TRANSCRIPT:

1:54 p.m. EST

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Thank you for your patience. I know we’ve tried to be on time lately and we didn’t succeed at that today. I have a couple of items for you at the top.

The United States condemns continuing attacks by Russia-backed separatists in and around Debaltseve, Mariupol, and other locations in eastern Ukraine which violate the ceasefire and flout the Minsk agreements. The Ukrainian Government reports that Russia-backed separatists have violated the ceasefire more than 250 times since the ceasefire took effect on February 15th, resulting in more than 10 killed and hundreds wounded. The OSCE confirms that ceasefire violations continue and that the Russia-backed separatists continue to deny OSCE monitors access to Debaltseve and other areas.

These actions are all contrary to what Russia and the separatists agreed to several times in Minsk. We call on Russia and the separatists it backs to stop their attacks immediately, withdraw heavy weapons, halt the flow of fighters and equipment from Russia into Ukraine, allow the OSCE monitors to do their job, and proceed with full implementation of their Minsk commitments. If Russia and the separatists it backs continue to flout the agreements they signed, it will result in more costs and further isolation.

One other item for the top: Secretary Kerry will travel to London to meet with UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond on February 21st to discuss bilateral and global issues. On February 22nd, the Secretary will then travel to Geneva, Switzerland to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif as part of the ongoing nuclear negotiations.

With that, go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: So on the – well, first of all, congratulations.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you.

QUESTION: I’m sure you’ll consider your promotion to be sitting in the calm of the White House instead of dealing with us every day.

MS. PSAKI: I would --

QUESTION: You will be missed by us and, I’m sure, your legion of fans around the world.

MS. PSAKI: Well – (laughter) --

QUESTION: And late night – that late night show.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, Matt. I’m sure we can all rely on you to make the next six weeks really count.

QUESTION: Right, yes. (Laughter.) But since there are six weeks, you’re not rid of us yet. So let’s start with Iran and the Secretary’s meetings with Foreign Minister Zarif. Should we presume from this that you guys think that you’re close to getting a deal?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have always believed that direct bilateral meetings as well as P5+1 meetings with a larger group would be needed to continue to move the process forward. As you know, we have about six weeks here until we’re looking at the – our goal of achieving a political framework. So this is an opportunity to continue to make progress.

QUESTION: So is the six weeks coincidental?

MS. PSAKI: (Laughter.) No, it’s not.

QUESTION: You’re not timing your departure for the --

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: Okay. You have seen the IAEA report that came out today, yes?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the IAEA report – excuse me – has not been publicly released yet by the agency. We continue to call – I know this frustrates you, but we don’t comment on the reports before they’ve been publicly released. We continue to call on Iran to cooperate fully and without delay with the IAEA to resolve all outstanding issues, particularly those that give rise to concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. As we’ve discussed in here, that’s one of the issues that’s part of the negotiations.

QUESTION: Right, but – okay, so let’s not talk about this – today’s IAEA report. Let’s talk about the last one, which is public --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- and which says exactly the same thing as the one that was put out today in terms of the PMDs.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So let’s just pretend that we’re talking about the previous report, even though we all really know that we’re talking about today’s report, which says that Iran is still stalling and not cooperating on the investigation into PMDs. Is it correct that the U.S. – you guys have told the Iranians that you’re willing to allow there to be an extension of the investigation into the PMDs – in other words, there doesn’t have to be a resolution to this – if you get your framework agreement at the end of March?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as has been the case for some time now, we’re not going to get into specifics of the negotiations. It is correct, of course, that discussing this issue is one we’re – is an issue that we’re, of course, working to resolve in the negotiations. But there’s nothing I am going to confirm from reports or discussions.

QUESTION: And then I don't know if you’ve seen this, but Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office just put out a statement – or he put out a statement; I’m not sure if it’s his office or him – saying that despite what you and Josh Earnest said yesterday that you’re withholding some classified, sensitive details of the negotiations from Israel, that they know, that he – the prime minister and Israel – knows exactly what’s in the deal and that it’s a bad deal and dangerous for Israel. Do they know exactly what’s in the deal?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there isn’t a deal, so it’s hard for anyone to know.

QUESTION: Or the – what – they know exactly what’s in the proposal that’s being discussed that the Secretary will be talking about with Foreign Minister Zarif?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I have anything to add to what I said yesterday, but clearly, we take steps in order to ensure that classified information and information that we don’t want to be publicly discussed is not publicly discussed.

QUESTION: But does that mean that when Prime Minister Netanyahu says or his office says that he knows exactly what’s in the proposal that’s on the table right now, that he doesn’t – that that’s a lie or – maybe “lie” is too strong, but that they don’t know what – exactly what’s in it? Would you say that that --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would stick with where I was yesterday in terms of the kind of information that we provide.

QUESTION: All right. And then my last one on this: Clearly, it doesn’t really matter what you guys say from here or the White House or what is briefed to the Israelis now. It doesn’t – at least it doesn’t appear that it will make any difference, that it will change Prime Minister Netanyahu’s calculus that this is a bad deal for Israel. Is it the Administration’s position that it is more important to have an agreement with Iran than it is to have a good relationship with Israel and its prime minister?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we would never put it in those terms, as I’m sure doesn’t surprise you. I would note one piece from the last year and a half. There was certainly a great deal of skepticism from Israel and elsewhere about the JPOA and what it would mean and what would be included and the likelihood or unlikelihood of Iran abiding by the requirements in there. They have. It has halted and reversed many parts of their program.

So we’ve seen this movie before. There’s no deal yet. Obviously, if there’s a deal, we’ll be explaining the deal and explaining why and how it prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And if that’s the case and we come to a deal, it’s hard to see how anyone wouldn’t see that’s to the benefit of the international community.

QUESTION: Well, except for Prime Minister Netanyahu, who says that he knows what’s in the proposal that’s on the table right now, knows what is likely to be approved if it is approved – if it is approved – and he still doesn’t like it and still thinks it’s a bad – it’s bad for Israel and a threat to Israel. So again, the question is: Is it --

MS. PSAKI: Then it sounds like he knows more than the negotiators, since there’s no deal yet.

QUESTION: Is it more important to get – for the Administration to get a deal with Iran than it is to have good relations with Israel and the prime minister?

