Press Releases: Previewing Secretary Pompeo’s Remarks on Iran at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library


Special Briefing

Senior State Department Official

Via Teleconference

July 19, 2018

MODERATOR: Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining today’s call. We’re pleased to have a senior State Department official here today to preview Secretary Pompeo’s remarks on Iran at the Reagan – Ronald Reagan Presidential Library this Sunday. For your reference purposes only and not for reporting, we are pleased to welcome [Senior State Department Official]. From this point on, he will be referred to as a senior State Department official. He will have some brief remarks at the top, and then we’ll be happy to take some questions. Just as a reminder, this call is embargoed until the conclusion of the call.

So with that, let’s get started. And I’ll turn it over to our senior State Department official.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Hi. Thanks very much for joining the call. The Secretary will be giving a speech at the Reagan Library on July 22nd, titled – the remarks are titled “Supporting Iranian Voices.” He will be joined at the event by some members of Congress, including the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce and Senator Tom Cotton. They’ll be – plus there’ll be some other members of Congress who will be joining.

The Secretary in his speech in May, on May 22nd, where he unveiled the administration’s new Iran strategy, made a number of remarks addressed to the Iranian people. And he now is continuing that conversation by now addressing Iranian – the Iranian diaspora in the United States. Southern California is home to around 250,000 Iranian Americans.

And in his remarks – I’ll just highlight a couple of things – he will be reflecting on that we are approaching the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The Iranian regime is the last revolutionary regime on Earth, and it exports its revolution around the Middle East. And he will talk about – survey the last 40 years of stealing from the Iranian people, the terrorism they have committed around the region, the brutal repression at home. He will be exposing some of the corruption of the regime. He’ll be highlighting religious persecution.

As you know, the State Department’s hosting the first-ever ministerial on religious freedom, and he’ll be talking about the persecution of religious groups in Iran. He’ll be supporting the legitimate demands of the Iranian people, especially their economic demands for a better life. He will be talking about – giving an update on our campaign of maximum economic pressure and diplomatic isolation. In terms of the Iranian diaspora, the Secretary very much wants the Iranian people to enjoy the same quality of life that Iranians in America enjoy.

And so those are some of the highlights of his remarks, and I’m happy to take some questions.

MODERATOR: All right. Thank you very much. We’ll now go to our first question.

OPERATOR: (Inaudible) the line of Barbara Usher of BBC. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, [Senior State Department Official]. I have two questions. The first one’s a bit brief. Is MEK invited to the speech?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m not – I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t believe that they are.

MODERATOR: Okay. We’ll go to the next question.

OPERATOR: We have Robin Wright of The New Yorker. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, [Senior State Department Official], thank you for doing this. Two things. First of all, when you talk about the United States supporting protest, does this mean that the U.S. is supporting regime change – a question that keeps coming up? The administration keeps saying no, it’s just changing behavior, but the type of demands being made are so sweeping that it could be easily translated as regime change.

And secondly, can you talk a little bit about Helsinki and what happened on the issue of Iran when it comes to Syria, what kind of agreement or discussion President Trump had with President Putin about ensuring that Iran is not near Israel’s border, that it’s being contained? And did you get anything tangible out of it?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thanks for the question – the two questions. On the first one, if you look at the list of 12 demands that Secretary Pompeo laid out in his speech in May, these list of 12 demands were the global consensus prior to the Iran nuclear deal, and nobody at the time thought that those 12 demands were a proxy for regime change. The length of the list of the 12 – these are very basic requirements that we would ask any normal country to follow, and the length of the list is simply a scope of the malign behavior of Iran.

This has not – this list of 12 is not a list that we created. It’s a list that Iran created. We are responding to this. Just because we are sort of properly tallying the inventory, the broad inventory of Iran’s threats – which is nuclear, it’s terrorism, it’s missiles, it’s human rights abuses, it’s the detention of foreigners arbitrarily – the simple inventory of them and demanding that Iran behave like a normal regime is not a proxy for regime change. We think these are all – if you look at them one by one on the 12, and I encourage everybody to do that, these are all very basic requirements that should be expected of a nation. And so we are seeking a change in the regime’s behavior.

