recovery grand prime

mr toner: hey, matt. dave, nice beard. wow. in my neck of the woods, they call that adeer-hunting beard. anyway. welcome, everyone, to the state department. happy friday. just a couple of unfortunate events to noteat the top of the briefing, and then i’ll take your questions.

first of all, we condemn the attack todayin madagali, nigeria that has reportedly killed at least 30 individuals and wounded many more. after a period of relative calm for the peopleof northeastern nigeria, this tragic attack is a reminder of the need to remain vigilantand maintain a sense of urgency in the fight against boko haram. the united states supports nigeria and itslake chad basin neighbors in their effort to defeat the group and ensure the safetyand security of all its citizens. and we send our condolences, obviously, tothe victims and the families of the – and the people of nigeria.

also, we condemn the attack earlier todayin cairo, egypt that killed several police officers. and we express our condolences to their familiesand their friends and loved ones and certainly extend our sympathies to the injured and hopefor a speedy recovery. the united states also stands with the peopleof egypt as they confront violent extremism and work to defeat this threat. the united states strongly supports a stable,secure, and prosperous future for all egyptians. that’s it. matt.

question: could you run us through what’sbeen agreed for the meeting in geneva on the situation in aleppo, and perhaps also talka bit about your assessment of the situation on the ground in the city? mr toner: sure. well, the secretary actually himself spoketo this a short time ago in paris. i think it was at a meet and greet with someof the embassy families and personnel there. and i thought that he put it actually in avery succinct way, which is what we’re trying to do here is how do we, in essence, savethe city of aleppo from being completely leveled, destroyed.

how do we end the current round of fighting,which as i said has completely devastated much of the city, in order to get medicalassistance, in order to get humanitarian assistance, in order to get other assistance in to thecivilian population that’s trapped there? but also, how do we get access to these peopleso hopefully we can find a way out? so, as i think you know, he spoke with lavrovi think yesterday. i don’t think – i don’t believe they’vespoken today. and the next step is technical talks to beginin geneva tomorrow. and again, these are going to be primarilyfocused on, one, a pause in the fighting; and two, how do we get – deliver, rather– into aleppo to these entrapped civilians

humanitarian aid; and then thirdly, how dowe get a safe departure for those who wish to leave the city. and of course, more broadly speaking, we wantto see, obviously, political track – process back up and running in geneva. but obviously, there’s also more urgentconcerns at this point in time. question: could i follow up? mr toner: of course. question: now, the technical talks tomorrow– the buzz around these meetings is that the expectation is that there is an imminentagreement for the departure of all militants

from whatever remains of eastern aleppo. do you have any comment on that? is that – can you -- mr toner: i don’t, and i’m deliberatelynot going to – and that’s not to speculate in any way or lend credence to what you’resaying. i’m simply not going to get in front ofwhat those discussions are. all i will say, and i’ve said – we’vesaid this throughout the week, is that there are issues that still need to be resolved,questions that still need to be answered, and that’s the intent of the meetings tomorrow.

i won’t even say we’re closer. we continue to work hard at this. and obviously, we do so with the understandingthat aleppo is under – and this – i’m sorry, i didn’t get to this, matt, yourquestion – but is still under intense fighting. we saw, i think, a brief pause yesterday,but all too brief. there’s been no consistent pause in thefighting that we’ve seen. please, go ahead. question: (off-mike.) question: but – i mean, i’ll take youto what – sorry, dave – what the foreign

minister of russia said. he said that we have something – some surprise,i mean – casting like a positive or encapsulating the word “surprise” in a positive context,that we might have a surprise tomorrow. so are you disputing that, that somethingpositive may come out of these meetings tomorrow? mr toner: far from disputing it, we’d obviouslywelcome something positive coming out of these meetings. i mean – and i’m not trying to be glibor funny – i just don’t want to get in front – i mean, we’ve – everybody inthis room knows what a difficult process this has been, and so i don’t want to lean forward– foreign minister lavrov comments notwithstanding,

i don’t want to lean forward in any way,shape, or form and try to convey that we think there’s going to be some kind of breakthrough. as i said, our immediate goal is to stop theviolence, get a sustainable pause in the fighting. that’s obviously the most urgent need here. if we can get beyond that where we can lookat other aspects of putting in place a more credible ceasefire, of allowing safe passagefor some of the moderate opposition, those are all things we can discuss. but the immediate, urgent need is an end tothe fighting. question: why would you or why wouldn’tyou go out and encourage such an outcome when

most of the fighters have really left anda lot of them even went to western aleppo and so on? you have the extremists from zenki and other– nusrah and others. they – of course, they’re die-hards; theywill continue to fight. but why wouldn’t that be like somethingthat you would announce to the world and say we want the fighters to leave so – in orderto spare whatever violence that is taking place? mr toner: well, again, we’re not speakingon behalf of the opposition. we’re obviously in close contact with them.

