SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE:
Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. We’ll turn it over
quickly to [Senior State Department Official Two], who will be the
Senior State Department Official speaking during this call. We just
wanted to preface from the top, obviously there have been a lot of
developments over the past 24 hours. We will be available to answer
questions as information becomes available, but we’re not going to
speculate on hypotheticals on what may happen if. So we know we have
limited time, you have lots of questions, and we just wanted to preface
that from the beginning.
Also, as always, your lines will be open for follow-ups, but there
are a number of people on the call, so if you can just try to keep it to
one question so we can get around, that would be very much appreciated.
So let me turn it over to [Senior State Department Official Two].
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Good morning, everybody.
And I apologize I was a couple of minutes late. First off, I’d just say
I’m happy to chat with you about what’s going on. I’m not in New York,
I’m in Istanbul, and so I’m not the best person to ask for the
moment-by-moment state of play between Ban Ki-moon and the United States
that’s going on in the United States. I recommend you talk to USUN
about that.
But I’m happy to talk about where we are with the Syrians, both the
regime and what it’s doing, and then where the Syrian opposition is. And
I’d just lead off by saying that there was a lot of effort on the part
of many people in the Syrian opposition, both the political opposition
and the armed opposition, to get them to where they were willing to go
to Geneva. They have suspended that decision. They’re waiting to see
what happens with the Iran invitation. And so we’re all sort of in
Turkey right now with the state of play being, I think, more between
Tehran and New York than with the Syrians here for the moment.
And so with that, I think I’ll just be happy to take the first
question. And, [Senior State Department Official One], are we on
background or deep background or what?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It’s background for
attribution to Senior State Department Officials. And obviously the
purpose – and I should have mentioned this – is to preview the Geneva --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The trip.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: -- conference, which we are still planning for despite the events.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes, okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So let me turn it over to the first question.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay.
OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question,
please press * followed by the 1. You will hear a tone indicating that
you’ve been placed in queue, and you may remove yourself from queue at
any time by pressing the # key. Once again, for questions, please press
*1 at this time.
Our first question today comes from the line of Anne Gearan with the
Washington Post. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Hi, [Senior State Department Official Two]. I
just – I understand you’re not going to go into hypotheticals, but I
mean, there’s just sort of a giant hanging one out here. I mean, is the
United States prepared to walk away itself if the ground rules are
abrogated here and Iran participates on the terms that Ban has
apparently invited them to participate on?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Mm-hmm. Well, as I said,
I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, so we’re not at that point
yet, although it’s getting close. We’re going to have to make a
decision. It’s very fluid. So we’re in touch with a lot of capitals.
We’re in touch with the people in the Syrian opposition as well.
What I just would like to underline because I think this is really
important: For a year, we have been meeting with the United Nations and
with Russians in Geneva. I’ve been in all of those discussions, when I
was with Secretary Kerry when he went to Moscow and met Lavrov last May.
And we have been very explicit and clear in both behind closed doors in
meetings with the United Nations and Russians, and publicly that we did
not think that any country that refused to endorse the Geneva I
communique, the one from June 30
th, 2012 – any country that refused to endorse it and support its full implementation should not be in a Geneva peace conference.
And so we are where we are, but I just want to make clear that it’s
not – this isn’t a new American stance. It has been very consistent. We
have said we do not think there should be a conference at which a
country – it could be Iran, could be other countries – that refuse to
accept publicly the Geneva I communique’s full implementation. And in
that case, we didn’t think they should be in the conference.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: And one thing to add,
Anne, just given there were statements overnight: Our view remains the
same as it was last night. So their statements this morning yet again
fall far short of meeting the bar, as [Senior State Department Official
Two] outlined, of what we have long communicated publicly and privately
we expect. So we continue to believe that Iran should not attend if it
has not endorsed the Geneva communique. And obviously the statements
overnight did not do that.
QUESTION: Okay. So one quick follow-up. So that means a
difficult conversation between you and Ban’s office, correct? Can you
talk a little bit about that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Again, I’m in Istanbul,
I’m not in New York, so I don’t know how difficult the conversation is
going to be. But our position is very firm and it’s not new, which is
that Iran has never endorsed the Geneva I communique and has actually
refused to do it. It’s been asked many times, and it’s always refused to
do it. And so we just do not see how it can get an invitation.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: And we have communicated this point --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And I know – and believe
me, I mean, think of it. This context is important also. The Geneva I
communique, if you look at it, talks about the parties, meaning the
international parties that are signing up to it, are going to work to
deescalate tensions on the ground. Iran’s actions are just the opposite.