In terms of Helsinki, the only thing there to say is that we – the United States is still committed to denying Iran influence in Syria, to deepening its penetration in Syria. We cannot see – we cannot allow the Lebanonization of Syria to take place. And so our policy is to push back on Iran and to deny them that kind of influence.

OPERATOR: Next we’ll go to the line of Nick Wadhams of Bloomberg. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, [Senior State Department Official]. Thanks very much.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Hey, Nick.

QUESTION: Why is the Secretary doing this specifically about Iran? I mean, there are many countries, for example, where – whose people don’t enjoy economic freedom or religious freedom or where the U.S. disagrees with those governments, yet the Secretary is going out of his way in this particular case to focus on Iran. Why is that?

And can you say whether there’s any indication that the administration would consider lifting the travel ban on Iran, an issue that’s obviously been protested quite vehemently by many Iranian Americans? Thanks.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think on the first question we have just a very large and active Iranian diaspora in the United States. They’ve been here – many of them have been here since the time of the Islamic Revolution. There is an enormous disparity in the kind of life they live here and then, if you look at Iran, the kind of just brutal, brutal violence and repression that the citizens of Iran have been on the receiving end of for so many decades now.

And I’ve seen this across many administrations trying to reach out to the Iranian diaspora and to – many Iranian Americans very much want a better way of life for Iranians in Iran. And so this is something which I’ve seen across administrations, and it’s important for us to stay connected not only to the diaspora here in the United States, but I think the Secretary will continue meeting with and giving speeches to the Iranian diaspora in different regions of the world.

On the second question, which I think was about the travel ban, our support for the Iranian people and their ability to exercise their rights to free speech and peaceful protest is a fundamentally separate issue from implementing 9645. As you know, it imposes visa restrictions on nationals from Iran and six other countries. Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States in identifying security risks. It’s the source of significant terror threats, a state sponsor of terrorism. They don’t – they fail to receive its nationals subject to final orders of removal from the United States.

And so the visa restrictions that we put in place were a result of the Iranian Government’s failure to comply with the kind of information-sharing criteria that we look for and also the national security and the public safety risk factors. I will point out that the travel restrictions don’t apply to student visas.

The Iranian people – you’ve seen the protests. They are protesting against inflation, unemployment, the deep corruption of the state, the government’s support for terrorism. We support their desire to have their voices heard, and we very much look forward to the day when the Iranian regime can comply with national security and public safety criteria. And at that time, we’ll be able to reassess this restriction and look for ways to support legitimate travel to the United States.

And I think that was made clear in Secretary Pompeo’s speech back in May, that this is not – this strategy is not all sticks. We have presented a very positive vision for the future of U.S.-Iranian relations, and this is something – it’s a choice that the regime needs to make. But we have put on the table the possibility of a treaty relationship with the United States if Iran decides to change its behavior and to start behaving like a normal country.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll go on to the next question now.

OPERATOR: We have Carol Morello with The Washington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Hi, [Senior State Department Official].

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Hi, Carol.

QUESTION: You mentioned that the Secretary would be exposing the corruption of the regime. That verb seems to suggest that you have some new material that has not been made public. I was hoping you could talk about that. And also, do you expect the Secretary to talk about all – at all about the documents that the Mossad got out of Iran and go into them in any detail? And at this point, how much credence do you put in them?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: How much credence do we put into the documents from the atomic archive that the Israelis took out?

QUESTION: Yeah, mm-hmm.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, on the first question, we know ourselves and we know from what we hear from the people protesting in Iran is that the regime has prioritized its ideological agenda over the welfare of the Iranian people. That has put Iran into an economic tailspin. You look at how during the time of the JCPOA their increased oil revenues could have gone to improving the lives of the Iranian people, and instead they went to terrorists and dictators and proxy militias around the Middle East. And what we see in Iran – this is a country that has enormous wealth and the Iranian regime lines its own pockets while its citizens are demanding better jobs and economic reforms and more opportunity. And so the Secretary will be highlighting specific examples of regime elites who – and to call out their corruption. And I don’t want to say much more beyond that since he will be doing it himself.

On the second question, we believe that the documents that were obtained by the Israelis in their – when they were able to locate and secure and take out of the country this vast atomic archive, which I believe is about a half a ton of documents, are authentic, and those continue to be studied.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We’ll go to the next question now, please.