MS. PSAKI: We think it’s important to get a good deal with Iran and with the P5+1, and that will not only make the United States safer; it will make Israel safer.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I just ask, how does the Secretary’s meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif dovetail with the trip the day before or the talks the day before, which are going to be led by Wendy Sherman?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. So as you saw in the media note we released yesterday, Under Secretary Sherman and the negotiating team are on the way to Geneva today for bilateral meetings with the Iranian negotiators. They’ll be joined by Helga Schmid, deputy secretary-general for the EU’s External Action Service. As often happens with these negotiations, they’re – often the negotiating team and Under Secretary Sherman are there in advance or they’re there after or both, so this is certainly consistent with how we’ve done meetings in the past.

QUESTION: So the anticipation is that those talks at Wendy Sherman’s level will be on Friday?

MS. PSAKI: I believe we’ll be putting more – I think some of it’s still being set in terms of the specific meetings and when they’ll take place. They’re on the way – their way there now.

QUESTION: And will they stay on through the meeting on – I think it was the 22nd, you said – Sunday?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. I certainly anticipate Under Secretary Sherman and the negotiating team would stay, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. So what’s the – what is the purpose of having a high-level meeting with the Secretary? What is it that he hopes he will achieve which Wendy Sherman won’t necessarily achieve?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, this isn’t a new part of how we’ve approached these negotiations. And obviously, there are political decisions and discussions that need to be made. Secretary Kerry has spent a great deal of time with Foreign Minister Zarif over the course of time. They’re all cooperative and part of the same effort and process. A lot of these talks are technical, and so oftentimes the negotiating teams when they’re talking are talking about technical issues. But we’ve seen both components, just as we’ve seen bilateral meetings with the United States and Iran, bilateral meetings with other countries, or larger P5+1 meetings as all an important part of the process.

QUESTION: And there was a suggestion that possibly after the meeting between Foreign Minister Zarif and Secretary Kerry, there could be a broader P5+1 meeting with everybody involved. Could you talk to that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there may be additional bilateral or multilateral meetings with other members of the P5+1. It’s – we’re still finalizing the schedule. I would anticipate you’d hear any announcements of that from the EU, as has been standard process.

QUESTION: Can we stay with Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s a report that Zarif shouts at his U.S. interlocutors in the Iran nuclear negotiations. Is there any truth to that? Does Foreign Minister Zarif shout at Secretary Kerry in these meetings?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, as I’m sure will come as no surprise, I’m certainly not going to confirm or speak to the tone of any other foreign minister in a meeting. I will convey that these are difficult issues, there have been tough conversations, and the Secretary has also made clear points when we have limitations when we can’t go farther. And we certainly expect as these continue that – as the issues get more difficult, that that part will be part of it as well.

QUESTION: Did he shout back?

MS. PSAKI: (Laughter.) To be a fly in the room, if only.

QUESTION: Staying on Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: First of all, I want to add my voice to Matt and my other colleagues. Congratulations. You will be missed.

MS. PSAKI: Very kind of you. Thank you, Said.

QUESTION: And on Iran, is there a likelihood that we actually can’t have a deal or could there be a deal before the 3rd of March, the date scheduled for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, obviously our goal here is to achieve a framework by the end of March, so that’s what we’re working toward.

QUESTION: But – yeah, true. But is there a likelihood that we might get to a deal before then, that the fact the machinations are in place where this could happen?

MS. PSAKI: I would say we’re not queuing our work to the visit of the prime minister.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, the prime minister of Israel – has he made what kind of a deal he would like to see public? Are you aware of the kind of deal that Israel or Prime Minister Netanyahu would like to see?

MS. PSAKI: The prime minister has spoken a great deal to his views. I’m sure he will do that when he comes here in a few weeks.

QUESTION: I mean, did he, at one point, say this is the kind of deal that I would sign to, as far as you’re concerned?

MS. PSAKI: He has spoken publicly about that. I would encourage you to ask the Government of Israel that question.

QUESTION: Can we go to Ukraine?

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Any more on Iran before we continue?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Jen, it seems out of Iran there’s a report that a lawyer who has been contacted by Jason Rezaian’s family and is trying to get in contact with him has not been able to get access to the judge, which apparently he needs to do to get access to Jason Rezaian and have him sign the papers so he can represent him. Do you have any more information on that? And are you aware – is there any way to put some pressure on the court or any way so that the lawyer can get in to see his client?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen the reports that a lawyer who was recently retained by the family of Jason Rezaian in Iran has not been able to meet with him yet and reports that there has been pressure on a number of lawyers to not take his case. If true, these reports are very disturbing. Mr. Rezaian should not be prevented from choosing his lawyer or coerced into selecting someone chosen by the Iranian Government. We continue to call for his immediate release and for Iran to respect its own laws governing its judicial process.

New topic. Ukraine.

QUESTION: So you began --

MS. PSAKI: Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: I just want to follow on that question yesterday asking about Saman Naseem. Do you have any update of that?

MS. PSAKI: We are deeply concerned by reports of the possible imminent execution of Saman Naseem, an Iran Kurdish man who was arrested when he was 17 and who alleges he was tortured into a confession. In his October report to the UN General Assembly, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed said that Iran has executed at least eight juvenile offenders since July of 2013. We call on Iran to respect the fair trial guarantees afforded to its people under Iran’s own laws and its international obligations.

QUESTION: One more question on Iran.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Are you aware of Qasem Soleimani’s, the commander of the Qods army’s activity in Kurdistan region of Iraq?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any details on that to discuss.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: You began with – you had another condemnation of the continued fighting in eastern Ukraine.

QUESTION: Arshad, can you speak up a bit?

QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry. You began your statement with – you began the briefing with a statement of – another statement of condemnation of the continued fighting in eastern Ukraine, and in particular, you cited the more than 200 instances of violating the ceasefire. Why is it not time to declare that the ceasefire has failed, since there have been so many violations of it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, one, I think as we’ve talked about from the beginning, our focus remains on supporting the implementation where we can see this implemented. And obviously, we continue to call, as our partners do, for Russia and Russian-backed separatists to implement the agreement, an agreement that they signed onto. We continue to believe that a diplomatic solution – that a solution that would include the implementation of everything from moving weapons back to moving separatists back to abiding by – to releasing prisoners is the right path forward. At the same time, we also, while we’re focused on supporting the implementation, we continue to have discussions internally and with our partners about additional costs. And more will be imposed unless Russia and the separatists implement the agreements.