They are actually escalating problems on the ground. They have sent in
their own uniformed military personnel, Iranian Revolutionary Guards
forces. They have mobilized foreign militias to go fight in Syria,
whether they be from Afghanistan, whether they be from Lebanon,
Hezbollah, whether they be from Iraq. The Iranians have provided
substantial amounts of military material and they have backed the regime
economically.
They are doing nothing to deescalate tensions and sectarian tensions
in particular. I mean, now they’re actually – their actions are
aggravating them. And so the idea that they would come to the conference
refusing to acknowledge support for the Geneva I communique, from our
point of view we just do not see how it could be helpful.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you. Let’s move on to the next question.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Michael Gordon, representing
The New York Times. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Just very quickly, a question and a
quick clarification. [Senior State Department Official Two], President
Assad was quoted just today as telling a French news agency that the
purpose of the conference should be a war against terrorism and that it
was unrealistic that – to think that his government would share power
with the opposition. Given these statements, do you think – and also the
letter from their foreign minister that the regime is coming itself
with a mandate at the conference in mind and that the conditions have
been set with – for progress.
And then second, just a quick clarification. [Senior State Department
Official One], Brahimi said a week ago today that all – the decision as
to invite Iran was to be taken by consensus only, meaning the United
States, Russia, and the UN. It would seem to me that if the U.S. is not
satisfied, Iran cannot, in fact, attend. This is supposed to be a
consensus decision. Has the UN violated the principle of consensus? And
if you don’t agree that Iran has met the conditions, isn’t it the case
that Iran simply can’t attend?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m going to – just for a
minute on the Assad interview, Michael, a couple of things I would say.
Number one, the invitation letter itself from the secretary general is
very clear about what the purpose of the conference and the subsequent
Syrian-to-Syrian negotiations are about, and that is the implementation
of the Geneva I communique. The Geneva I communique nowhere mentions
fighting terrorism. Those words are not in the text. Look it up.
It talks instead about measures to deescalate on the ground, for
example: cessation of using heavy weapons; stopping to move troops into
civilian residential areas; withdrawing troops out of those areas,
actually, back to bases; humanitarian access, which is a huge problem
right now in Syria; release of prisoners, another huge problem in Syria
right now; and the establishment by mutual consent of a transition
governing body.
That’s what’s in the Geneva communique, and the invitation letter
makes very clear that this conference is about the implementation of
that communique and in particular, the establishment of a transition
governing body. The Russians agreed to that invitation letter text as
one of the two initiating states, and we did.
So the foreign minister in Syria is welcome to make any statements he
wants, but the agenda of the meeting should make clear that the purpose
of this – these Syrian discussions, the conference itself and then the
discussions between the two Syrian delegations, should be implementation
of the Geneva I communique.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: And on your other piece,
Michael, I think our statement last night was pretty clear, but let me
just reiterate. Iran has not publicly endorsed Geneva, not before last
night and not overnight. Since they have not made a public statement –
or their public statement, I should say, falls well short of what the UN
says it was told, we expect the invitation will be rescinded. We, of
course, saw Brahimi’s comments and we’ve been in close touch with the
UN, and we’ll see what happens over the course of the day.
QUESTION: But isn’t it – [Senior State Department Official
One], just to clarify, isn’t it the case that Iran can only attend on a
consensus basis, and if the United States agrees that they have met the
conditions to attend and that you – if you don’t accept those
conditions, they cannot attend? Because that’s been the case.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, Michael, I think
I’ve been clear what our position is. I’m not going to speculate on
what’s going to happen today. Obviously, they haven’t met the conditions
that the United States has set out.
QUESTION: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’re ready for the next question.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question today comes from the line of Kim Ghattas with the BBC. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, hi. Good morning, [Senior State Department
Official Two] and [Senior State Department Official One]. My questions
were asked, but I’ll perhaps do a bit of a follow-up.