OPERATOR: Francesco Fontemaggi of AFP. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, [Senior State Department Official]. Thanks for doing this. President Trump stated several times in recent days that Iran is a different place since he withdrew from the JCPOA, that it’s no longer looking at the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Can you say on what grounds he says that? What explains what he’s saying? And also, he said that Iran is in turmoil. Can you tell us what is the U.S. assessment of the internal domestic situation in Iran? Do you think that those protests can go further and maybe top the regime at some point?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Can you just give me that first question one more time? I got the second one. I didn’t understand your first one.

QUESTION: Yeah. The President said that Iran is no longer – the regime is no longer looking as much as before at the Mediterranean and at the rest of the Middle East. Can you say on what ground the President says that, why he assessed that the regime changed its behavior in the Middle East?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t have in front of me exactly what the President said and I don’t want to go beyond what he said. I’m happy to take another look at it and – but we can follow up with you directly.

On the second question about the economic indicators, as I said earlier, the Iranian regime has plundered the Iranian economy to fund its – to finance terrorism and to fund its foreign wars around the Middle East, and all of the economic trend lines for Iran are negative. We have a seen a gradual, steady decline of foreign direct investment. The Iranian rial hit a record low of 90,000 to the dollar in the unofficial market in late June. We see the stock exchange, the Tehran Stock Exchange, slip from an all-time high and has been declining. When you look at the economic forecasts and the – in terms of the economic forecasts of foreign direct investment and capital flight through 2022, along with projections about decline in oil revenues, these are all in the wrong direction for Iran. But as I said, that’s simply a function of Iran mismanaging its economy.

Their banking system – they’re facing a liquidity crisis. They don’t follow international banking standards, and there’s a reason they don’t follow them, because the economy is designed to be opaque. It is designed to fool foreign direct investors so that they don’t know whether they are funding commerce or funding terrorism, and Iran has – is very skilled at using front companies. And that revenue is then used to finance Iran’s terrorism and its foreign wars.

So when you look at the exchange rate for the dollar, you look at consumer prices, the stock exchange, foreign direct investment, capital flight, all of these macroeconomic indicators are heading in the wrong direction, and it is simply a function of a kleptocratic regime.

MODERATOR: Okay. We’ll take the next question now, please.

OPERATOR: Go to the line of Warren Strobel of Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to go back to the question of the overall policy goal here. In the Secretary’s – Pompeo’s May speech, he said, quote, “after our sanctions come into force, Iran will be battling to keep its economy alive,” close quote. Countries that are battling to keep their economy alive tend to be either unstable or in the process of collapsing. And the question is whether the administration has thought through potential unintended consequences of the economic squeeze on Iran.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We look at this simply through this sort of lens: We know that Iran uses its economic revenues to finance terrorism. They are – there is no country in the world that sponsors more terrorism, supports more terrorism than Iran, and so when – our maximum economic pressure campaign is designed simply to deny Iran the financial resources that it uses to facilitate terrorism. One of the other things, though, is that so much of the money that is not spent on terrorism and foreign wars goes to the regime elite and to increase individual wealth. And so it’s – it isn’t any broader than that in terms of a weak economy means a government that doesn’t have the revenues that it needs to finance terrorism.

And if you look – I’ll just throw out a few numbers here – Iran has spent over $16 billion supporting Assad and its proxies in Iraq and in Yemen, and it has also – gives $700 million a year to Lebanese Hizballah. It has given, I believe, $4 billion in lines of credit to the Assad regime. And so these are – this is all – revenue is the sinews of war, and Iran spends billions and billions of dollars in these – in other countries and it destabilizes these important countries in the Middle East, as I said, whether it’s Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Yemen, and that has second and third-order consequences.

The money that it used to support the Assad regime obviously contributed to the refugee crisis, which is the worst since World War II. And so when you connect the dots around the Middle East to all of the violence and the bloodshed and the turmoil, so much of it is driven by Iran. And that’s why we are trying to deny them the revenues to execute their – their sort of revolutionary and ideological ambitions.