QUESTION: How long are you going to give this? I mean, it’s been since Saturday night now, so a full five days – clearly hasn’t worked. Is this something that you’re going to let run for weeks?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a timeline for you. I can assure you that the situation in Ukraine, the violence that we see, the fact that we highlight each day what we’re seeing as violations speaks to how concerned we are about what we’re seeing on the ground, and discussions internally continue.

QUESTION: And are the – is the principal focus of the discussions internally at the moment additional costs in terms of economic sanctions? Or does it include the possibility of lethal assistance?

MS. PSAKI: The same options that were options a couple of weeks ago remain options today.

QUESTION: Jen, I’m trying to --

MS. PSAKI: On Ukraine?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: You said that there 250 violations.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Were they by the separatists? Or that’s the total violations on both sides?

MS. PSAKI: Separatists. Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

QUESTION: Did you have a --

QUESTION: Since September?

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Since September?

QUESTION: So --

MS. PSAKI: Since February 15th.

QUESTION: Oh, so February 15th.

QUESTION: You said Saturday.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, since Saturday.

QUESTION: 250?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have – you have said – you have acknowledged before that there had been violations by the other side as well. Do you have a tally of how many times – is it zero? Or do you --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t not. I think one of the challenges we here – have here, Matt – and obviously I referenced the Ukrainian Government because they are the ones who have said 250 violations – is that the OSCE, while they’ve confirmed ceasefire violations by the Russian-backed separatists, they don’t have access to a number of these areas. They are the independent evaluator of these violations.

QUESTION: Well, the OSCE doesn’t have access to Ukrainian-held positions?

MS. PSAKI: To Debaltseve and some other areas where they can get a sense of what’s happening. I have not seen them speak to Ukrainian violations.

QUESTION: Right. But if they’re there to be impartial, and if there --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- have been violations, I mean, on – and you’ve said, perhaps understandable violations because they’re defending what – in your words –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: --they are defending – I mean, wouldn’t it make sense to also have a count of how many --

MS. PSAKI: Well, the OSCE would put out that sort of information. I have not seen them put out that information.

QUESTION: But the information on the 250 is from the OSCE?

MS. PSAKI: No. It’s from the Ukrainian Government.

QUESTION: Well, that’s not the same as the OSCE, right?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. But the Ukrainian --

QUESTION: Has the OSCE --

MS. PSAKI: If the OSCE would have access to a number of these areas they would be able to give their own evaluation. But they don’t, because the separatists are preventing them from having access.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

QUESTION: But – wait, I’m not sure I understand. Is it – it is the OSCE who is supposed to be monitoring the alleged ceasefire, not the Government of Ukraine.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: So the OSCE you see as a neutral party in this, right?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, as does the international community.

QUESTION: Right. And you see Ukraine as being neutral on this?

MS. PSAKI: I didn’t suggest that. Obviously, Ukraine --

QUESTION: But you’re --

MS. PSAKI: -- has a stake in the outcome here.

QUESTION: Right. Exactly. But you’re – but you accept their figure of 250 violations by the rebels --

MS. PSAKI: I cited their figure because I think it’s relevant information.

QUESTION: Okay. I am not suggesting that it’s wrong, I’m just wondering why you don’t have – why you’re accepting it from the Ukrainian Government, who obviously have a stake in this, and not --

MS. PSAKI: If there are violations being thrown out there by the Ukrainian Government then let’s – against them, then let’s talk about that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What sort of examples of violations were the Ukrainian authorities citing?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve seen a number of them, and we’ve cited a number of them here as well – I mean, around Debaltseve, around Donetsk and Luhansk. So there are a number we’ve talked about over the last couple of days.

QUESTION: But is it a specific shelling incident or a specific shooting incident?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Those are all part of it, absolutely.

QUESTION: Jen, I – are you saying – I mean, there have been occasions when rebel-held areas have been shelled, right?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Presumably, although we don’t have proof and you called for investigations in doing –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But they presumably were coming from the Ukrainian Government. Are you saying that if the OSCE had access, then they would be – to the rebel-held areas – then they would be able to --

MS. PSAKI: No. I was suggesting that the reason I cited the Ukrainian Government is because the OSCE doesn’t have access to these areas where the separatists are violating. If they had access, then perhaps they could evaluate whether or not these are all violations.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: Would you say that the ceasefire is largely holding? I know you mentioned 10 killing, 250 violations and so on, but by and large the ceasefire is holding, right?

MS. PSAKI: As I said yesterday, there are some areas where it is and there are some areas where it is not, and that is our concern.

QUESTION: Would you say that --

QUESTION: I had a new one on Ukraine, actually.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I don’t know if you’d seen the news out this morning from a Russian company, Gazprom, that they started supplying gas directly to the eastern Ukraine areas that are held by the rebels. I wondered what the U.S. reaction to that was.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would first say that the surest way to ease the suffering of the people of eastern Ukraine is to put an end to the aggression by Russia and the separatists it backs by implementing the Minsk agreements. We have seen reports as – of course, the reports you’re referencing. I don’t have any independent confirmation of those, but we certainly believe that the way to return normalcy here is to implement the Minsk agreements.

QUESTION: Are you opposed to them supplying gas to eastern Ukraine, given that I imagine some it for their supplies?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think part of the issue here is there are also reports that the ongoing attacks by Russia-backed separatists have forced Ukraine’s Naftogaz to halt the delivery of natural gas to the separatist-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine due to a damaged gas trunk. So this is yet another example of the hardship inflicted on the people of eastern Ukraine by the intervention here.

QUESTION: Do you think – do you not think he’s a little cynical, given the fact that earlier this year, or probably late last year – sorry – there was a whole – there was a big threat from Gazprom to cut off supplies to Ukraine itself, and now they seem to be supplying an area which is passed in the hands of pro-Russian separatists?

MS. PSAKI: Well, and I think we have to see through what the issue at hand is here. There wouldn’t be an issue, it seems, that eastern Ukraine was dealing with in terms of a lack of access to natural gas if Russia hadn’t illegally intervened into that part of the country. So that’s why we are where we are.

QUESTION: But you’re not fundamentally opposed to them having the supplies as long as they get some supplies?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly want, on a humanitarian basis, of course, the people of eastern Ukraine and all across Ukraine, just like we do around the world, to have access to the supplies they need. But I think the context here is incredibly important before we applaud everything.