Can you tell us – and if, [Senior State Department Official Two], you
can’t answer that question, perhaps, [Senior State Department Official
One], you can clarify a little bit – what was the sequence of events
that led to Mr. Ban Ki-moon issuing this invitation? Were you taken by
surprise? Did you expect him to issue the invitation? Did you say we
will object if you do? Or I mean, we’re a little bit in the dark here
about what happened. And I understand that some of that is (inaudible)
over at UN mission with the U.S. mission and the United – the UN itself.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, what I – Kim,
again, I’m not in New York and I’m not in the discussions between
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and a team in New York or the Secretary.
But we have always said that before Iran or any other country invited to
the Geneva II conference gets an invitation, it should publicly support
the full implementation of the Geneva I communique. We’ve said that for
all countries – not just for Iran, but for all countries.
What’s interesting is, like, Iran is about the only country that
refused to do it. So that position, as I said, goes back to January of a
year ago. So that position is longstanding before Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon ever issued his invitation. Now, I think the secretary-general
has had conversations with Iranian officials. We’re not privy to those.
But the American position throughout has been quite, quite consistent.
QUESTION: But if – sorry, just to follow up. If Ban Ki-moon is
satisfied with what he heard from Mr. Zarif, obviously he understands
that those are the conditions for Iran to attend, and he issued the
invitation based on his conversation with Mr. Zarif. So why are you
still not satisfied, or why is he satisfied and you aren’t?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, first of all –
first of all, because all of the other countries that are going to this
conference – I want to underline this, this is a point that is
frequently mischaracterized by some other countries’ foreign ministers.
Iran is not being asked to do anything that other countries have not
already done, including, for example, Saudi Arabia, which has repeatedly
stated in public – look at the different London 11, Friends of Syria
communiques dating all the way back to the first one in Istanbul in
March of 2013. There is a mention of the utility of finding a political
solution along the lines of the Geneva communique. The Saudis have
consistently – whether it be in a London 11 communique in Istanbul or
the London 11 communique in Amman or the London 11 communique in Doha,
or the most recent ones in London and then in Paris – the Saudis have
consistently signed up and said they support implementation of the
Geneva I communique. Iran, by contrast, has never done that.
And so they are not being asked to do anything that no one else has
done. To the contrary, they’re simply being asked to join an
international norm. They decline so far to do so. Their latest
statements do not do so. If you look at them very carefully, there is no
mention anywhere of full implementation of Geneva I communique, and
especially the most sensitive part, which is the establishment of a
transition government with full executive authorities established by
mutual consent.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Just to add one thing --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Frankly, the Iranian policy is pretty clear, actually, when you look at it on the ground.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Just to add one thing,
Kim. So we did know and we had been in touch with the UN, as would be
(inaudible), over the last 24 hours or so. We expressed the same
concerns privately that we made publicly. Since the public statement
that was made overnight by the Iranians falls far short of what the UN
said it was told privately, we expect the UN will review the invitation
that was issued. Our statement last night made very clear and expressed
clearly what our concerns are. So I don’t think there should be mystery.
That’s a summary of where we stand at this point.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We should move on to the next question.
OPERATOR: All right. Our next question comes from the line of Elise Labott with CNN. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thanks for doing this, [Senior State
Department Official Two] and [Senior State Department Official One].
Just a quick question and then I’ll add a kind of larger question. Did –
when you said, [Senior State Department Official One], that they – we
expressed this privately, could you say who expressed that? Did
Secretary Kerry call Ban Ki-moon, or how was that communicated?
And then just in general, I mean, I understand that the opposition
voted to go, but only about two-thirds of their members even went to
this meeting, a big – I think a little bit more than a third decided not
to attend the meeting because they don’t support Geneva. And then out
of that, you had your consensus. So we’re talking only about a half of
the opposition that supports this conference.
And I’m – just given the fact of what Michael’s question was about
the regime not really coming prepared to discuss a transitional
government, given the fact that the opposition is – remains still very
divided and there is a lot of concern that this conference could
actually cause them to collapse, I’m just wondering how realistic you
are about any type of progress at this conference towards the goals.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. [Senior State Department Official One], do you want to go first, or shall I?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Oh, go ahead, [Senior State Department Official Two]. I’ll follow you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay, a couple of
things. First – and I should have mentioned this when Michael asked his
question – I don’t think anyone who’s dealt with Syrian officials has
any false expectations of rapid progress. I’m old enough to remember
Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez al-Assad, and when he was negotiating
with Philip Habib and the Israelis in the Bekaa Valley in the Lebanon
war in – well, that was 1984 – 1983 and ’84.