MR GREENAN: All right. Thank you, everyone. I think that’s all the time we’re going to have today to discuss the Secretary’s speech on Sunday. I thank our speaker, [Senior State Department Official]. The – as a reminder, this call was on background and our speaker is referred to as a senior State Department official. The embargo for this portion of the call has now lifted, and as a reminder to others, if you’d like to remain on the line, in a few moments we’ll begin a second background call to discuss the Secretary’s participation in the 2018 Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations in Palo Alto.

So with that, I’ll conclude. I thank our speaker today, and thank you all for joining us.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thanks very much.



The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.



Press Releases: Interview With Hugh Hewitt of the Hugh Hewitt Show


Interview

Michael R. Pompeo

Secretary of State

Via Telephone

July 19, 2018

QUESTION: Secretary Pompeo, in fact, joins me. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Good to have you back.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Hugh, it’s good to be with you. It’s been too long.

QUESTION: Well, I want to talk about religious liberty with you, but a first question. You’re just back from Korea, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, Brussels, and of course Russia. Last time we talked you stressed that we know everything about everyone who attacks us. And I just want to make sure, for deterrence purposes, is that the case? Are we aware with certainty of the origin of cyber attacks, because it’s so essential to deterrence that we do know that?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Hugh, it’s not always the case every day that we do. But with great frequency, we can do attribution in a way that gives U.S. policymakers an enormous advantage in understanding the threat.

QUESTION: David Sanger has a new book out stressing why we need to be able to pinpoint people and speak about it, because otherwise the whole world will attack us with impunity. Did you take the message to friend and foe that we are watching and we have the tools?

SECRETARY POMPEO: They do know, Hugh. But David’s comments are a little bit naive to be honest with you. It’s the case that we can’t always publicly do what David described. It would be foolish for America to consistently announce everything we know. It would betray how we came to know it; it would share with them information that we don’t want them to have about our capabilities and our skillsets. And so, make no mistake about it, we are very clear with our adversaries, when it’s in our best interest, to share with them what we’re doing.

QUESTION: Now after a major week of events – and I mean, you went through a week that culminated in the Helsinki controversy – then Andrew Brunson does not get released. How hard is it to refocus a department that is convulsed by stories on the ministerial next week and on the individuals like Pastor Brunson? Can you get everyone to get back on the page of focusing on religious liberty next week?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Hugh, thanks for the question. We’ve got a religious freedom ministerial that is going to have 80-plus delegations. It’s historic. It’s the first time the State Department has taken on this mission. We believe religious freedom is central to the world and to, frankly, America’s place in the world. We make it a real priority. Pastor Brunson in particular has been a priority of mine since even before I had this current role. The entire administration is focused on getting his return.

But one of the reasons we’re conducting the ministerial, Hugh, is because not every country shares our same understanding of religious freedom, and our effort in holding this ministerial here, where we have 40-plus foreign minister level visitors coming to attend, is to move each country in the direction where increased religious freedom around the world can thrive.

QUESTION: Now, Secretary Pompeo, for the benefit of the Steelers fans and others, a ministerial is a term they may not be familiar with. You just alluded to what it means. It means people like the Secretary of State of the United States and your counterpart in the United Kingdom and across the world coming to Washington. So what’s on that agenda?

SECRETARY POMPEO: It’s a broad agenda. We’re going to talk about how religious freedom fits into a democratic society, how it makes sense for each country, how it can improve economies in the world by having this religious freedom, by allowing all persons of every faith – or those who have no faith – to have the freedom to worship or choose not to in the way that they prefer. We believe that improving respect for religious freedom requires more than just talk, and so we’re bringing people together. We’ll announce several new initiatives over the course of the two days of the summit. And we’re very much looking forward to it. We’re hosting a huge gathering here at the State Department that I think will advance the cause of religious freedom around the world in a way that America has not done for too long.

QUESTION: Every year, we put out a list of Countries of Particular Concern, CPCs. At the top of that list every year is Iran, which may be the most anti-Semitic and the most repressive of other religion countries in the world. I don’t imagine Iran is sending anyone to this conference. But what can we do to encourage an extremist, fanatical regime like Iran to leave their indigenous other religions alone?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Iran is a huge challenge. They would be a perfect exemplar for the absence of religious freedom inside of a country. There are others too. With respect to Iran, a key component of this is exactly what we’re doing at this gathering. We’re talking about it; we’re raising it. We’re raising the awareness. You referenced the report that the State Department puts out. It’s just a piece of paper; it’s just words, for sure. But calling it out and trying to articulate the rationale for why it matters and those that are behaving badly, whether it’s by anti-Semitism or persecuting Christians, these are incredibly important concerns to the United States and to President Trump. And our mission in holding this gathering is to get the world to unite behind this fundamental concept of religious freedom for every individual.