Ukraine or --

QUESTION: Ukraine.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you’d seen the comments by the British defense secretary in which he said that Russia presented a real and present danger to the Baltic states. Is that something with which the United States agrees?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’ve seen as a NATO ally that we have taken steps to support a range of our partners in the region through visits, through supplies, through equipment. And that’s something we’ve done not just with words but with actions. I don’t think we’ve put it in exactly those terms, but certainly, we’ve taken steps to support our friends and neighbors in the region.

QUESTION: But do you feel that there – the threat to them is growing? Is there any evidence that you would want to say now that the danger to them is increasing --

MS. PSAKI: There’s no new evidence. I think, though, if you’re a country in the region and you’re seeing what’s happening, it’s understandable if you are concerned about what it means for you.

QUESTION: And one other question, again about Britain. Do you have a response to the increased Russian air activity around Britain? The RAF had to escort two more bombers out of near Russian – British airspace.

MS. PSAKI: We’ve certainly seen that. I don’t have anything new to add from here, though.

QUESTION: Why --

QUESTION: But could you say that increased NATO intercepts of Russian aircraft is worrying? I mean, do you see it as an escalation or just an annoyance?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t call it that. I think the UK has spoken to it. I don’t have anything to add from here.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Why isn’t Russia’s direct involvement in carving off pieces of Ukraine, including through the use of its military force as well as by supporting the separatists, additional evidence to suggest that Russia’s other neighbors, such as the Baltics, are under greater threat?

MS. PSAKI: Didn’t I just say that we have taken action not just with words but with supplies, with support, with visits, in light of what’s happening in Ukraine, and that it’s understandable that Ukraine’s neighbors have a concern, given what they’re seeing happen in Ukraine?

QUESTION: Yeah, but the question was whether you concurred with the statement that they’re under greater threat. Is your point, “Yes we do, and that’s why we’ve taken these steps”?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t think I need to put new terms on it, Arshad. We’ve taken actions to support them. I think that shows what we think.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Where does that leave the intent to supply Ukraine with arms or not supply them with arms? Where does that issue stand now?

MS. PSAKI: As I mentioned in response to one of Arshad’s questions, we have a range of options that have been on the table for some time. No decision has been made.

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. PSAKI: Any more on Ukraine?

QUESTION: Yeah, just a couple more.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Was there – since the Minsk agreements were agreed to, was there ever a time that the United – in the view of the United States that it was fully implemented at any point?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several components of it, as you know, including the release of political prisoners. Obviously, we haven’t seen that done. There have been moments where ceasefires have been abided to in certain parts of the country. So have every component been abided to? No, I think there hasn’t been moments that I recall, but there have been moments where components of it have been. Regardless, we still continue to believe that a diplomatic solution, abiding by these agreements that all of these countries and the separatists have signed is the right path forward.

QUESTION: But you’ve said and the OSCE has said that it’s – it has to be a full – basically an all-or-nothing deal, that it has to be fully --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve also said that a ceasefire needs to be the first step in the process.

QUESTION: Okay. So I mean – but I guess I’m still just wondering, following up on Arshad’s question, if you’ve never really seen the whole thing implemented, then what is it really going to take to see that this is not really viable anymore? I mean --

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, as I’ve said, we’ve said a ceasefire needs to be the first step in the process. Obviously, that requires Russia and the Russian-backed separatists abiding by that ceasefire. And certainly, we’ve seen violations – many – over the past couple of days which are greatly concerning. There are some areas, according to the OSCE, where we’ve seen a reduction in violence. I think our view here continues to be that a political solution, a diplomatic solution is the right path forward. We’re not looking for an escalatory path. We want to find a way to reduce the violence, to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, and that’s why we continue to pursue these diplomatic options.

QUESTION: President Poroshenko said that he would prefer a UN peacekeeping force in the region. Is that something that you see as desirable or even viable?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have certainly seen his comments. We have not seen a formal request from the Ukrainian Government. Any formal request would have to be considered in close consultation with our partners, and obviously as part of a UN process.

QUESTION: Jen, just more broadly – and I don’t expect you to have an answer to this, but perhaps you can take it to your --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- legal people and ask them.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: As you know, the relations between Russia and the United States and its major European partners were supposed to be governed by the Budapest Memorandum. Does the Administration believe that that memorandum is basically gone and is no more? And if it does, or even if it doesn’t, is there any way to resurrect it, short of an end to the violence and the return of Crimea to Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to take it and talk to our legal team about it, Matt.

QUESTION: One more on --

MS. PSAKI: Ukraine? Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you feel there’s a – perhaps a greater chance that the ceasefire might be observed now that the separatists have achieved their immediate goal of taking Debaltseve?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think that’s assuming we know what their goals are. And I think --

QUESTION: That was their immediate goal.

MS. PSAKI: Well, fair enough. But I think what we’ve seen is continued aggression and an unwillingness to abide by even agreements that they’ve signed with countries from the international community. Certainly the door is open for them to abide by this agreement, but actions speak louder than words here.

QUESTION: Yes. I have one question, Jen. Yesterday I asked Marie Harf at the Foreign Press Center; she said she was going to check.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: I just wonder whether you have an answer. Today we didn’t see any representative in the White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism, any representative of the Kurdish Government in Iraq. I wonder whether they were not invited by the U.S. Government or they didn’t attend. Because I haven’t seen any public complaint from the KRG.

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to check with you. I think, as we’ve talked about many, many times in here, we see the Government of Iraq as the representative of all of Iraq.

QUESTION: Does that mean they were not invited this time again?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details for you.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: It’s going to be the same, with Iraq.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: In the result of the counterterrorism summit, there will be next steps for the countries who participated, including Iraq. What are the next steps for Iraq to take on, other than the war that going on there, and also for the Kurdish Government? Because we have a lot of youth from the Kurdish region of Iraq, they joined ISIS. So is there anything specifically for them, like to take --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think as you saw, there have been representatives from all over the world who are participating in this summit. It’s not just about Iraq at all; it’s not just about ISIL. It’s about how we counter violent extremism and how we address that not only in the short term but over the long term. We’ve put out several fact sheets; I expect there’ll be more. As you know, the conference is continuing. So I don’t have anything to preview for you at this moment.

QUESTION: Can we talk about the digital hub --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- that the President announced this morning?

