
question: okay. because - and just so we'reclear, my follow-up is if it proves to be the case that there were actually meetings,then there is then the question of why any such meeting in connection with the possibilityof mr. bergdahl's release might not be construed as a negotiation. ms. harf: okay. i'm happy to check. ms. harf: and there have - as you know now- been multiple sort of phases in this discussion about his release, so i just don't have allthe history. i'm happy to check. question: marie, would you like to -- ms. harf: wait, let me go - go ahead, said.and then --
question: go, jo. i defer. question: oh, i just -- ms. harf: we're all so polite today. question: very polite today. i just wondered if you had any concerns aboutthe release of this video. is it being used by the taliban as some kind of propagandavalue? i mean, they had - they blasted across it, "don't return to afghanistan again. nexttime, nobody will release you," and they call it a ceremony for the handover of the soldier. ms. harf: look, i think what we were focusedon here is getting this american soldier home.
again, i think there might've been some confusionyesterday that the - how he ended up in taliban captivity is wholly unrelated to whether ornot we should've brought him home, and i think the army and military leadership has spoketo that quite eloquently. so we've been very clear about our feelingson the taliban. the united states military has been very clear about the lengths theywill go to take action against the taliban. we've seen that. so i don't think anyone shouldbe confused or in doubt about the united states military's willingness to go after the talibanbased on this. question: yeah, that wasn't - thank you, butthat wasn't really quite my question. ms. harf: so i mean i don't think --
question: my question is whether it has propagandavalue for the taliban. ms. harf: i don't want to venture to analyzethat. i think - i was trying to put it in the broader context of our activities againstthe taliban, that it's a video of us getting an american soldier home. and that's importantto us, and i think that is an important thing for the united states to say that we do nomatter how they go missing, and i think on our - that's how i would view it, at least. question: it - was it just a status -- ms. harf: wait, wait, hold on. said and thenlucas. said. question: on the question of whether it (inaudible)--
ms. harf: okay, wait -- question: -- whether it was propaganda. ms. harf: lucas, go ahead. yes. question: on the question of whether this-- ms. harf: there's time for all of them. goahead. question: didn't you say he was - we werebeing very polite today? ms. harf: i know. go ahead, lucas. (laughter.) question: on the question of if this is apropaganda video, this video is propaganda for the taliban - would you say it's justa status update on facebook?
ms. harf: i have no idea why - i will notventure to guess why the taliban does things or why they release videos. as i said, what'sbeen important to us throughout this whole process is his health and safety, which, asyou know, is why we had to move very quickly. determining the facts now, which we just don'tknow and which is very important to the army - you've heard other people speak about itnow today - not prejudging what those are. and look, if the facts lead one way, therewill be consequences, of course. but what we're focused on now really is his health. question: said, do you have a question? question: yeah, i have --
question: and then we'll go back to lucas.(laughter.) question: the broader -- ms. harf: look at how polite everyone is. question: -- you mentioned the broader context. question: would you like to see this, in thebroader context, lead to some sort of a negotiation with the taliban where the united states canachieve some sort of a sofa agreement where the border with pakistan - you can negotiatewith the haqqani network and the border in pakistan is more secure? would you like tosee that? ms. harf: that was just, like, 15 hypotheticalsin one.
question: well, i don't know. okay. ms. harf: i think - no, but more broadly speaking,said -- question: it's a good place to ask hypotheticals. ms. harf: -- more broadly speaking, what we'vesaid is if this could lead to progress on the reconciliation front -- ms. harf: -- that would be good. i don't wantto get too far ahead of this now because it's a really tough challenge, right? we need thereto be an afghan-led reconciliation process where they talk about their future and theytalk to each other about what would happen next. i don't think i have much more analysisto do about what possibly could come from
this. the president very clearly outlinedthe future of the united states in afghanistan several times over the past few years, mostrecently, of course, in his announcement last week about our troop numbers and what ourpresence will look like there. so i think we've been very clear about the role we'regoing to be playing. question: so it is possible that this is notjust an isolated negotiation for exchanging prisoners incident? ms. harf: well, this was an isolated negotiationabout the exchange of prisoners. but if it could lead to progress on reconciliation,which we've said is very important, then obviously that would be a good thing. we don't knowif it will, but if it could, that would be
good. yes, going back to lucas. question: former secretary clinton has spokenout -- question: i've got one on afghanistan. ms. harf: i think this is about afghanistan. question: yeah, this is - oh - this is - oh,yeah. we're in afghanistan still. question: sorry. ms. harf: we're just staying on afghanistantoday. question: (inaudible) benghazi.
question: no, no, no, we're not going to benghazi. ms. harf: (laughter.) go ahead, lucas. question: on the bergdahl case -- question: -- former secretary clinton hasspoken out, calling it one of the hard choices that top policymakers are often called uponto make. as we all know, this concept of a prisoner swap was first broached with thecongress in late 2011, early 2012. what view of the idea did secretary clinton take atthe time and when she was serving in the president's cabinet? ms. harf: i think i'd probably refer you toher to speak - i think she's spoken about
it now, and if she has anything else to say,i'm sure she'd be happy to provide it. question: published reports from then andnow state that secretary clinton opposed the idea of a prisoner swap. are those reportsinaccurate? ms. harf: i'm - i know there are a varietyof reports out there, and i know that one thing we said very clearly recently is thatwhile we've been talking about this for a long time, the situation has continued toevolve; his health, we believe, continued to get worse; and the decisions we made noware not identical to the conversations that we've been having for years, just broadlyspeaking. so again, i'm happy to see if there's more from her time here or more that she'dlike to add, but she's right. it's a tough
choice. i think what you've seen is completeunanimity throughout the administration, both throughout the last six - or five years he'sbeen a captive, that we need to do everything we can to bring him home and what that lookslike. and even some members of congress, who were today criticizing us, have been on therecord saying we'll do everything to bring him home, including prisoner swaps. so i think she's right that it's a hard choiceand the choices we had in the last week were different than the discussions we were havingtwo years ago. question: at the time this - the idea wasbroached, what involvement was there in the intra-agency process from the state department?