So I mean, the Syrians – officials, that regime is very tough.
They’re very provocative at the negotiating table. They say outrageous
things. They’re a known quantity. And everybody has to understand that
this is the beginning of a process. It’s not going to be fast. It’s very
bitter fighting on the ground. And so there’s going to be an absolute
requirement for patience and for persistence.
But the opening of a process, we think, is important. I think it is
also important to note that there are elements inside the regime itself
and among its supporters that are anxious to find a peaceful solution.
And we have gotten plenty of messages from people inside. They want a
way out. And so if this conference provides an impetus to finding a way
forward whereby Syrians understand that the issue is not the entire
state of Syria, the issue is a ruling family – rapacious, incredibly
brutal – and the change of some officials, but the safeguarding of the
remaining institutions of the state so that we don’t have a repeat of
the Iraq scenario. I think it is possible with persistence to drive that
point home and isolate a brutal ruling family.
Oh, you asked about the opposition and whether or not they’re united
and the number of voters. There were two issues that were dividing the
coalition. One was Geneva. The second was Sheikh Ahmad Jarba himself. A
lot of people don’t like his leadership style. There are complaints
about him; that is not secret. We actually received an official letter,
Secretary Kerry did, from the faction whose third didn’t go to the vote –
the one that you were talking about, Elise. So in fact, that faction
has communicated to Kerry that they support a political process, they
support the Geneva process, but they didn’t vote because they’re unhappy
about Ahmad Jarba himself.
I think more important, frankly, than the different factions of the
Istanbul-based opposition are the reactions of armed groups on the
ground. And I think this is vital and probably hasn’t been reported on
enough. There were meetings here in Turkey between four major factions.
Those factions are the Islamic Front, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front,
the Jaish al-Mujaheddin, and the Ajnad al-Sham. Those meetings were over
the weekend. And at the end, they issued a statement saying that they
did not object to – or first of all, that they supported a political
solution if it would save lives and help bring about a transition
government faster than sole reliance on military means; they supported a
political process.
And second, they did not object to the coalition sending a delegation
to Geneva to discuss that, as long as it was understood that the
purpose of the talks in Geneva was to discuss full implementation of the
Geneva accord and establish a transition governing body. They had
themselves the text of the UN invite, so they clearly looked at it and
copied it into the statement that was issued on – got to get my days
right – Friday.
So I think that statement by those armed groups was probably the
single-most important thing that then gave confidence to the political
opposition people here in Istanbul to go forward. The next day, they
voted to go forward and send a team to Geneva.
Can I just add one more thing and then I’ll shut up?
QUESTION: Yes.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: In addition, among those
armed groups that were meeting here in Turkey last Friday and Saturday,
some of them have come forward and said they would like to put
representatives of their fighting battalion in the delegation going to
Geneva. And I believe that is being – it’s actually been worked. They
may still be doing it. I know they’re discussing which people they’re
going to take. There will be representatives from the armed opposition
in the Geneva Syrian-to-Syrian talks if we get over the current hurdle
and get to the conference and the Syrian talk.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow, [Senior State Department
Official Two]. You mentioned you’re getting messages from elements of
the regime anxious to find a political solution.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Are you saying that you’re getting private
communications from members of the regime that are – that you think that
you might be able to peel away? I mean, could you just flesh that out
just a bit?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes, that is exactly
what I’m saying. I’m not going to say much more than that, but we
regularly get messages. Can I just give you some examples of what I’m
talking about? I’m not going to name any names, obviously. I don’t want
to get anybody killed, and they would be killed. It’s a very brutal
regime. But here are just a couple of public things.
Frequently at funerals for Alawi soldiers that are killed – and the
regime is heavily relying now on Alawi militias as well as foreign Shia
militias from Lebanon and Iraq, and now more and more even from
Afghanistan of all places. But for the Syrian Alawi soldiers that are
killed, there are not infrequent demonstrations against the regime, so
that in some cases the regime has actually delayed transferring bodies
home, because they don’t want to trigger political unrest in the
regime’s own heartland around Qardaha and Latakia, that area there. And a
prominent member of one of the regime’s families – there are three main
families in the regime – this one from the Shalish family was murdered
by Alawis in Bashar al-Assad’s hometown of Qardaha a couple of weeks
ago.