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: What’s the genesis? Why is it based in the UAE? How quickly is it going to be up and running? What’s expected of Special Envoy Hussain to help get it off the ground and operating?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say first that – I know the President announced it today – some of the details we’re still working through and we’ll be discussing with our partners. Part of this, Roz, is, as you know, we have been part of the effort – the anti-ISIL coalition effort has been delegitimizing ISIL, and certainly having a hub in the region that can be responsible or play an important role in pushing back on messages with the right voices is something that we think is – could be hugely effective and is an important tool to have in the region. But obviously, talking to our partners about how this will work, which has – we’ve been talking about, but continuing those discussions is part of what will happen from here.

QUESTION: Is it only going to be focused on dealing with the messaging that has been put out by al-Qaida, by ISIL, by Boko Haram, by AQAP, by other affiliated groups? Or is it going to be broader and deal with other types of extremist behavior – for example, Neo Nazis in Western Europe, here in the United States?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Roz, I think part of the reasoning, as you know, for the creation of this is to – is our effort to delegitimize ISIL and delegitimize the violent extremism that we’ve seen out there. But again, there are going to be conversations with our partners in the region. I’m sure we’ll have more to say about it as the details become finalized.

QUESTION: Would that be a State Department-run program?

MS. PSAKI: I think it will be – we will be a partner and we’ll work with many partners in the region.

QUESTION: So in other words, the idea isn’t really – it’s not fully formulated?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t say that, Matt. I would say that when we have more details to talk about publicly, we will do that.

QUESTION: Here’s something that is done --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- was done just before we came in here, and that is the train and equip deal with the Turks. I’m just wondering if you have anything that you can add to the announcement that was made by the Embassy.

MS. PSAKI: I would just say I know that it was just recently signed, I think, in the last 30 minutes, if not even more recently than that, and I had mentioned the other day that we certainly welcomed our partnership and work with Turkey on this and other issues as a part of the coalition. So certainly, we are looking forward to implementing this plan and we thank them for their efforts and their ongoing part in these discussions.

QUESTION: But do you know – and I have not seen the agreement that was signed or the statement from the Embassy that announced it – but how soon does it take – does it begin?

MS. PSAKI: Why don’t we – I’m sure there are details that can be released publicly. I just don’t have them in front of me right now.

QUESTION: Are you the right person to be asking, or should these be directed to the Pentagon?

MS. PSAKI: It likely is DOD. It likely is DOD, yes.

QUESTION: Can we come back to the digital hub --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- for one second? The U.S.’s own effort to try to deal or to try to confront ISIL and al-Qaida in the social media realm goes back to 2011. Why has it taken four years to actually reach out to countries in the region where people --

MS. PSAKI: It hasn’t taken four years to reach out to countries in the region, Roz; far from that. I think we’ve seen this growing and evolving threat and see the growth of the propaganda machine, and dealing with that and making sure we’re doing it in the most efficient way, and changing the way we deal with it is something that is what you do when you’re dealing with social media.

QUESTION: But let’s go back to the fact that Inspire Magazine predated this Administration, and certainly there were people who found themselves seduced or challenged to take up arms, as it were, because of core al-Qaida. And so it does kind of raise the question – we’ve been talking about these sorts of groups since 2001. We’re coming up on 14 years. What’s the (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: When was Twitter started, Roz?

QUESTION: I don’t know that, but --

MS. PSAKI: Not 2001.

QUESTION: No, but they were on the internet and you could go online and you could read things that they were publishing and you could see their videos that everyone would download and then put on TV.

MS. PSAKI: And as you know --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- there are a range of efforts that we’ve had underway as a government working with other governments; some we talk about, some we don’t. This is a part of an effort to communicate publicly with the population. That has been ongoing.

QUESTION: But I guess my basic question is this: There was a very militaristic response to al-Qaida after September 11th. And part of the argument that the Bush Administration put forward was that trying to respond to these sorts of groups in a legalistic fashion wasn’t working and the only thing that will get people’s attention is weapons. It appears as if the Obama Administration is moving to something that does not rely on military might. Is there a fundamental philosophical shift in the way that these countries --

MS. PSAKI: I would disagree with everything almost you just said. The fact is we believe there’s a military component, but there are also other components. We’ve done thousands of airstrikes; we are starting a train and equip program next month. We believe the military component is a very important component of taking fighters off the battlefield, and that’s something not only the United States but other partners around the world are playing a prominent role in.

But there are other pieces. We are not going to defeat ISIL if we don’t defeat their ideology, and that is the component that this is focused on.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just perplexed by your question about Twitter, because – “When was Twitter.” I mean, al-Qaida managed to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon without there being a Twitter. They managed to do attacks around the world.

MS. PSAKI: Well, but I’m referring to what a hub would do and the changing – how social media has changed over time, and how we’ve also had to change the tools we use and how we use them and what we do with them most effectively.

QUESTION: Can I ask --

QUESTION: So the – so it’s an evolution in the strategy that began post-9/11, but is Roz not – is her point not correct that it’s taken quite a long time to evolve for the (inaudible) strategy?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would disagree with the premise in the sense that what we’re talking about here is a communications hub to try to deal with the ideology of ISIL. So that is a more recent challenge that we’ve seen in terms of the propaganda machine that we’ve seen out there.

QUESTION: But I think what the – but what the point is – and I – is that that ideology existed prior to Twitter and everything. I mean, that was – that is a vehicle to make it even more easily seen, but the ideology was there before, no?

MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Correct.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: But there’re also ways we addressed it then as well. This is a way we feel is an important component of how we address this threat moving forward.

QUESTION: On Turkey, on this equip and train deal – 400 American soldiers will be training and so on. Let me ask you the other side of this, that Turkey has been lax, to say the least – or some claim that it’s been lax, to say the least – in terms of controlling its border, has been quite porous, fighters go in and out. Is part of this deal for Turkey to control its border perhaps a bit tighter?

MS. PSAKI: Said, I think you and I have had this conversation several times, maybe a half dozen, in the last couple of weeks.

QUESTION: A half dozen times at least.

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to reiterate what I’ve said in the past, which is that going – addressing the issue of foreign fighters, which is one that we feel is an incredibly important component of what we’re doing with our anti-ISIL coalition – the Secretary had a meeting just yesterday to talk about exactly that issue. There are steps that Turkey and other countries have taken and put in place to do more in order to address this threat. That’s an important component of what we’re talking about and what we’re doing. The train and equip program is certainly a part of the military component of what we’re doing. They all work together, and these are all part of the umbrella of our anti-ISIL coalition.