ms. harf: broached in terms of what? when? question: did the department's lawyers providelegal opinions? did inl provide assessments? ms. harf: when are you referring to? sorry. question: in 2011, 2012, any time during secretaryclinton's term. ms. harf: i'm happy to check on what occurredpreviously. i'm obviously most familiar with what's happened over the past few weeks. buti'm happy to check if there's more detail. question: yes, please. question: i have just one more. question: you might not - i don't know ifyou know about this, because i've just been
pinged it myself, but apparently -- ms. harf: i love these. question: -- yeah, me too - there's some breakingnews. there's another video which shows this young american couple who disappeared in afghanistana few years ago. apparently they're appealing for help. do you know -- ms. harf: do you have a name? question: i can't remember their name. youmight -- question: i know more about this. it's - idon't know the name, i will get it for you, but it's a canadian man and his wife who'sfrom pennsylvania. they're a young couple.
the video shows her in an abaya with a hijaband they're being held. ms. harf: private citizens? question: yes. civilians. ms. harf: obviously, we have no greater prioritythan the protection of american citizens overseas. i'm not familiar with this, and obviously,there are always privacy concerns. i'll check on it, though. question: she was apparently pregnant, i think,when they disappeared -- ms. harf: okay. i'm happy -- ms. harf: i'm happy to check. i know thereare some privacy concerns, so let me just
check. question: okay. thank you. question: but are there privacy concerns evenif they have identified themselves? ms. harf: i'd have to check on the specifics. question: okay. because the video shows themsaying, my name is x, y. ms. harf: okay, i'll check. question: thanks. ms. harf: yeah, i'll check. question: back to secretary clinton real quick.
question: just in general, was this the onlyoption, the prisoner swap? ms. harf: compared to what? question: well, fox news' catherine herridgeis now reporting that this prisoner swap - that this was the second option, this was not theonly option, that they had pursued another plan in december 2013. ms. harf: i'm happy to check on the details.obviously, if there were other things considered - i think, broadly speaking, we've consideredall options to get him back. this was judged to be - again, recently, we believe as generaldempsey said, this was the best, probably last chance to get him home. this was whatwe undertook in order to get him home. as
we've said very publicly, we've been talkingfor a long time about a potential prisoner swap and what that might look like. i'm surewe looked at a range of options, but again, as - i will refer to general dempsey's commentthat this was the best opportunity to get him home. question: so cash payments were discussed? ms. harf: i can check on that. i don't know,lucas. question: and were you - was the united statesgovernment negotiating with the pakistani government? ms. harf: negotiating with the - were they- i'm happy to check on those details. again,
i'm most familiar with the recent historyhere, but i'm happy to dig a little deeper. question: on afghanistan -- question: to go back to what (inaudible) justsent to me. (laughter.) ms. harf: see, i wish i could have my phoneup here because i feel like i'm at a disadvantage. you all have your phones. question: and i need to pay tribute. it'san ap story, ap. (laughter.) ms. harf: i need to, like, be able to phonea friend. yes. question: it's caitlin coleman and joshuaboyle. ms. harf: okay, yes. so again, as in thesegeneral types of cases, strive to remain in
contact with the u.s. citizen's family, provideappropriate consular access. about this case, because of privacy considerations, cannotprovide additional details. question: just one afghanistan? question: so yesterday you said you had avery short window of time for the prisoner swap. question: and today you are saying that youhad the best and the last opportunity. did the taliban give you a deadline for -- ms. harf: i don't have more details for youon the discussion - internal discussions between the government of qatar and the taliban.
question: and exactly where this happened?was it around - along the pakistan border in afghanistan? ms. harf: i'm happy to check if there's moredetail we can provide on that. question: and did the u.s. also video recordand took pictures of -- ms. harf: not to my knowledge. i'm happy tocheck. question: because the video didn't see - idon't see anything in the video that -- ms. harf: i'm happy to check. question: was it a risky operation, do youbelieve? ms. harf: was it a - i mean, look, every time- everything we do here in this part of the
world entails some risk, absolutely. but wehad, through our discussions with the government of qatar, come to an understanding about howthis would occur. obviously, there is always risk, but thankfully, this transfer went forwardpeacefully. question: but did you take any backup precaution?because we see taliban fire fighters all around ms. harf: i think the united states militaryalways takes a lot of backup precautions, i would venture to guess. question: just to complete the idea of thiscontact with taliban, is taliban in any way part of the afghanistan equation? ms. harf: absolutely. they're a huge powerplayer there.
question: and do you have something for it,or because you - the reason i'm asking: it was 2012, i think, there was an office oftaliban opened in qatar. ms. harf: uh-huh, yes. question: and i don't know - i mean, i thinkthat it was not even - i mean, it was - if not welcome -- ms. harf: briefly open. question: yeah. ms. harf: uh-huh. well, in terms of that,the taliban did suspend direct talks in 2012, and we have not resumed them. as you mentioned,that office was/is still based in qatar. nothing
to update you in terms of that. they remainsuspended. question: but this office was to contact otherafghanis or contact you? ms. harf: i think it was to be part of thereconciliation process, which of course we've said needs to really be afghans talking toafghans, but we obviously play - have some role here. question: marie? ms. harf: afghanistan? question: new topic? ms. harf: anything else on afghanistan?
question: one more time: can you confirm thatcash options were considered in exchange for bergdahl? ms. harf: i don't know, lucas. i'm happy tocheck and see if there are other options that were considered and if we can confirm them.i just don't know. question: but you can't deny that cash paymentswere discussed? ms. harf: but i can't confirm - i just - ican't confirm it, so it's not that i'm not denying it. it's that i don't know if it'strue or not. yeah. question: i have a legal question on -- ms. harf: my favorite.
question: well, it's just - it's very general,but it relates to this. when people are saying the u.s. does not negotiate with terroristgroups, is that statute or is that general policy? and -- ms. harf: well, our line is that we don'tmake concessions -- question: that's what i was about to ask you. ms. harf: -- which is different. i mean, that'sthe - you're quoting it colloquial. that's actually not what you'll hear us say fromthe podium (inaudible). question: okay. and how do you define thedifference? ms. harf: how do we define the difference?well, i --
question: between making concessions and negotiating. ms. harf: i think it's clear that we don'tmake concessions to terrorists. and that's a judgment, right, that we don't - i think- i don't know. i think those words, using matt, i think are fairly well defined. ms. harf: no. it is consistent absolutelywith what's happened in previous wars, including was something like around 500 americans for1,200 north vietnamese. so again, this has a long history in the united states of prisonerswaps. question: but it allows you to keep - to hewto your policy just by how you define the word "concession."