So my point is that the Alawi community has borne the brunt of the
fighting. If they see that there is a way out – which this is the
political opposition’s time to present that way out; that’s the whole
point of their going to Geneva, to promote the alternative, the
alternative vision and the alternative possibility – I think they will
get a lot of resonance inside Damascus and inside the rest of the
country.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: One piece, Elise, just
to add before we move on. The Secretary has been in touch with Ban
Ki-moon over the course of the weekend, as have other officials.
Let’s move on to the next question.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Cami McCormick with CBS. Please go ahead.
Ms. McCormick, is your line muted?
QUESTION: Are you there? Can you hear me now?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’re here. Go ahead, Cami.
QUESTION: Can you hear me?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yep.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you for doing this. I have two
questions. One, is Secretary Kerry making any phone calls today, [Senior
State Department Official One]?
And also, sort of to follow up on Anne’s question, how surmountable
is this – insurmountable? Is this a deal-breaker? If Iran doesn’t change
its stance and the invitation isn’t withdrawn, is this a deal-breaker
for the U.S.?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: [Senior State Department Official Two], do you want me to start, or do you want to start?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, no, you go ahead. I think you’re closer to the Secretary, so you’ll know more about his schedule than I will.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, Cami, the
Secretary was on the phone this weekend. I mentioned that he spoke with
Ban Ki-moon, and certainly he is open to making calls today. We’ll see
if there’s an update to get around to all of you. I expect he will be, I
guess is the short answer.
I think we’ve addressed the other question, and we don’t want to get
ahead of where we are at this point. Obviously, those statements that
they made don’t meet the bar we feel that they needed to meet. We expect
the UN will take a – will reevaluate the invitation. Beyond that, I
don’t think we want to speculate on where things will land.
[Senior State Department Official Two], anything else you’d like to add to that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No. I think we’re all waiting to see if Iran does anything.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Okay. Let’s move on to the next question.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Jo Biddle with the AFP. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, guys. Can you hear me?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yep, we can.
QUESTION: Okay, great. Just a couple of questions, quick ones.
First off, do you know yet who is going to be leading the Syrian
delegation, the regime delegation, to the Geneva talks?
And secondly, on the interview that AFP did with Assad on Sunday, he
is saying that he anticipates that he may well run again. And I just
wondered what your reaction was to that. He said there’s a significant
chance he’ll seek a new term, and he’s ruling out this sharing power –
any sharing of power with the opposition, saying it would be a joke to
put them into any kind of government. Could you just react to that?
Thanks.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, sure. With respect
to who’s going to lead the Syrian delegations, I think they need to
announce that. I don't want – it shouldn’t be the Americans that
announce that.
What I can say is that the delegation is very likely to have both
members of the political opposition inside Syria as well as members of
the political opposition outside Syria, members of the armed opposition
from inside Syria. I expect it’s going to have at least one, possibly
two Kurdish politicians. It will have a couple of women. Beyond that, I
don't know too much yet. They made the decisions on the delegation
composition, I understand, only early this morning. So – and they have
to communicate that now to the United Nations, and I’m not sure they
have or not.
QUESTION: Sorry. I was asking --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And then they announced
they were suspending their participation. I’m not sure they went ahead
and informed the United Nations of who their delegation would be. They
may have put that on hold.
Oh, you had a question then about Bashar al-Assad’s statement.
QUESTION: Yes, that’s right. Actually --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And I do have --
QUESTION: -- thank you for that.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I do have a comment on
that. First, this is a guy who has used Scud rockets. This is a guy
who’s used chemical weapons on several occasions, killing literally
thousands of people. This is a guy who has surrounded cities and starved
them. If you look at the Homs opposition revolution Facebook page
yesterday, you will see pictures of bodies of people who have allegedly
starved. It looks like people who have come out of concentration camps
in World War II, these emaciated bodies. This is a man who is using this
kind of force to stay in power.
And we have long ago thought he lacks legitimacy and would not win in
a free and fair election. His family controls the intelligence
apparatus, which is an incredibly brutal apparatus. They have never had a
free and fair election in the country. The idea that international
observers could go into Syria in the middle of a war and manage an
election process which the family controls the election machinery for is
ludicrous. And I really mean that – ludicrous.