we’ve been so throughout. we’re not going to speak on their behalf. i think, as i said, i’m not trying to discourageany kind of longer-term resolution to the fighting in and around aleppo and how thatmight be formalized, whether it means safe passage for the rebels – or the opposition,rather – or whatever. all i’m saying is the immediate goal isa cessation so we can get humanitarian assistance in and we can get safe passage for civiliansout. yeah, go ahead, david. i’m sorry.

i apologize. question: my question was similar to thatone, but i was going to phrase it slightly differently. obviously, there are different ways to bringan end to the fighting, which is your primary goal. one of them would be for one side to win. is it a u.s. policy or a u.s. objective goinginto these talks that part of eastern aleppo remain in moderate rebel hands, or are youneutral on who controls the ground at the end so long as you get humanitarian access?

mr toner: again, i don’t want to get intothe substance or the preconditions of what maybe – we – what we may have going intothe talks tomorrow in geneva. i think i’ll just stay where i was, whichis our focus is on an end to the violence. we’re still looking at ways that we canget that in place. obviously, as i said, there’s concern aboutthe imminent fall of the aleppo. we don’t know, frankly, when or even ifthat will take place. certainly you’ve seen the regime make gainsover the past week or so, but it’s been at a tremendous cost to the civilian population. so again, our focus is on a pause in the fighting.

i don’t want to talk or get ahead of whatwe may also discuss in terms of longer-term goals. question: are you mitigating a regime victory,its effect on civilians, or are you trying, avert a regime victory? again, i think we’re just – we’ve beenvery clear that even if the regime does retake aleppo completely, we don’t believe thatultimately it’s going to secure a total victory in this conflict. so i’m not trying to say aleppo doesn’tstrategically matter by any means, but what i’m trying to say is it’s been long ourcontention that even if aleppo does fall,

it’s not going to end the conflict. and so what we need is, whether it was yesterday,whether it’s today, whether it’s tomorrow, whether it’s a week from now – we’dlike it sooner, obviously – is an end to the fighting where it is taking place rightnow in aleppo, where we can get access to these civilian populations. please. yeah, go ahead. question: a question on saudi arabia. question: could i --

question: syria. question: -- stay on syria? mr toner: stay on syria. we’ll finish up -- question: a couple more. mr toner: yeah, go ahead, said. i’ll get to you. question: yeah, on syria. do you have any comment on the waiver thatwas issued by the white house on sending arms

to syrian rebels? yesterday, the president issued, gave a waiverto send arms to syrian rebels. is that connected to raqqa battle, possibly,or is it being sent to any particular group like the kurdish units in the north and soon? because apparently the u.s. is trying to workout all these groups together and mobilizing them for the liberation of raqqa. mr toner: yeah. so i probably – i refer you to dod aboutthis waiver. you’re talking about the waiver that wasissued yesterday.

question: sorry to interrupt, but it was sentto the state department and dod because you guys have to approve it. mr toner: again, dod has spoken, i think frequently,about their activities to build up local forces that can defeat isil. and since syria is a state sponsor of terrorism,from time to time the president has to enact – or waive, i guess – restrictions thatwould otherwise prohibit the u.s. military from providing assistance, lethal assistanceto our partners who are carrying out these activities against, as i said, daesh or isil. so i’d refer you to the department of defenseto speak more specifically.

question: but we’re not likely to see aninflux of lethal weapons, let’s say, to the rebels in aleppo, are we? mr toner: no. question: thank you. question: actually, i just want to -- mr toner: yeah, please. question: on that, on that subject. mr toner: yep. question: so a few days ago, you were askedabout manpads and the authority that the latest

defense authorization act gives to the presidentto send those manpads to the rebels. mr toner: correct. question: and you said, and i quote, “imean, we’ve been very clear that we’re not going to provide lethal assistance tothe opposition in syria,” end quote. how does this waiver the president just orderedsquare with what you said a few days ago? are you surprised? mr toner: so – no. so first of all, our position regarding manpadshasn’t changed. what i said the other day still holds.