QUESTION: Is that really concerning, in fact – maybe terrifying to some people in the region – to see these groups actually move from Syria to Libya, and more than likely through Turkey? I mean, these are – this is happening now as we speak.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t think we know that’s exactly how anything that happened in the last couple of weeks has happened, Said, so --

Go ahead, Elliot.

QUESTION: Question about Egypt.

MS. PSAKI: So – go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. They – Egypt and Libya – have asked for the UN to lift an arms embargo so that people there can battle ISIL and other militant groups. What is the U.S. position on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: At this point it’s been – the U.S. has been opposed to it in the past.

MS. PSAKI: That is correct. And I think, just to give everybody – I think most of you are paying attention to this, but I think you’re referring to the draft Security Council resolution that was – has been proposed yesterday following the briefing on – briefing at the Security Council. We’re currently reviewing that resolution. It was only circulated yesterday.

The sanctions measures currently in place do not prohibit the Government of Libya from procuring arms. They merely require a sanctions committee approval for lethal items. Given the instability on the ground, this exemption request provides a measure of oversight to ensure arms are safely and securely delivered to their intended users in Libya.

We have supported, continue to support the UN approval process currently in place for Libya. It permits transfers necessary to support the Libyan Government while allowing the Security Council to seek guard against the high risk that weapons may be diverted to non-state actors. That continues to be our position. We will be engaged with our council colleagues and certainly will be discussing with them and with our partners around the world this Security Council proposal. But again, it was just proposed yesterday, so I don’t have anything conclusive to tell you today.

QUESTION: And how might this be different than providing opposition in Syria with some training and arms?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we see them as entirely different countries with different challenges. As you know, we have determined several months ago that we would train and equip the moderate opposition in order to fight against ISIL on the ground. We know there have been safe havens for ISIL in Syria. Also, it’s a country, as we know, that has been in the midst of a challenging civil war for years. And while we don’t see a military solution there, we do see that the group of moderate opposition members who we’re training and equipping will also play a role in fighting back against that.

We’ve seen in Libya – we continue to believe that in Libya a political solution, one that is non-intervention, is the right path forward. There are ongoing discussions. We support those discussions. And again, we understand that the events of last week have warranted the emergency meeting, a discussion about these resolutions, but we’ll take a look and we’ll review what the proposal is.

QUESTION: Does your list of concerns mean that if those concerns are addressed, you would support the proposed resolution?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I was stating what our position continues to be on the arms embargo, which is part of what the resolution is.

QUESTION: So in other words, you would oppose lifting the arms embargo.

MS. PSAKI: That’s what our position is now. We will look at the resolution.

QUESTION: Well, this – but that’s what the resolution says. I mean, I can tell you right now --

MS. PSAKI: There’s more to the --

QUESTION: I haven’t even seen the resolution and I can tell you that it calls for lifting the arms embargo.

MS. PSAKI: There’s more to the resolution, Matt.

QUESTION: So --

MS. PSAKI: We’ll take a look at the resolution. That’s our position. That’s why it’s our position and continues to be.

QUESTION: So as long as the resolution calls for a lifting of the arms embargo, you will not support it?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get ahead of our consultations with our partners around the world.

QUESTION: Can I go back to ISIL and Syria for a minute?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. I know you spoke about the de Mistura proposal and so on, but I wonder if the past – in the past 24 hours and so, you have, let’s say, developed new positions on his proposal. Are you still in support of his effort to sort of implement ceasefires and so on, and that Assad is part of the solution, not part of the problem?

MS. PSAKI: Well, one, as I mentioned to you last week, Said, he addressed his own comments on that, so I’ll point you to that.

QUESTION: Right. I saw.

MS. PSAKI: He announced that the Assad regime is willing to suspend aerial attacks and artillery shelling throughout the city of Aleppo – excuse me – for six weeks to allow for a freeze in a district within the city. He will be here tomorrow, and we’ll hear more about his initiative when he visits Washington. He has meetings with Deputy Secretary Blinken, with Daniel Rubinstein, our Special Envoy for Syria, and I – he may have other Administration meetings as well. So we’ll hear more about that tomorrow.

We certainly have long supported his efforts to find a solution that can reduce the suffering of the Syrian people, but we also look at this with our eyes wide open given how, as we’ve seen in Babila, Homs, Moadamiya, Yarmouk, many local truces achieved thus far have closely resembled surrender arrangements and haven’t been abided by by the regime.

QUESTION: But you still support his efforts, de Mistura’s efforts?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly, we support his efforts, absolutely.

QUESTION: Okay. By the way, those meetings, you know what time they’ll take place in this building?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have specific times for you, Said.

Go ahead, Barbara.

QUESTION: Just back to Ukraine.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I know you said that – you outlined how the United States has been supporting the Baltic States and would defend NATO countries. I just – General Dempsey has been quoted as saying that “Putin’s principal aim strategically is to fragment the NATO alliance, and if we allow this issue to fragment the alliance, it will have played into its grand strategy.” Is there a feeling in this building that the conflict is moving slowly more towards a confrontation between NATO and Russia, not just a confrontation over Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: We don’t see this as a conflict between NATO and Russia. We know that has been proposed or said by Russia. We believe this is a conflict that is between Russia and Russian-backed separatists and Ukraine. We don’t feel there has to be – and we also believe there is an off-ramp here. Russia has had a long history of a relationship with NATO, but again, I think their illegal intervention into Ukraine has raised not only red flags, but huge concerns among the international community, including many, many members of NATO who are in the surrounding neighborhood.

QUESTION: Can I go to a different topic?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: There was a military court decision that vacated the conviction of David Hicks, who was a former Guantanamo detainee. He said in a – he said that he would like to see some kind of compensation or payment for what he says are bodily harm sustained while – during his time in U.S. custody. I was wondering if you have any response.

MS. PSAKI: Well, given this is a legal case and has been, I’m not going to have anything specific for you. I can reiterate for all of you that Mr. Hicks pled guilty to providing material supported to terrorism based on voluntary admissions; that he trained at al-Qaida camps, al-Qaida complexes in Afghanistan; met with Usama bin Ladin and joined al-Qaida and Taliban forces preparing to fight the United States. He successfully appealed his conviction, as Elliot mentioned, at the United States Court of Military Commission Review on the grounds that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had previously ruled that material support for terrorism was not a viable charge in military commissions for pre-2006 conduct.