ms. harf: no. well, and let's talk about thesefive a little bit, because i think it might be helpful. all of these five were eligiblefor review by the periodic review board of guantanamo bay. so there are three bucketsof people in guantanamo that remain. there are those who are approved for transfer. that's78. there are about 30 who have been referred for prosecution in some way. these five arein that middle bucket and were unlikely - might have been, but unlikely - to be added to thegroup that was going to be referred for prosecution. so it is quite likely that eventually, inline with our commitment to close guantanamo bay, they would be transferred. now, i'm doing some hypotheticals and goingout a little bit here, but i think it's important
to remember who these five were, what likelywould have ended up happening to them. so let's say it was important for us to get sergeantbergdahl home. let's say these guys may have eventually been transferred somewhere anyways.i think many of us would make the argument - i would make it - that we should get somethingfor them. question: marie, so not making concessionsdoes not preclude negotiating. is that what you're saying? ms. harf: i'm saying our policy is not tomake concessions to terrorists. question: i'm trying to understand, becausethis is the first i hear this. so suppose someone hijacks a plane and demands an houron television, for instance.
ms. harf: we don't make concessions to terrorists. question: that would be a concession. butto negotiate exchange of prisoners is different? ms. harf: but again, this was an exchangeof prisoners in war. question: right, okay. ms. harf: right? let's be clear about that.operating under -- question: (inaudible) legitimizes the talibanto take prisoners of war, and now we're doing this exchange with the taliban? ms. harf: it's - well, i don't know what youmean by legitimizing. we have an authorization for the use of military force in afghanistanpartly because of - in large part because
of the taliban. so we are operating underan aumf, congressionally approved aumf. we are at war in afghanistan. the taliban washolding captive in a war zone our soldier. so operating under the long-established prisonerswaps that we've done - yes? question: yet all of the detainees in guantanamowere specifically referred to as detainees and enemy combatants -- question: -- and not prisoners of war. ms. harf: and we talked about this a littlebit yesterday that it's the underlying principle that we exchange prisoners in war - whateverterm we use for them, right? it's not a technical term; it is a concept that these are prisonerswe have taken during wartime, factually.
question: well, detainees. i mean, every administrationsince 2001 - or i guess the two administrations since we opened guantanamo - has made it very- i mean, have parsed it out to -- ms. harf: uh-huh. i understand that. question: -- ad nauseum that these are notprisoners, these are detainees. ms. harf: right. question: you're not calling them prisonersof war. you've changed your language today and called them prisoners in war. ms. harf: i am not - right. i'm not changingthe technical definition of what we call people incarcerated in guantanamo bay. i'm not changingthat in any way, nor was this decision changing
that in any way, period. and these five detaineeswent through the routine process we do for all guantanamo detainees before they are transferredin terms of the mitigation to the threat, undertaking a review to make sure we are sufficientlyassured that we've mitigated the threat as much as we can. we can never mitigate it 100percent. and again, that's why i gave a little of thebackstory on what's happening to the rest of these prisoners at guantanamo bay and who'sslated for what. it was also, i think, important to remember that these five were taken andbrought to guantanamo very, very early on in the war in afghanistan. it doesn't meanthey're not bad guys, but it's important for context to remember who these guys are incomparison. they weren't, for example, on
the list of about 30 that have been referredfor prosecution. question: right. these are guys who were sweptup on the battlefield -- ms. harf: mm-hmm. very early on. question: -- and they were combatants. ms. harf: very early on. question: so let me ask this: i'm sure thisis the case or i assume this is the case, but i just want to make sure. these five whowere released, were they - did the taliban specifically by name ask for these five, ordid the administration pick these five? ms. harf: i'm not probably going to go intomore details about the back-and-forth negotiations.
this was the agreement we ended up comingto. question: because it begs the question whetheror not some of them could have come from the 78 who have already been cleared for transfer. ms. harf: none of them were in the 78 alreadycleared for transfer. they were all in this middle - and so everyone who's not clearedfor transfer already or has been referred for prosecution is eligible for review bythe periodic review board. question: correct. no, maybe i should be moreclear. question: i mean, if given the choice, i assumethe administration would have picked five people who had already been cleared for transferwho have already been deemed not a threat
to -- ms. harf: i think we wanted - given the choice,we wanted to find an acceptable agreement where we could get our soldier back and feellike we sufficiently mitigated the risk for whoever we transfer. question: so can i just ask -- question: -- you're making the argument thatyou should get something for these people, for these -- ms. harf: i'm making the argument that if- if, and this is an if - i'm breaking my own rule - they someday were eventually goingto be transferred, then if we could get something
for them now, that is, of course, somethingthat i think most people would agree with. but that - to be fair, the broader contextabout why this decision was made was because we felt like, again, we had a short-time windowwith bergdahl -- question: sure. ms. harf: his health was declining. we neededto get him home and wanted to get him home, and that the secretary of defense had made,based on the interagency assessment we do when any - whenever a gitmo detainee is transferred,had made the assessment that we had sufficiently mitigated the risk and it was in our nationalsecurity interest to make this prisoner swap. question: yeah, okay. i understand that.
question: but i'm just wondering more broadlynow, does that mean that the others who are eligible for review or approved for transferwho remain in guantanamo are now american bargaining chips? ms. harf: well, there's no -- question: in other situations. ms. harf: well, there's no other americanpows in afghanistan being held by the taliban. question: no, but i mean there are other situationswhere there are americans being held. does that mean - i mean, i just think -- ms. harf: i mean not --
question: -- that their lawyers might havean issue with that if -- ms. harf: not - again, i'm not saying it'sa bargaining chip per se. i'm trying to put these five - i think people have - there'sbeen a little confusion out there about who they are and what was eventually going tohappen to them. i was trying to put that into the broader context. question: but you said that the argument wasthat we should get something for them, which means equally the argument could be made -- ms. harf: no. question: -- for all those others.
ms. harf: that's not -- question: it could be made. i'm not sayingit's going to be made. ms. harf: right. and i think every situationis different. we have a broad goal of closing guantanamo bay. if we can charge people, wewill. when we can approve people for transfer through this interagency process, we'll dothat because we do at the end of the day want to close guantanamo bay. we had one americansoldier who's been a - who's a pow in afghanistan, so this is an incredibly unique situation,i would say, and wouldn't compare it to any other detainees. and i wasn't trying to seta precedent. i was just - i think people have had a little confusion about eventually whatwas going to happen to these five at the end
of this. question: marie, a follow-up question to arshad's:how do you define concessions? ms. harf: i'm happy to see if there's a legaldefinition for you. question: and marie, critics are - have saidthat this is a very bad deal, that these weren't just five guys swept up on the battlefieldin 2002, they were high-ranking taliban officials, direct ties to al-qaida, it was essentiallythe taliban's war cabinet - how is this a good deal? ms. harf: well, first of all, our americanpow is home and he's going to be reunited with his family. so i think by any measure,that's something that's good.