In addition, the population is approximately one-third either
refugees or internally displaced. And how you would arrange for voter
registration, how you would arrange for candidate registration is
entirely unclear during a war.
So you have a variety of both technical issues and then just – how do
I put it? – credibility issues. And so I don’t think – he may present
himself as a candidate, but I cannot imagine that it would be in a free
and fair election, and it certainly would not stop the fighting. So to
us, his joining an election process, again, in the summer, is simply not
a way to end the fighting in Syria.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Let’s move on to the next question.
OPERATOR: Our next question today comes from the line of Margaret Brennan representing CBS News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. A question for Administration Official
Number One here. Just to clarify, when you’re talking about some of the
signs that you’ve seen from within the regime, has any of that led you
to believe that when the regime actually shows up in Switzerland that
they would be in a position to negotiate in good faith?
And secondly, on the opposition which you’ve been working with very
closely, did you have assurances that they are now in a place where they
could show up in Switzerland with a list of folks who could participate
in any potential transitional government, any way to talk about
anything beyond humanitarian support at this point?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think we view the
opening of Syrian-to-Syrian discussions about the full implementation of
the Geneva I communique, both the different elements to deescalate on
the ground and improve the immediate living conditions for Syrians,
whether it be humanitarian aid or the release of prisoners or allowing
journalists and others to move around freely or establishing the
transition government, we think that it will give heart to those inside
Syria who want to find a way out of this.
I don’t think anybody, whether in the political opposition or the
armed opposition, or frankly within large segments of the regime, (a),
are happy with the situation – I think even people in the regime
acknowledge that it’s tragic; maybe not Bashar in his interview that was
very hardline, but we’ve gotten plenty of messages from other people
who say that this is sad and tragic.
But more importantly, it is an occasion for the opposition to present
a vision and to present a plan for how to get out of it. And I think
there will be a huge amount of media attention given to them and just by
necessity because there are going to be so many media there. And it
will be an unprecedented opportunity for them to actually show Syrians
inside Syria and even inside the regime that the problem is not the
state, the problem is not Syrians who have been backing Assad; the
problem is the family and the immediate circle around Assad, and that
they – there is a way to isolate those people and move forward as a
country.
So – but I don’t want to pretend that that’s easy, and I don’t want
to pretend that it’s simple; it’s not. It’s going to be a long, hard
process – a grinding process, I would say. And we have warned the
opposition people going into Geneva in this delegation if they go –
which is a big if – if they go that this is not going to be done
quickly. It’s going to be a long process.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Let’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Did you have a question about the armed groups?
QUESTION: Well, I asked if they – if the opposition actually had a list of candidates for a transitional government. But I also asked --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I would prefer – I would
– let me answer it this way, but I think you ought to ask them. If you
go to Geneva, ask them yourself. It shouldn’t be me talking about what
their plan is.
But what I can tell you is this: They have had a team working on
different proposals. They have had a series of international legal firms
working with them, for example, that they’ve hired. And they have
developed some fairly detailed proposals. And so they will be ready, I
think, if they go to Geneva, to put those on the table. And I know that
Walid Muallim says they’re not going to discuss – the Syrian regime’s
delegation to – they’re not going to discuss transition government
arrangements. But the letter, the invite from the secretary general of
the United Nations is very clear. So – but Brahimi, who will be the
mediator in those Syrian-to-Syrian talks, to find a way a way to manage
that agenda issue.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We have time for just two quick more questions. I know --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. I was going to say my team is forming up here, [Senior State Department Official One], so I’ve got to cut out.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m sure they’re staring you down. So let’s do two more questions, and then we’ll conclude the call.
Operator?
OPERATOR: All right. Our next --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: (Inaudible.)
OPERATOR: Our next question will come from the line of Lesley Wroughton with Reuters. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, hi. Thank you for this. [Senior State
Department Official Two] and [Senior State Department Official One], I
just want to be clear: Are you expecting the UN to withdraw that
invitation, or is that unclear now? That’s my first question.
The second one is: Given what’s happening now, I mean, can you still expect that conference to go ahead?