The government does not intend to appeal, but in terms of any other questions about legal cases, I would send you to the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, but it’s not – it’s no longer a pending or ongoing legal case --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: -- since it’s finished, so --

MS. PSAKI: But you’re talking about seeking damages or seeking things through a legal process, so I don’t have any specific comment for you.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, I guess there’s still an open question of whether the U.S. Administration is open to any kind of outreach or apology or any kind of compensation or otherwise --

MS. PSAKI: I just outlined for you why his case was appealed. I don’t have anything more for you on it.

QUESTION: He also suggested --

MS. PSAKI: And why it was overturned, I should say. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, he also suggested that Australia should apologize for the treatment that he received, saying that they knew what condition he was being held in and they did not – and they didn’t do enough to try and get him released. What’s your position on that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any specific comment. I’d point you to the Government of Australia. I would remind you that he voluntarily admitted he trained at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. His conviction was overturned on the grounds that material support for terrorism was not a viable charge in military commissions. But I would point you to the Government of Australia.

QUESTION: In the fight against Boko Haram, there’s some reports that the U.S. is providing some training in some of the nations in that region. I’m wondering if you can outline the different kinds of assistance that is being provided by the U.S., particularly to Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and possibly Nigeria. Is it involve military training or some other kind of aid as well?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me see what I have here. I know we have quite a bit of information on this, so let me give you what I have, and if I don’t outline it, we can get you something after the briefing.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: We have – let’s see. We have, as you know – this wasn’t exactly your question, but let me just outline it here a little bit. We have – since the beginning of this emergency, we have provided 24.7 million in support of essential humanitarian aid to refugees, internally displaced persons, and other populations of concern impacted by Boko Haram-engendered conflicts in Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria. These include support for protection, food, agriculture, and livelihoods; health, humanitarian coordination, and water sanitation; and hygiene assistance. We are committed – we continue to assess and are committed to doing more. There is, as you know, a multinational joint task force that we also continue to support. Why don’t I see if I can get you more a specific breakdown of our support just so you have all of the details with you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can we go to Palestinians?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Today the Israelis announced that they have taken over 250 dunams, which is roughly 75 acres or a little less. Do you have any comment on that – for waste dumping area – to dump waste --

MS. PSAKI: Why don’t I take a look at the report, Said, and I’m sure, if it’s accurate, we can get you a comment.

QUESTION: Okay. And last week I asked you about the – if you were aware that they continue to hold close to 150 minors in prison. I wonder if you’ve checked into that.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new on that for you, Said. I think someone from our office got back to you, but we can check and make sure that you have a comment on it.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: There has been some concern expressed – well, not some – a lot of concern expressed about the situation in the West Bank, particularly with the continued withholding of tax revenues by Israel. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the Palestinian Authority could collapse, the security services no longer functioning and that Israel would then have to move back in in a way that it had been before. Have you been talking to the Israelis about this tax – about this money, and if so, what are you telling them?

MS. PSAKI: We have been. We have been engaging with key stakeholders, including with Israelis, Palestinians, the EU, UN, Russians, Arab League, and others over the past few weeks. It’s true we’re very concerned about the continued viability of the Palestinian Authority if they do not receive funds soon, either in terms of the resumption of monthly Israeli transfers of Palestinian tax revenues or additional donor assistance. If the Palestinian Authority ceases security coordination or even decides to disband, as they have said they may do as early as the first week of March if they do not receive additional revenues, we could be faced with a crisis that could gravely impact both the Palestinians and the Israelis with potentially serious ripple effects either – elsewhere in the region. So we have certainly raised our concern about what could happen here with a range of partners in the region.

QUESTION: And what has been the response, one, from the Israelis, but two, presumably the other countries that you’re – that you listed – or the other countries and organizations that you listed, you’re asking them to step up assistance to the PA to make up for either the shortfall in what the Israelis are withholding. What’s the response and --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to characterize the specifics of the conversations other than to say we’re working with others to try to find a solution that will avoid a crisis that harms all of our interests.

QUESTION: Given the mood on Capitol Hill right now as it relates to the Palestinians since they announced that they were going to go to the ICC, is the United States really in a position to be able to tell or ask or urge other governments, including Israel, to give more money? Obviously, the Israeli – with Israel it’s different because that is Palestinian money that they just hold on to. I mean, do you think that the Administration has a leg to stand on here?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I will say that I think it’s known, and we certainly make this information known, that we have provided, as you know, a great deal of assistance to the Palestinian Authority to address some of these challenges on the ground. You are right that it would not seem possible to get any further assistance to the Palestinian Authority through Congress in the near future, but it is a case that we are making to many of the partners I’ve referenced about the importance of stability in the region and the implications that go well beyond security. The fact that hundreds of thousands of students could be without teachers, hospitals could cease to function, food insecurity could grow, the cost to both Palestinians and Israelis could be immense in both financial and human terms. And that’s a case we’re making in our conversations as well.

QUESTION: Is it – is a restoration of the transfer of tax money post the Israeli election too late?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’re concerned about them receiving the funds soon. As you know, that election is a month away.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So I’m not going to give a date on it, but we’re certainly encouraging – making people aware of the issue now.

QUESTION: Right. But you said in response to questions about Iran – you said we’ve seen this movie before. Well, the movie of – or the preview of the potential collapse of the Palestinian Authority you have also seen before. It hasn’t happened in the past. What makes you so concerned that it’s actually going to happen this time?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve seen the severity of what is needed on the ground, and as I mentioned, a range of conditions that we’re looking at as it relates to both security and humanitarian issues, and given how dire those are this is why we’re having all these conversations.

QUESTION: And you said that it’s unlikely to get an additional – aid for the Palestinians through Congress in the near future. Why do you think that is?

MS. PSAKI: I think we’re obviously engaged with key stakeholders, but I think that’s just an assessment of what’s likely to happen at this point in time.

QUESTION: But I mean, there’s a reason that it is unlikely you’re not going to be able to get any more money for the Palestinians through Congress in the near future.

MS. PSAKI: I think you are all smart assessors of those reasons, so I will let you do your analysis.