question: most would -- ms. harf: second -- question: most would argue that an allegeddeserter, outside of him being reunited with his family, that was not a good deal. ms. harf: i don't think most would argue that,lucas. i think you can look at what - first of all - well, i think you can look at whatmilitary leadership has said. regardless of how he went missing, it is our duty to bringhim home regardless. and i would trust our military leadership, chairman dempsey, thesecretary of the army mchugh, and others who have spoken to this, secretary hagel. so that'sa separate conversation. they are doing an
investigation now to determine the facts. and i'm not saying we don't believe anyonethat's come out. i think there's been some confusion about this, too. i'm not sayingthat we - certainly we at the state department aren't doing the investigation, but peoplewho are looking at it need to get all the facts. they will look at a variety of sourcesto get them. if there's been misconduct, chairman dempsey was clear there will be consequences. question: in 2010 the pentagon did conductan investigation and concluded that sergeant bergdahl walked off the cop. ms. harf: i think you're misrepresenting that.first of all, dod can probably speak more
clearly to that. but again, in 2010 we didn'thave all the facts. many more facts have emerged since then, including now the person at thecenter of this. question: so if you didn't have all the facts,why did you agree to this deal? ms. harf: i'm sorry? question: you didn't have all the facts when-- ms. harf: because as i said, the facts ofhow he got into taliban custody have no bearing on whether or not we bring him home, period.those are two separate questions. and we will look at all the information. we - i'm surethat people are talking to people he served with, they're talking to him when they canwhen he's in good enough health. and they
- the army has said that it's launching areview. and look, if there was misconduct, there will be consequences. question: did the state department know aboutthese alleged allegations about him being a deserter? ms. harf: i think there have been - as i saidyesterday, perhaps not as eloquently as i should have - there have been a range of reportsabout what happened to him and how he ended up in taliban custody - there really have- a range of them since he went missing. you can read press reports going back severalyears to attest to that. so obviously, we were aware of some of that. but again, whatwe were focused on was getting him home. determining
how he went missing is for a later time. question: and what evidence did you have thathis health was in danger? ms. harf: i mean, we had a variety of evidence.some of it you've seen publicly in terms of proof of life. i'm not going to go into detailsabout all the information we had about him. question: does the state department think- back to the taliban video - that when he was walking to the bird he looked like hewas in pretty good shape? ms. harf: i'm not going to make a medicalassessment based on a video. this is a united states soldier who has been in captivity forfive years. i can't - none of us here can imagine what that would do to you or how youwould come out of that on the other end, and
that's why i think we all owe him and hisfamily, regardless of our feelings on this, a little bit of time so he can get in betterhealth, he can reunite with his family, and then we'll figure out what happened. but ithink we owe it to him to do that. question: will the investigation be -- question: (inaudible) question? you have consistentlyreferred to mr. bergdahl as a prisoner of war. question: who decides who is a prisoner ofwar and who is not a prisoner of war? ms. harf: what do you mean, "who decides"?i mean, he was an american serviceman -- question: well, the u.s. government --
ms. harf: -- taken by the enemy in an armedconflict where we're operating under an aumf. question: right, i get that. but the peoplewho are imprisoned at guantanamo bay were - although they could by some people be construedto be prisoners of war, and some of them were indeed taken on the battlefield in the courseof a military conflict - they were deemed by the united states government not to beprisoners of war. they were very carefully defined to be enemy combatants, i think thehistorical record shows, so as to be able to strip them of the right -- question: let me finish - the rights thatwould have been -- question: afforded --
question: -- granted to - or afforded, exactly- prisoners of war. so you guys can call - you say that sergeant bergdahl was a prisonerof war, but maybe from the taliban's point of view he was not a prisoner of war. question: he was just swept up on the battlefieldof afghanistan, just like the taliban, right? ms. harf: yeah, wait - can i make a few comments,though? so first of all, i can speak for what's happened during this administration, the decisionswe've made about what we call people. obviously, we inherited a situation with respect to guantanamobay that we have tried through various mechanisms to rectify. the supreme court has held thatcommon article 3 of the geneva conventions protects taliban and other detainees capturedin non-international armed conflicts like
the one in afghanistan. so they have - thesupreme court has weighed in on this. obviously, we inherited a situation where we were dealingwith guantanamo bay that was operating a certain way - and again, we've tried to rectify itto the extent that we can. whether or not members of the taliban meetparticular prisoner of war criteria, including, i think, that it has to be between states- the prisoner of war term, i believe, in the geneva conventions refers to conflictbetween states. obviously, the taliban is not a state. question: right. so how then, if i may ask,is -- ms. harf: in terms of the geneva convention.