And then number three, have you made any advances on a humanitarian
corridor? Do you think that the confidence-building steps that the
Secretary was asking for from the government and opposition for the
conference have been implemented? Have there been any signs of those
confidence-building measures?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Can I – I want to start
on the humanitarian confidence-building measures, and then we can talk
about the other stuff. I don’t – so on that, last Monday, Secretary
Kerry had a press conference with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the UN
Special Joint Representative Lakhdar Brahimi. At that press conference,
Foreign Minister Lavrov announced the Syrian regime was going to make
some gestures, and he mentioned allowing food shipments into two places,
al-Ghezlaniya and Jdaidet al-Shibani. Those, according to the Russians,
were in this area that was blocked called the Eastern Ghouta.
To be honest, we had not heard of them, and so we checked on them. It
turns out that they were – neither one of them was blockaded. Neither
one of them was besieged. The government controlled both, and they were
simply poor areas with legitimately needy people, but that in no way
were they blocked prior to this from getting food aid. The government
simply wanted the UN to send them some. But they were not in any way
blockaded. People in those towns, unlike other places that are under
blockage, people in those locations were able to come out and get food
if they had the money or the resources to do it.
The only significant gesture that the regime has made in weeks is
allowing one convoy to go into the Yarmouk camp three days ago. That is
the only significant gesture they have made.
With respect to ceasefires, the government has actually escalated its
bombing. They bombed residential areas in Aleppo again yesterday and
killed several dozen people. It’s all over the Arabic news feeds –
again, the same kind of incredibly grim film footage that we’ve seen so
often. So no progress on that. The regime has said that it is prepared
to do prisoner exchanges. The opposition has said it is prepared to do
prisoner exchanges. And it is something we’re looking at to see if that
can be arranged. But so far we do not have any progress to report.
QUESTION: And then on the other one, please?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t – as I recall
you were just saying, do we know if the conference is going to be held.
And I would say the situation is fluid and we’re waiting to see. I don’t
– I mean, I’m just – I don't know where it’s going to go.
QUESTION: And have you received any indication that Ban Ki-moon is going to withdraw that invitation?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m in Istanbul so I’m
not the right – I’m not up to date on what Ban Ki-moon is doing. So I
don’t know, [Senior State Department Official One], if you want to –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, I don’t have any
updates or predictions for you. Obviously, I would point you to the UN
for that. But just to reiterate, we’ve made the same points privately
that we’ve made publicly, which is that since the – Iran has not
publicly and fully endorsed the Geneva communique, that we expect the
invitation will be rescinded. But I would point you to the UN otherwise.
Let’s go to the last question here so [Senior State Department Official Two] can get going on the ground.
OPERATOR: Our final question today will come from the line of
Margaret Warner, representing – or please excuse me, Terry Atlas with
Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: All right. Thanks. This will be a quick question.
Just can you run through just operationally what will happen if the
conference goes ahead? What will the Secretary be doing aside from
speaking at the conference?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: [Senior State Department
Official One], I’m going to leave that with you, because again, I think
you’re closer to the Secretary’s schedule than I am.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Sure. So, Terry, the
Secretary will be there on Wednesday. As you know, after Wednesday –
Wednesday is the day the foreign ministers will be there, so he will be,
of course, representing the United States there. The UN has put out
kind of a tick-through of what the day will entail, so I would point you
to them on that. But he will be there all day Wednesday, and then he
plans to move to Davos on Thursday morning.
QUESTION: What – does he have any bilaterals? Will he have side meetings with the opposition or with other – the Saudis or with others?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We are still – that’s a
great question. We are still working through that, so we will venture to
get you guys an update on bilateral meetings by the end of the today,
if not by the time we get on the plane very early tomorrow morning.
We’re still working through the schedule.
QUESTION: [Senior State Department Official One], can I ask you one other question?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Sure.
QUESTION: Some of the Israeli press are reporting that Livni is going to meet with him here in D.C. tomorrow
[1]. That’s not on his public schedule. Is that happening?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s correct. We’re putting out an updated public schedule shortly.
QUESTION: Will there be any kind of opening – any comments or more on that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, it’s a closed press meeting.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you, everybody,
for joining. We’ll be here, of course, as events unfold today. Thank
you, [Senior State Department Official Two], very much for taking the
time, and of course, we’ll otherwise see you all tomorrow morning bright
and early on the plane.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Thanks, [Senior State Department Official One], thanks, everybody. Bye.