QUESTION: So – all right. And yesterday, you were asked – go ahead. Well, this is related but --

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask on Gaza because the situation is so desperate in Gaza. And the – apparently, the aid to reconstruct Gaza that was promised back in October, none of it has gotten through. But also, there is a desperate human situation where people are fleeing into Israel, getting shot and getting arrested and so on, and increasingly so with every passing day. I wonder if, perhaps at this conference, there would be emphasis on the need to infuse some funds into Gaza.

MS. PSAKI: Which conference?

QUESTION: Well, the conference – I mean, we talk about listening to the rhetoric of the Vice President and the President how socioeconomic issues can help stem the kind of violence and so on. Certainly, infusing funds and helping the socioeconomic --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I would say first that, as you know and as I’ve outlined from here, the United States provides quite a great deal of humanitarian assistance that has gone through. So your information on that is not accurate. There are other countries that certainly we continue to encourage to provide assistance given how dire the situation is on the ground. I think our actions show how committed we are to this particular issue.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: This is Israel-related. Yesterday, you mentioned that Secretary Kerry would not be able to speak to the AIPAC conference this year because he would be traveling to an as-yet unknown --

MS. PSAKI: Unannounced, I should say.

QUESTION: -- unannounced destination. So coincidentally, I noticed that it is the inauguration of the president of Atlantis as well as the Kyrzbekistan national day ceremony. (Laughter.) Are those options for his travel?

MS. PSAKI: I can assure you we are unlikely to appear at either of those events.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you say where the Secretary plans to be?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any details to announce yet at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. But he’s definitely going to be unavailable in D.C. to speak to the AIPAC?

MS. PSAKI: It is looking highly likely we will be on a trip. That is still being planned.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So have you decided on what level of representation the State Department might make at the conference?

MS. PSAKI: Don’t have anything to announce quite yet.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I go to Afghanistan?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: So noting that the statement that you put out earlier that the – the reports that there are contacts going on between the U.S. and Taliban to try and have some talks was incorrect and that the White House has also said there are not meetings scheduled. Your statement referred to the fact that you – there are no direct talks between the U.S. and the Taliban. Are there indirect contacts going on given that the place they might meet is Qatar and --

MS. PSAKI: No. The United States has no meetings, ongoing or scheduled, indirect or direct, with the Taliban in Doha or elsewhere. We remain strongly supportive of an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process whereby the Taliban and the Afghans engage in talks toward a settlement to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan. That remains the case. I would also note that President Ghani in his inauguration address called on the Taliban to enter political talks and has made reconciliation central to his foreign policy, and we certainly support that effort as well.

QUESTION: So does that mean that you’re privileging the idea of Afghan talks and that you are not actually interested anymore in pursuing any U.S.-Taliban talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it has long been, even when we were talking about this issue a year and a half ago – I believe it was if my math is correct – the goal has always been Afghan-led, Afghans talking to Afghans. We remain committed to enabling or supporting that effort, and obviously President Ghani has spoken to his interest in that effort, but that is not an ongoing or scheduled process.

QUESTION: But there was an interest all those many months ago in trying to get some kind of U.S.-Taliban talks off the ground, which didn’t happen. So are you saying actually --

MS. PSAKI: Well, with the objective of Afghan-Afghan talks. So that’s what we want to achieve.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: So you’re not – sorry, Matt. So you’re not trying any kind of U.S.-Taliban talks at all? You’re just going to leave it to the Afghans?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re committed to enabling the process, but – the progress, and if progress can be made. But again, this is something that the president of Afghanistan has spoken to. We support that. There’s nothing ongoing at this point.

QUESTION: So there’s no way to tease any accuracy out of the reports that surfaced – the reports that had talked about a U.S. involvement, they’re just flat wrong?

MS. PSAKI: That seems correct.

QUESTION: And just – I just wanted – is it, though, not correct that – and I think you might have said this, but I – that you’re encouraging Afghan-Pakistan talks and that you encouraged the Pakistanis to encourage the Afghan-Afghan talks. That is correct, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve encouraged – we believe regional partners have an important role to play.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: And that certainly includes – we’ve encouraged Pakistan and China to support President Ghani’s reconciliation efforts.

QUESTION: And do – are you aware, have they actually now done – is there a move or a push from the Pakistanis to the Afghan, both sides, to get them together?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, I think they’ve been engaged in some dialogues about a range of issues. But I would point you to them. I don’t have anything to read out for you.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have indirect talks or communications with the Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: I think I just answered that question when Jo asked it.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: I said no direct or indirect talks.

QUESTION: No direct or indirect. So how did you – how did the U.S. Government succeed in securing the release of Mr. Bergdahl?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, Bergdahl – as you know, we talked about it at the time, that we worked indirectly through the Qataris. So we have not since then, and not since January of 2012 – or I guess it was March of 2012 when the Taliban cut off the other talks.

QUESTION: No, no. I’m sorry. So I didn’t understand that. So what you’re saying is there have been no indirect talks since the indirect talks via the Qataris to secure the release of Bowe Bergdahl in May of 2014?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Well, in fact, there was contact there. I mean, we all saw the video (inaudible). I mean, they --

MS. PSAKI: Sure. But in terms of the talks, as we talked about at the time --

QUESTION: They weren’t diplomats; they were special forces.

MS. PSAKI: -- the Qataris played a vital role there. Yes, fair enough.

QUESTION: Is there a Taliban office in Qatar still open? Is it – they had an office at one point established that you worked through.

MS. PSAKI: That was an office – I’m not sure how long that was open, Said, but that was about a year and a half ago. So --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Okay.

MS. PSAKI: All right.

QUESTION: No, I have one more brief one. I don’t know if you --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: I was just wondering, my question about Bahrain yesterday --

MS. PSAKI: Oh. Let me see if I have anything on that.

QUESTION: And I don’t know if there’s a Privacy Act waiver or if that’s still an issue, but I was just wondering if you had any --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, I – we don’t have anything new on that. We don’t have a Privacy Act waiver.

QUESTION: On that one – and on the other case, there – nothing new on that?

MS. PSAKI: Don’t have anything new on that case, no.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: And also just following up on Victoria Nuland’s trip to Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Romania. Anything on that you can offer?

MS. PSAKI: Let me see if I have anything on here, and if not, I’m sure we can talk to our team who are traveling with her and see – were you looking for just a readout of her meetings --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: -- or something like that? I don’t believe I have that with you, so why don’t we venture to get that you after the briefing.

QUESTION: Good.

MS. PSAKI: All right. Thanks everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:53 p.m.)

# # #