question: -- mister bergdahl a prisoner ofwar -- ms. harf: because he's a member of a -- question: -- because you're an ally of thestate of afghanistan, correct me? so how is he a prisoner of war? ms. harf: so he is a member of the unitedstates military -- question: you talked about conflict betweenstates. ms. harf: right, but he is a member of a statearmy being held during a time of war where we're operating under an aumf in americanlaw. question: that you --
ms. harf: i'm happy to check with the lawyersif there's more details -- question: no, no, i get it. it's just -- ms. harf: -- and i'm not re-litigating whythe bush administration called people a certain thing when they got to guantanamo. question: (off-mike.) question: no, no. but the point i'm tryingto make is when you justify your - the president's decision to secure his release in the mannerthat he did - i take no position on the merits of that -- question: -- by using certain terms like "prisonerof war" for your guy and not prisoner of war
for the taliban people, you're using languagein a way that tries to justify something, but it's not clear to me at all whether theuse of the language - and maybe it is - is actually justified. ms. harf: so can i - just speaking, i think,to your - i think your broader point: that we believe that prisoner swaps during a timeof war - forgetting about the legal definitions under the geneva convention or internationallaw - are - have a long historical precedent and are justified, and this was one of them. i think the president has been clear whenit comes to guantanamo bay that we inherited a situation we did not agree with; that weare bound in some respects by some of the
legal rulings, by what congress has triedto do. but the fundamental notion that we want to close the prison, that we want these- charge or transfer where we can, and that we have improved the situation there is somethingthat is in line with, i think, what you're getting at. i think. and i can't defend whatwas done in the previous eight years when guantanamo bay was open, but the presidenthas been very clear about the incredibly hurtful nature of guantanamo bay to the united states- how we're seen overseas, how it in many cases has not been in line with our values,and that's why he has committed to close it. so i'm trying to get, i think - i mean, languageis important, absolutely. and here we very much stand by the notion that this was prisonerswap during a time of war. but i think actions
and how we're treating these people and howwe're trying to rectify the situation is in some ways more important. question: so are we now prepared to affordthe remaining 160 or whatever number of detainees ms. harf: hundred and forty-nine. question: -- hundred and forty-nine detaineesthat remain at guantanamo - are we now willing to afford them pow status? ms. harf: this in no way changes the systemwe are operating under at guantanamo bay today. this in no way - which has been the subjectof many legal cases, congressional action - again, we inherited a situation; we've attemptedto rectify it. congress has done quite a bit,
as has the court system, to put in place howguantanamo bay operates today, and this in no way changes that, period. question: marie, just a follow-up real quick-- question: -- about the taliban prisoners atguantanamo. can you restate how you classified them? were they part of a detainee group scheduledfor release? ms. harf: no. as i said, there have been - justgive me one second. question: how many are (inaudible) -- ms. harf: there are 78 prisoners at guantanamobay that are approved for transfer. these five were not part of that. there are alsoabout 30, i think, who have been referred
for prosecution. they weren't part of thatgroup either. so what's 149 - i'm not going to do all the math here. question: so if they weren't prior scheduledfor release, why would they be part of the negotiations with the taliban? ms. harf: well, again - but i think it's moreimportant that they weren't on the list that had been referred for prosecution, and it'sunlikely - unlikely, not totally wouldn't happen - but unlikely that they would be addedto that. so we saw an opportunity to get back the oneamerican pow. this is - without getting into the specifics of the negotiations, these arethe five people that we ended up with, where
we could get an agreement. we felt we mitigatedthe risk from these five, and the assurances the government of qatar gave us - that's thedecision we came to in order to get this man home. question: has the secretary commented on reportsthat they're - these suspects are going free now? ms. harf: well, the government of qatar gavevery specific assurances about how we will - they will and we all will be keeping aneye on them, and at the very highest levels to the president of the united states, whichis i think assurances the government of qatar, as we do, takes very seriously. so without,obviously, getting into the specifics of what
that looks like, we've been given the assurancesthat we've mitigated the risk. question: but there have been reports outnow -- question: but there have been reports outthere that after a year they'll be eligible to return to afghanistan, and i think somepeople in afghanistan are actually quite worried about that. ms. harf: well again, we feel like we've sufficientlymitigated the risk to american - the americans, american national security, american troops.obviously, you know our position going forward on our role in afghanistan, and i think thatthe united states military has been very clear that they will take action against anyonewho threatens the united states in afghanistan.
question: so it's correct then; then theywill be eligible to go home to afghanistan? ms. harf: i'm not going to go into specificsabout what the agreement looked like, but suffice to say, we are confident in the assuranceswe've been given. question: can we change topic? question: no, i have two more on afghanistan. question: no, i have - we have more. question: (inaudible) 31 minutes on afghanistan. ms. harf: yeah, guys. we're going to do like-- question: (inaudible) topic?
ms. harf: wait. hold on, said. we're goingto do one more from you on afghanistan and one more from lara on afghanistan. question: i have one small one. ms. harf: and then we're moving on. question: okay. in addition to these -- ms. harf: i said one more from you. and theni'm going to scott, because he hasn't had a question yet. question: in addition to these five, whichyou said are in the middle bucket, are there anyone else from the gitmo prisoners - detaineesin the middle bucket?
ms. harf: i mean, do the math. what's 149minus 78 minus approximately 30? question: i think a few are left in there. ms. harf: yeah. and our goal - again, thisis under the goal of closing the prison at guantanamo bay, which, as i said, we've beenvery clear hurt america's reputation overseas. i think the president has been clear - probablycreated more terrorists than it ever took off the battlefield because of the way it'sbeen able to be used for propaganda and is not how we do things in the united statesof america. that's why we're going to close it. we're at 149 today and hopefully we'llbe able to make some more progress. lara --
ms. harf: -- one more. question: yes. so there's going to be an interagencybriefing of the senate tonight. question: can you give us some kind of preadout?(laughter.) i just made that up. it's good, right? ms. harf: that's a good new term. question: i like it. ms. harf: i like it. question: it's like preacts. preadout. ms. harf: preadout, i like it. there willbe an interagency team in a classified session
briefing all of the members of - open to allmembers of the senate tonight. we'll do one for the house when they return, i think, fromrecess. ambassador dobbins will be leading the state department contingent. it is aninteragency briefing. i don't have any preadout for you, but if there's more details to shareafter, i'm happy to. question: members of the senate, or theirstaffs as well? ms. harf: it's just for senators. question: just for senators. and is thereanything that the administration thinks at this point that they haven't already toldcongress in previous briefings about this case?
ms. harf: i know - we've had a lot of phonediscussions, certainly, since this happened, about actually what happened in the last fewdays. i think we'll be providing more details, certainly happy to answer their questions.obviously, we've talked in general to congress about the importance of sergeant bergdahlfor a long time, about possible ways to bring him back. members of congress have been onthe record saying they're open to prisoner swap, so it's a conversation we've had fora long time. this is just to provide more detail. ms. harf: scott. question: rwanda. could you tell us the u.s.view on the arrests and disappearances that
have occurred in kigali? ms. harf: we are deeply concerned about thearrests and disappearances of numerous rwandan citizens during the last few weeks, includingjournalists, members of civil society, and several local governmental officials in relationto alleged state security and terrorism offenses. most have been held incommunicado and withoutdue process. we're also concerned by reports that members of the media have been threatenedand impeded from reporting on developments in rwanda. we have discussed the situation with seniorrwandan officials, senior members of the government, raised our concerns about the critical importanceof respecting human rights, including freedom
of expression and due process, and urge thatall defendants be accorded due process under rwandan law and also under rwanda's internationalhuman rights obligation. question: you will recall that past disagreementsbetween the united states and rwanda, specifically over rwandan support for the m23 rebel group,resulted in a suspension of u.s. military assistance to rwanda. is that something that'sbeing considered in this matter? ms. harf: i don't have details about the policyoptions we're considering. we're obviously continuing to follow the cases of those missingvery closely - those arrested or missing, question: can i ask about germany? question: well, do you have any details onrwanda about the state security and terrorism
offenses? like, what's happening here? ms. harf: well, we don't have any informationregarding the factual basis of these allegations against these individuals, so obviously that'ssomething we're looking into. but i think there have been a number that have gone missingand we just don't know about the actual allegations. yes, jo. question: germany. i wondered if you couldgive the u.s. reaction, please, today to the news that the federal prosecutor in germanyhas opened an investigation into the alleged tapping of angela merkel's telephone. ms. harf: mm-hmm. this is a topic that chancellormerkel and the president discussed in depth
when she was here recently. we believe it'simportant to talk about this in the diplomatic channels. we've done so with the germans andothers. you heard the president come out very clearly and talk about things that we're notgoing to do going forward. so we've addressed it directly with the german government. question: so you don't believe a federal prosecution- a federal investigation by the prosecutor is appropriate, then? ms. harf: i don't have, i think, a commenton the investigation by a german prosecutor. again, we've discussed it in diplomatic channels.we've made very clear what we are and aren't doing going forward, and i think probablyleave it at that.