but we don’t want to see that kind of weaponry-- question: but it’s providing lethal assistance. mr toner: let me finish. we don’t want to see that kind of weaponrygetting into syria. in terms of more broadly speaking, i was referringspecifically to the moderate opposition. now, we have worked with – and i’m notgoing to speak beyond what i just said to said – but we have provided some level ofassistance to the syrian democratic forces that are fighting in northern syria againstdaesh. that’s on top of the advice and trainingthat we’ve provided these groups.

and the reason we’ve done that is that they’vebeen highly effective in going after and destroying daesh on the battlefield in northern syria. i’m not going to speak to the level of ourassistance beyond that. what i was referring to the other day, specificallyto your question, was about moderate opposition who are fighting the regime in – in aleppobut elsewhere. question: but this – this quote, it’snot quite accurate, right? and then – when you were saying -- mr toner: i think i just clarified. i think i just clarified.

question: “we’ve being very clear thatwe’re not going to provide lethal assistance.” mr toner: i said i think i just clarified. question: clarified. okay, okay. with this waiver, who is going to get thoseweapons? what groups in what locations? mr toner: i’m not going to speak to that. i said – you can – either of you can goto dod, ask them for more details. generally speaking, i can say it’s – we’retalking about partner forces that we’re

working with in northern syria. question: yeah, just a few more. mr toner: yeah, go ahead. question: so the president said with thiswaiver that it is in u.s. national security interest to provide weapons to syrian rebels,and i assume that it is also in u.s. national security interest to make sure that theseweapons don’t end up in the hands of criminals and terrorists. can the administration guarantee that? mr toner: so of course, it’s in – andagain, we’ve talked about this at great

length. one of the reasons we are taking these actionsagainst daesh is because it’s in our national security interest to do so. look, the threat that daesh poses for theregion is very real and urgent. the coalition that this country led in forminghas done more to turn the tide against daesh than any effort that, by the way, russia orany other effort by the regime in syria has attempted or alleged to attempt in and aroundaleppo and elsewhere when they said they’ve been going after isil. we stand by our record.

we have put isil, or daesh, under tremendouspressure wherever it holds territory. it’s lost much of the territory. it hasn’t made any territorial gains inthe past year and a half. and that pressure is going to continue. now, how we have done this is by working withlocal groups on the ground, a variety of them in northern syria. and they’ve been effective, as i said, atdislodging daesh. now, with respect to your question, the assistancethat we provide to these groups is obviously done under careful monitoring.

but of course, i’m never going to be ableto say on any given battlefield – and we’ve talked about this before – that equipmentassistance can’t change hands, but we haven’t seen it recently. and in fact, to the contrary, as isil haslost territory, as it’s been on the run, we’ve not seen any examples of that. but again, this is a – i guess an area orterritory where there is a variety of arms from a variety of different sources over manydecades. so for anyone to be able to say with completeconfidence that any equipment or assistance isn’t changing hands from the battlefieldor wherever is difficult to do it at best.

question: what will happen to these weaponsafter the rebels fight isil? who will they be turned against? mr toner: again, i mean, – look, this isall – and this is something we’ve been working very hard on, and this is the lastquestion on this – working as we liberate – or these groups, frankly – the syriandemocratic forces liberate territory in syria, we work to bring and provide stability backinto these cities, work with local governments, local councils to re-establish stability inthese areas. we’re also working with these groups, andwe’ve – this is something that our special envoy, brett mcgurk has – is in constantcontact with many of these groups, as well

as with turkish authorities and others inthe region, on what comes next. and that’s something we’re looking atdown the road. but the immediate priority is defeating daesh. and like i said -- question: nusrah? what about -- mr toner: -- we wish – we wish that otherforeign actors in syria had those same aims. question: but what about – is it only againstdaesh, or nusrah as well? mr toner: i’ve answered your questions.

i’ve answered your questions. question: saudi arabia, unless there’s anothersyria? mr toner: sure, go ahead. question: so the state department told congressyesterday that it had approved military sales to saudi arabia worth $3.5 billion, mostlyfor chinook helicopters and other equipment. question: human rights groups have obviouslycriticized the saudi campaign in yemen because of the number of civilians killed, and specificallyhuman rights watch put out a statement yesterday saying – numbering – describing a numberof airstrikes that had killed civilians, and saying that u.s. military equipment had beenused in those strikes, putting the u.s. at

risk for being complicit in those civiliandeaths. what would the state department say to that? it’s a complicated question, so i’ll tryto break it down. if i miss anything, please come back and – soas you noted, on december 7th the administration did formally notify congress of its intentto offer saudi arabia the purchase of up to, i think, 48 chinook heavy-lift cargo helicoptersand associated equipment via our fmf – fms, which is foreign military sales. i think this proposed sale is valued at $3.5billion. this obviously followed extensive informalconsultations with congress.

our overall review of assistance to the saudi-ledcoalition is ongoing. we continue to have very serious concernsabout some of these coalition strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties, andwe’ve addressed these concerns to the saudi government. we do assist saudi arabia with the defenseof its territorial integrity, and – but that said, we’re going to continue to pressthe coalition to remediate what we believe are flaws in its targeting cycle and to takeother immediate steps to mitigate against any other future civilian casualties. and it goes without saying that it’s alsoimportant that we continue to work at the

un-led, mediated peace process. i mean, that ultimately is the best way toend the fighting in yemen that threatens saudi arabia. with respect to – and forgive me, but i’mtrying to answer all the aspects of your question. but with respect to how this particular salemight affect saudi arabia’s military capabilities, these helicopters i don’t think are anticipatedto be delivered for some two to three years. and certainly, their use or potential usewas evaluated as part of our review. it was ultimately decided that their rolewould be to improve saudi arabia’s heavy-lift capability and strengthen its homeland defense.

and what do i mean by that? in the event of a natural disaster or a humanitarianemergency in the region, these types of helicopters can provide expedited heavy lift for personneland supplies in and out of the affected area. what else did i forget on your – you’retalking about the status of the review. i mean, as i said, i think i answered this. it’s – they’re still ongoing. we’re still looking at this. we do want to make sure that – and thisgoes with any foreign military sales – that there’s always – they’re always subjectto end-use monitoring.

and we’ll continue to look at that evenwith existing sales with regard to saudi arabia. all of this stuff is under review including,as i said, the overall review of defense sales to saudi arabia. question: just a follow-up? question: well, mark, as you said, chinooksare heavy-lift helicopters, but you’re also simultaneously selling about 30 apaches tothe united arab emirates. those are attack helicopters, and the emiratesare part of the coalition that have no use for humanitarian operations. mr toner: right.

again, i don’t have the details of thosehelicopter sales. what i’d just say is what i just said, whichis that any military sale is going to be subject to end-use monitoring. question: have you basically told – is oneof the conditions of the sale that the chinook helicopters can’t be used in the yemen campaign? mr toner: well, i don’t know that we’ve– again, i think that saudis are well aware of our – i mean, because they’ve obviouslybeen a purchaser or a buyer of u.s. military equipment, they’re well aware of some ofthe restrictions and some of the end-use monitoring that we conduct as a normal part of our sales.

i don’t know that there’s been any preconditionplaced on this sale that they not be used. but again, what these – this particulartype of helicopter is not, as dave just said, not designed for a combat role as an attackhelicopter. question: it has machine guns on the front. mr toner: it does. for self-defense. i mean, obviously, they do have – yes. question: that review of – i think the nscsaid in a statement -- question: -- back in october after the funeralprocession or the gathering was bombed --

question: -- they said, quote , we’re startingin a, quote, “immediate review of the assistance to the saudi campaign.” i mean, now we’re two months later. how is the review still ongoing? how’s – how have you not come to a conclusionabout what kind of assistance you’ll provide? i do believe that the department of defenseis leading that review, but i’d have to check on the status. i just don’t have it – a status updatein front of me. but i also want to be very clear in sayingthat it doesn’t – the fact that we’re

conducting this overall review doesn’t preventus or preclude the fact that we’re assessing our current sales, looking at end-use monitoring,and being very clear in our cooperation with saudi arabia that they understand our concernsabout some of the flaws in their targeting approach and that led to, as you know, the– you noted the terrible attack on this funeral procession. question: and then just -- question: sorry, i guess i just – it slippedout of my head. mr toner: no worries. question: i’ll come back to you.

i’m here all day. question: okay, on the same topic. now, we understand it’s some years beforethis particular deal is delivered, but it is fair to say that saudi arabia is usingoverwhelmingly or overwhelmingly using american weapons in its war in yemen. would you agree with that? mr toner: i just -- question: would you agree that it is usingf-16s, apache helicopters, whatever – i mean, which are american-supplied weapons?

mr toner: i’m not – i’m not saying you’rewrong. i just don’t have the – to say that they’re“overwhelmingly” using u.s. weaponry, but -- question: i mean, the united states at least-- mr toner: we have a strong, robust -- question: -- is the major supplier of armsto saudi arabia, correct? mr toner: we have a strong military salesrelationship with saudi arabia. i will not dispute that. question: do you feel that makes you – ijust remembered.