question: if you're asked to - for any information,which you could well be considering you're at the root of the cause of these allegations,will you cooperate? ms. harf: i would have to take a look at thedetails of that. again, we discussed it, including with chancellor merkel herself, so i thinkthat's probably the most appropriate venue, but happy to look at any requests. question: marie. question: last august, i think you announcedfrom here that egypt will not be invited to the africa summit that the president is goingto host. now the white house called - said that the president will call the new presidentin egypt to congratulate him.
ms. harf: mm-hmm, in the coming -- question: will this lead to a change in yourposition that president sisi will be invited to washington? ms. harf: i'm sure everyone saw the whitehouse statement at 2:00 a.m. (laughter.) this is the problem when people are overseas. on the au summit, i don't have any updatefor you on that. i think i'll refer you to the au mostly, but we'll see if there's anyupdate. i don't know - i'm not aware of a change in position. question: so you still keep the same positionthat --
ms. harf: i'm not aware of a change, but i'mhappy to check. you did see the white house statement, which was that we look forwardto walking - to working, not walking with - working with mr. al-sisi. president willbe calling him, plans to speak with him in the coming days. question: yes, please. egypt (inaudible). ms. harf: yeah. yeah, uh-huh. question: i mean, it was mentioned in thestatement, and of course this was raised here in the - on the podium from the strategicrelation and - but still, it was - it seems that the obama administration are holdingup the apache helicopters to egypt. i mean,
do you have anything to say about that? itwas announced april 23rd that 10 helicopters are going to be - to help in the anti-terroractivities in sinai specifically. ms. harf: mm-hmm. i'm happy to check on thetiming. i'm not aware of the timing on those. question: i mean, timing - i mean, you meanif it's done or not? ms. harf: i don't know the details on that.let me check. question: it was reported, according to somereports here, that somebody from - a state department official confirmed that the aircraftare in storage at the fort hood. ms. harf: i'm happy to check. that's my understanding.that was the latest i knew, but i'm happy to check if there is an update.
question: and what's the process to releasethem? i mean, it's - with the congress, you mean? ms. harf: uh-huh. again, i'm not - let me-- question: you don't - okay. ms. harf: let me get the details for you. question: okay, yes. ms. harf: i have -- ms. harf: yeah. i mean, let me -- ms. harf: let me check on where the processis and where it goes from here with congress
on the apaches. it's a good question. letme get some more info. question: can we go to the south china sea? question: i have a couple more on egypt. ms. harf: one more on egypt, then south chinasea. question: does the - your - the white housestatement was actually pretty neutral in its tone, i thought, yesterday. question: it wasn't very congratulatory, justthat you're looking forward to working with them. question: are you now in a position to goforward with your certification on - that
egypt's on its road to democracy and releasethe rest of the money that was frozen last year? ms. harf: so on that, no announcements tomake. we never laid down a timeline for when or under what circumstances the secretarywould make that kind of determination. i know that the discussions are ongoing. it's stillan internal process; don't want to get ahead of it. question: so you still have concerns aboutdemocracy-building in egypt? ms. harf: well, i mean, broadly speaking we- and you saw in the statement, obviously said that we had concerns raised by observationgroups, we shared them, about the political
environment, the restrictions on people aroundthe elections. so i think we'll continue having the discussions. question: just one more. ms. harf: just one more. question: it's about egypt again. question: and it was announced yesterday that- sunday, i think it will be the swearing-in ceremony. and almost they said that countriesare invited and they name the united states. what level - are you going to participatein it? and what level it's going to be? ms. harf: we're still determining who willbe part of the delegation, and when we have
an update i'm happy to provide that. it maybe later today or early tomorrow. question: iran? question: do you expect the secretary to diverthis travels and -- ms. harf: i do not. question: okay. we were going to south china sea. question: on south china sea. yes. so in thepast, the department has urged for a diplomatic resolution of the maritime dispute in thesouth china sea. and today china rejected a - or rejected a step that would've sent- that required them to send evidence to a
un tribunal for a court in the maritime court.is the u.s. concerned that the -- ms. harf: is this in the philippines filing? question: yes, the philippines filing. sois the u.s. concerned that china's not genuinely interested in seeking a diplomatic resolutionto the case? ms. harf: well, as we've said, the philippinesand other state parties have the right to avail themselves of the dispute resolutionmechanisms provided for under the law of the sea convention. we think this is a good thing.we think states should work through a rules-based system to resolve their disputes. so we havesaid, broadly speaking, that we are concerned about china's actions there, about an increasingpattern, it seems, of destabilizing actions
there, and again, believe that this kind ofdispute resolution mechanism is a good way to handle these things. question: and the court has set a deadlineof december 15th for china to offer its evidence in its dispute. is the state department engagingwith china at all to encourage them to take this step? ms. harf: i can check and see. i would imaginewe are. let me check and see. question: okay. today ambassador joseph macmanusissued a statement acknowledging progress that iran has made. could you tell us: whatdoes that mean for the -- ms. harf: i think he was referring to the- this is the board of governors meetings
at the iaea. and think this is a fairly routinething that ambassador macmanus does through their work - because he's, of course, at theiaea. question: okay. so does that mean that youare in agreement with the report that was issued a couple weeks back? ms. harf: with which report? question: the iaea report on iran? ms. harf: i can check on the details of thatreport. i don't have them in front of me. question: on the same topic or related topic. question: you were asked yesterday about theletter that chairman royce sent.