do you feel that, i mean, specifically goingto what the – what human rights watch and what other rights groups have said, like,how do you respond to the criticism that that effectively or at least could risk the u.s.being complicit in these civilian deaths and in sort of the inaccurate targeting – whateveris might be? mr toner: well again, let’s – so a coupleof thoughts there. one is that the coalition and in particularsaudi arabia did not choose this fight. this is a result of spillover from the warin yemen – the conflict in yemen – that was, frankly, putting at risk saudis who areliving across the border and about, frankly, defending their sovereign territory.

that said, we have seen in their particulartargeting – and the most egregious example was this strike on the funeral procession– inaccuracies that put civilians clearly at great risk. we’ve been very clear about our concerns,and in fact, the saudis immediately after that bombing did conduct an investigationand made public the results of that investigation. going forward, obviously, we’ve asked themto look at fundamentally how they review and how they determine their targeting. our cooperation that we provide to saudi arabiadoes not include – and i think we’ve talked about this before – target selection orreview.

and as i said, none of it constitutes endorsementof offensive operations in yemen that have harmed civilians. question: but the saudi war goal is to restorean ousted president. mr toner: i’m sorry? question: the saudi war goal is to restorethe ousted president of yemen. mr toner: well, again -- question: the breaches of the border happenedafter the conflict began. mr toner: but david – but – and you knowthe secretary has worked very hard in this regard.

i mean, there is a un process. we saw a breakdown when -- question: but you just described the saudiaction as not of their own choice; they were reacting to cross-border attacks. mr toner: well, that is – that is true. i mean, but this is spillover -- question: they’re not there to fight toput hadi back in power? mr toner: this is a conflict that has spilledover across their border. they have taken steps to defend saudi territory,defend their citizens.

but what’s, again, important here is thatthere is a un-led process that, frankly, most recently took a hit earlier this week. we’ve thought we were close a couple oftimes to getting a cessation of hostilities into place, but there is a process here wherebywe can end the fighting and bring about a peaceful transition, but it takes all sides,obviously, to -- question: it just feels like you’re makingexcuses for them that they wouldn’t make for themselves. mr toner: how so? oh, that they’re – that i’m --

question: that their stated war goal is torestore the yemeni president. mr toner: again, i’m – well, i’m notgoing to speak on behalf of the saudis, but they have also been helpful in trying to getthis peace process up and running. question: mark. mr toner: please. question: you said the – you mentioned thehit that the un effort took earlier this week, but that was landed by – that hit was landedby -- mr toner: i agree. question: -- by the government --

mr toner: i’m well aware. question: -- that saudi arabia supports andyou guys support and so on. so what measures are you willing to take togive this un effort some sort of a backbone or ground to stand on? mr toner: what – i’m sorry, one more time. question: i said what are you doing to sortof give this un position that was taken -- mr toner: well, the secretary has been -- question: -- some strength and veracity? mr toner: the secretary has been very engagedin this and i spoke about this the other day.

he’s been – i mean, i can look at recentcalls. he’s obviously been working also at thesame time. but to your question, which is that earlierthis week, it was the republic of yemen -- question: right. mr toner: -- government that said – rejected,essentially, the un-drafted roadmap. and i came out and spoke about it at the topof the briefing and said everybody’s got to agree to this. it’s not an endpoint; it’s a startingpoint. everybody’s got to make concessions in orderfor there to be peace.

and we’re going to continue those efforts. i mean, the secretary’s been working thephones, he’s been continuing to discuss it with other regional gulf partners in tryingto get some kind of cessation of hostilities back up and running. we were close a couple weeks ago, but he remainshard at it. question: earlier today, japanese parliamentratified the tpp. what is your reaction? mr toner: i mean, that’s – obviously,we welcome japan’s endorsement of the tpp. as we’ve said all along and this administrationhas said all along, we believe that the tpp

is important for the region in establishingstrong rules of the road in terms of our trade relations with our partners in the region,and that it’s in – certainly in everyone’s interest who’s looking at the tpp and hassigned on to the tpp to see it come into effect. question: this is a great breakthrough foryour policy, isn’t it? mr toner: well, look, it speaks to the fact– and we’ve seen this on climate change as well – it speaks to the fact that, regardlessof the transition that is happening here in the united states, and i’m not going tospeak to that or what decisions the incoming administration may make with regard to climateor with regard to trade policy, but the rest of the world is moving forward.