ms. harf: i now have the letter right here. question: so do you have something to sayabout it? ms. harf: we will be responding, as we doto letters from congress, but it's in general all about the issue i addressed yesterdaythat scott asked about. we don't have any indication that russia and iran are movingforward or close to consummating any kind of oil-for-goods deal. we know they've talkedabout it. they've also come out publicly and said that they're not moving forward withit right now. so nothing to indicate that this is actually getting close to completion.and i'm sure we'll respond. question: any preadout of how you plan torespond?
ms. harf: i just did it. i know now it's catchingon. that's probably the best readout i can give before the - i can't bring myself todo it, lara. question: contribution to the english language. ms. harf: but in terms of in general, we - iknow there have been a variety of press reports and some discussions between officials betweenthe two countries, but - and we've been very clear with both sides that this could be sanctionable. question: and then just while we're on that,the supreme leader of iran made some remarks in a speech on the 25th anniversary of thedeath of his predecessor. i was wondering if you had a chance to see those and if youhave any response.
ms. harf: i hadn't seen those yet. i'm sorry.is there something specific you were interested in, or i can -- question: he - it was - i mean, it was a lotof the usual sort of fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, but just saying that the u.s. had failed tobring iran to its knees due to sanctions, so - but if you haven't seen it -- ms. harf: i haven't seen it. in general, wesee a lot of rhetoric from the iranian side. what we're focused on is actions and the negotiations.we'll head back the week of the 16th to vienna for the fourth round of - fourth, fifth; ohgod, losing my mind here - the next round of comprehensive negotiations with iran onits nuclear program. but i'm happy to take
a look, see if there's more. question: on that, there's also been somerhetoric from the american side - not officials, but analysts and think-tankers that -- ms. harf: i love outside commentators' rhetoric. question: -- right - that rouhani's administration,for lack of a better word, has been disappointing because it has been less moderate than hadbeen hoped, anticipated, or promised. what's your reaction to that? ms. harf: well, a few points. the first ison the nuclear side, which is a specific issue, we have made much more progress with the iraniansunder the rouhani administration, i think
for a variety of reasons, one of which ishe was elected in large part on a platform of needing economic reform. and they knowthe only way they can truly get the kind of economic reforms - or economic relief theyneed is if they get a comprehensive agreement here, because they're not going to get itright now. so i think on the nuclear side - look, there's- we have a long way to go and we don't know if we'll get there, but we've seen progresson that side that we quite frankly hadn't seen in a long time. but at the same time,you are right; we still have huge concerns about human rights, women's rights, supportfor terrorism. we need to be - and we have been very clear about that and how much ofthat has not changed. so i think we've continued
to raise all of those concerns publicly aswell. question: lebanon? question: beside announcing $290 million aidsto the syria -- ms. harf: besides the $290 million, whichnow puts us over $2 billion for the syrians, by the way. question: two hundred and ninety million dollars.what's the main goal of this visit to lebanon? ms. harf: well, i think - look, it's an importanttime for us to show support for the lebanese government. obviously, the situation in syriahas had an adverse impact on the security situation in some ways in lebanon. we've seenthe refugees. the lebanese are - we've commended
them for taking so many refugees and reallybearing a lot of the burden here, so some of this funding will go to the lebanese. so it's - then they face the threat from hezbollahthat's continued. so we - it's an important time. the secretary's wanted to go there fora long time. as you know, his schedule is kind of crazy. the secretary hasn't been since2009, so we thought it was important to go there now. question: but what about the timing? why hedidn't go before the end of the lebanese president term ended 10 days ago -- ms. harf: well, i'm not sure why he --
question: -- and there's a political vacuumnow? ms. harf: well, there's still a prime ministerwith whom he met today, who is assuming a great deal of responsibility right now forhis country's governance. i think, first of all, it fit in his schedule right now. andsecond of all, the goal of the trip is not to solve lebanon's political situation, becausethey do need a president. and the secretary - it's a discussion he had. obviously, wehave some thoughts, but this is up to the lebanese people to decide. so the purposewasn't to result in lebanon getting a new president. it was an important time to stopand show our support. question: while we're still on syria, i havea quick question.
question: okay. yesterday i think it was formerambassador to syria -- ms. harf: i thought we were going to get throughthe whole briefing without the -- question: okay. robert ford said that youguys could have stepped in early on and aided the moderate opposition. are there any kindof regrets that you have not done that? ms. harf: we've been consistently aiding themoderate opposition in a variety of ways. we've continued to increase it. as the presidentsaid last week, we will continue to do so going forward. look, i don't think anyonecan - as i said yesterday a number of times - look at what's happening in syria, what'shappened there, and be satisfied. it's heartbreaking and frustrating. but that's why, again, weannounced another tranche of aid today to
the syrian people. that puts us over $2 billion. question: today? ms. harf: today. the secretary announced itin lebanon. secretary - let me just - because i'm not sure all of you see this. he announced-- question: i just saw. ms. harf: -- an additional 290 million inu.s. humanitarian assistance to help those suffering inside syria, as well as refugeesand host communities in the neighboring countries. which despite, i think anyone can say, overwhelmingobstacles is working to feed 4 million people in syria and 1.6 million refugees throughoutthe regions; also includes more than 133 million
in humanitarian aid through ngos working inand around syria. question: are you frustrated by the fact thatmost people focus on the military aspect of aid and not the $2 billion that you aidedthem with? ms. harf: honestly, said, yes. question: okay. all right. so -- ms. harf: because - look, there are a varietyof ways we can help the syrian people. and $2 billion in american taxpayer money feedingsyrians, helping the - i mean, this is a humanitarian disaster of huge proportion, and we need todo more than that. and we are, but i think it is incredibly important, and that's whywe highlight it as much as we can.