rest of the world is, with respect to climate,with respect to trade, and tpp – we’ve seen it today – is saying – embracingthis progress. so we can choose to engage or not to engage,but let’s not -- question: but you didn’t put it at the topas a – as an announcement of another breakthrough for u.s. trade policy. you mention it in passing when we ask. there was a time you’d have celebrated atpp endorsement. i’m just causing trouble. go on.

mr toner: yeah, you are. (laughter.) question: pakistan? question: earlier this week, pakistan’scounterterrorism department raided the headquarters of the minority ahmadiyya community in pakistan. and just this morning, the chairman of theu.s. commission on international religious freedom strongly condemned this act. what is the state department doing to protectthe vulnerable ahmadis in light of a disturbing development?

we’re obviously very concerned about thesereports that punjab counterterrorism police have raided the international headquartersof the ahmadiyya – ahmadiyya, rather – muslim community in rabwah and arrested, as you noted,four individuals for publishing literature. we have regularly noted our concerns aboutpakistani laws that restrict peaceful religious expression, particularly by the ahmadiyyacommunity, in our international – our religious freedom report. we believe such laws are inconsistent withpakistan’s international obligations and we would urge the government of pakistan toprotect religious freedom and basic rights of all members of its population, includingreligious minorities.

question: do you want to comment on the increasedattacks against muslims in myanmar? and i mean, since you mentioned the ahmadiyyaand so on, because apparently -- question: -- tensions are rising, and majormuslim countries like indonesia and malaysia are beginning to look towards this issue withconcern and hostility, even. mr toner: well, i don’t have much of anupdate. we obviously continue to call for a promptresolution of full humanitarian and media access to that region – rakhine state. i will say that earlier today, our ambassadorto burma and 13 of his counterparts in rangoon issued a joint statement urging all authoritiesto overcome the obstacles that have prevented

a full resumption of humanitarian assistanceto this area. is that it, guys? question: can i ask one question on -- mr toner: of course you can. question: -- palestinian-israeli issue? yesterday, there -- mr toner: elizabeth was jumping up on herseat, but -- question: -- (inaudible.) i’m not going to let you go without askingone question.

yesterday, congress overwhelmingly voted fora $600 million, in addition to the $38 billion into – to israel, to develop rockets andso on – develop missiles. and at the same time, the israeli governmentis deciding to compensate the amona settlement people with half a million israeli shekels,which is like $150,000. so do you think israel needs the money whenyou give them $600 million on the one hand, and they turn around and they give the amonaresidents half a million shekels in compensations? and look, we’ve discussed your views onthis before. our -- question: these are new.

mr toner: our security relationship with israelis ironclad; our security commitment with israel is ironclad. that said, when we do have disagreements onother aspects of israel’s policy, we’re not shy about making those concerns clear. with regard to settlements, that’s one ofthose areas. but we believe that israel is a strong partnerand friend in the region, and that its security is critically important to the united states’sown national security interests. thanks, guys. question: sorry, one more.

mr toner: oh, i’m so sorry. yeah. i didn’t mean to -- question: did you want to comment on the impeachmentvote in south korea? mr toner: i do. i mean, very briefly, i just wanted to – ican just say that obviously we have been following it closely. first and foremost, the united states continuesto be a steadfast ally, friend, and partner to the republic of korea.

we certainly look forward to working withprime minister hwang in his new capacity as acting president. we expect and we believe that policy, consistency,and continuity across a range of fronts, including dprk, is paramount, as well as internationaleconomics and trade. i can say that the u.s.-korea relationshipand alliance will continue to be a lynchpin of regional stability and security. we’re going to continue to meet all of ouralliance commitments, especially with respect to defending against the threats we’ve seenemanating from north korea. so i’ll end there.

question: can -- go ahead, matt. question: can i just follow up on that? mr toner: yeah, sure. question: how important – given that thethreat that you say north korea poses – how important is it that the transition in – thepolitical transition in the rok is a smooth one? mr toner: it’s critically important. and it’s again why my – the initial wordsout of my mouth were to – certainly to convey

that the united states stands by its steadfastally and is there with korea as it undergoes this political change and transition. i would note also that during this time ofpolitical change, that south koreans have acted peacefully, they’ve acted calmly,and they’ve acted responsibly, and that certainly speaks to your question, is thatit’s absolutely critical that we remain a steadfast ally and partner and that thistransition occurs as peacefully as possible.

Share this post