question: okay. now, the syrian foreign ministerwalid mualem, while voting yesterday or the day before -- ms. harf: it's embarrassing. question: -- said that now the peaceful solutionis sort of on, so to speak, after the re-election of bashar al-assad for a third term. if thegovernment of syria proposes, let's say, some sort of an initiative - peaceful initiativeto bring in the opposition and have a dialogue and a transitional government, would you supportthat? ms. harf: i'll believe it if they come tothe negotiating table, endorse geneva i, say they want a transitional governing body withexecutive authority - whatever the exact language
is - and come back to the table ready to negotiate.that's when i'll believe it. question: is it safe to assume that when thesecretary of state meets with his russian counterpart that they will discuss perhapsrelaunching of geneva iii? ms. harf: i'm sure syria will be a topic ofdiscussion, whether it's cw or the diplomatic route. i'm happy to - after the meeting - seewhat we can get you. question: but is there - is there any considerationin the administration to open a diplomatic dialogue or a diplomatic channel with theregime after the elections? ms. harf: well, this election doesn't changeour efforts in any way, because we believe it's a total sham. it's disgusting; it's justnot acceptable on any level, humanitarian,
politically, or otherwise. but look, we'vebeen working through the un and with the russians to see if we can get the diplomatic trackback on track. we haven't been able to. obviously, we've worked really hard with the russianson this because they have unique influence with the syrian regime. i don't see rightnow a lot of ways this could move forward diplomatically, because the regime continuesto be wholly unwilling to negotiate in any real way. but we're trying. question: but i meant a dialogue - diplomaticchannel with the syrian regime. ms. harf: i'm happy to check with our teamand see if that's a possibility. question: can i change topics to the palestinian--
question: on syria - just real quick on syria. question: and i've got syria. question: okay. critics have said that you'retreating the symptoms and not the disease. can you respond to that? ms. harf: what's the disease? question: that if you - while it's laudablethat the united states government is paying $2 billion and feeding refugees, that you'renot going after assad or even al-qaida elements. ms. harf: well, i would disagree with thepremise of that. first, we are going after assad in a variety of ways, just not militarilywith u.s. troops. again, i said yesterday
that in no way should we be sending americankids to syria to work on regime change. that's just crazy. but we've economically and diplomaticallyisolated him; cut off - sanctions, deprived him of funding; have worked very hard withthe international community to not just diplomatically isolate him, but see if we can get to a diplomaticresolution here. so we've been very clear about bashar al-assad. and on the terrorist side, we have actuallyvery, very robust engagement, particularly with our partners in the region, in termsof foreign fighters on the ct issue. we know it's a serious one. we're committed to workingwith folks in the region who care about this very much. so i think critics who say thatthink we should be fighting it in a different
way, but the notion that we're not fightingit in some way is just not true. question: can we change topics? question: can i just have one -- ms. harf: wait, one more syria and then said. question: sorry. when - can you ballpark aboutthe last time that you or the u.s. government has seen evidence of the assad governmentdropping barrel bombs on people? ms. harf: i don't know. question: do you know if it's still ongoing? question: please.
question: very quickly on the palestiniangovernment? question: today, the secretary of state reiteratedthat we will be watching it very closely -- question: -- and see how it conducts itselfand so on. also, the palestinian elections commission - committee said that they areready to conduct the election within 90 days. so is that something that the united statesgovernment is pushing to have? i know you said that you want the government to be transitionaland so on -- question: -- and arrange for elections, butyou would like them to - you would like to see it as soon as possible, right? ms. harf: well, i mean, we'd - i don't havea timeframe for you on what we'd like.
ms. harf: i did say, and it is true, thatone of the main responsibilities of the interim government is to set up the next election.so to the extent that that process is moving, it'll keep moving, and the secretary was veryclear today about our position. question: would you have any concern thathamas might win this election, as they did in 2006? ms. harf: i don't have any internal palestinianpolling about this election. question: i had one more about an issue whichi raised -- ms. harf: bring us home, jo. question: -- yeah, the last couple days --
ms. harf: or, no, lucas is going to bringus home. go ahead. question: the last couple of days -- question: i'm going to bring it home. ms. harf: oh, god. okay. question: and it involves -- ms. harf: i'm going to start wearing flats,people. question: we're not going home. (laughter.) ms. harf: yes, jo. question: france, bnp.
question: the fine against the french bankbnp. i asked you yesterday if there had been any communication between the governmentson this issue. ms. harf: so secretary kerry actually gotasked about this in his press avail in lebanon today. question: oh, he did? ms. harf: he did, and said with respect tobnp, that's an issue of our justice system, and the treasury department and justice department."i don't have anything to do with the decision that gets made or how it gets made or whatthe levels are or the appropriateness of it. we obviously want whatever it is to be fairand to reflect an appropriateness to whatever
it is that is alleged to have taken place,"and he said he would have to further evaluate it. "and even then, i'm not sure it belongsin our comments publicly between two countries." then he said, "but i'm confident that it'ssomething we can work through and deal with. i'm confident we'll have some discussion aboutit in that context." question: okay. thank you. and i just wanted-- ms. harf: i'm going to refer to the secretary'scomments. question: thank you very much for that. i-- ms. harf: which i'm sure people will get soon.i think we had some cons issues -- ms. harf: -- coming out of beirut.
question: i happen to know - i believe therewas a letter sent from the french government - i don't know whether it was from laurentfabius or from the president himself - to the white house as far back ago as april the7th -- question: -- outlining their concerns on this.so -- ms. harf: i think i can check, but you shouldalso check with the white house. and we don't always comment on diplomatic correspondence,but i'm happy to see if there's more details. lucas. question: on the marine in mexico? question: is the state department aware thathe has signed an affidavit claiming mistreatment
by his handlers? ms. harf: yes, just give me one second onthat. yes. obviously, we monitor the conditions of u.s. citizens in foreign prisons, workwith prison officials to ensure treatment is consistent with internationally recognizedstandards. in this case, a consular officer visited him on may 29th in the el hongo prison.during that visit, he filled out an affidavit of mistreatment describing his treatment immediatelyfollowing his escape attempt from the la mesa penitentiary in early april. we take suchallegations with the utmost seriousness. as you can imagine, we'll raise the issue withthe appropriate authorities in mexico, as we have repeatedly.
question: understood. has the - any statedepartment officials voiced outrage over this incident? ms. harf: we have certainly raised the issueof mistreatment with the mexican government. we've discussed the case at length with them.i don't have many more details for you. question: and can you say from the podiumthat you are outraged over his claims of mistreatment? ms. harf: we take any such claims very seriously,absolutely. bring us home. question: i just wanted to know if you hadany answer to the question i asked yesterday about the hacking by the five chinese militaryofficials.
ms. harf: if other countries - i mean, we'renot aware of other countries taking similar steps as we've taken. obviously, we take stepswe feel are appropriate. it's a doj issue. i'll point people there. but i'm not awareof any others. question: okay. thanks.