QUESTION: Now Secretary Pompeo, last week the forces of Daniel Ortega opened fire on a Catholic church. They actually kept up a gun battle aimed at a Catholic church all night long. What do we do in response to that?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Nicaragua has got enormous challenges today. The Ortega regime, including his wife, are behaving – it’s not just about the attack on the church. Their activities – the violence level has been raised. We are working to bring all of the elements of U.S. power to bear there. The State Department is at the front of trying to convince Ortega that it’s time for a democratic process to begin and a solution to be achieved there and that violence is not a mechanism that’s going to result in success for either he, his family, or the elites around him.

QUESTION: Well, let me close, Mr. Secretary, by going back to the Helsinki summit. Just a factual question: Were you consulted by the Department of Justice before the indictments were filed?

SECRETARY POMPEO: I can’t talk about that, Hugh.

QUESTION: And while – and theoretically, would it be useful for the Department of State to be consulted before such matters as important as that are conducted, on a theoretical basis?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, Hugh. It is common practice that when the Department of Justice is going to take action that has diplomatic implications or foreign policy implications that we would be notified of those actions.

QUESTION: And then back to Pastor Brunson. Do we have any reason to hope, in the week ahead, that he gets out, Secretary Pompeo?

SECRETARY POMPEO: I – as a man of faith, Hugh, I am always of the belief that good things will happen. And you should know that the United States Government is working diligently to ensure the release of Pastor Brunson. And then there are others being held in Turkey too that we’re working hard on.

QUESTION: Secretary Pompeo, thank you for joining me. And good luck with the ministerial next week. It’s vitally important that people pay attention to it. And I appreciate your taking the time this morning.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you, Hugh. It’s wonderful to be back with you. So long.



The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.



Press Releases: Vice President Pence Delivers Remarks at First-Ever Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom


Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

July 19, 2018

On July 26, Vice President Mike Pence will deliver remarks at the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC. The Vice President will address government and international organization representatives about the importance of international religious freedom and its role in American foreign policy.

The Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom will take place at the U.S. Department of State, July 24-26, and will convene religious leaders, rights advocates, and members of civil society organizations, government officials, and representatives of international organizations from around the world to discuss the challenges facing religious freedom, identify concrete means to address persecution of and discrimination against religious groups, and promote greater respect for religious freedom for all.

For press inquiries related to the Ministerial, please e-mail IRFMinisterialPress@state.gov and visit www.state.gov/religiousfreedom for information related to the Ministerial. On Twitter, follow along with content about the Ministerial with @IRF_Ambassador and using the hashtag #IRFMinisterial.



The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.



Press Releases: Department Press Briefing – July 18, 2018

Heather Nauert

Spokesperson

Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC

July 18, 2018


Index for Today’s Briefing

  • NICARAGUA
    • DEPARTMENT
      • RUSSIA/DEPARTMENT
        • DPRK
          • DEPARTMENT
            • DPRK
              • MONTENEGRO/REGION
                • RUSSIA/DEPARTMENT
                  • DPRK/DEPARTMENT
                    • RUSSIA/DEPARTMENT
                      • IRAQ
                        • TURKEY
                          • AFGHANISTAN
                            • RUSSIA/DEPARTMENT

                              TRANSCRIPT:

                              3:13 p.m. EDT

                              MS NAUERT: Hi, everybody. Good afternoon.

                              QUESTION: Hello.

                              MS NAUERT: Hope everyone’s doing well. Let me start out with a couple of announcements this afternoon. By the way, it’s a little chilly in here. I can see that.

                              QUESTION: Noticed.

                              MS NAUERT: I know. I see you all have your blankets on and everything. Okay.

                              First, I’d like to start off talking about Nicaragua, and yesterday the Ortega government sent police and government-aligned armed groups to the town of Masaya in a deadly attack on its own citizens. Reports suggest that at least three people have been killed and dozens have been wounded. The Ortega government’s brutal campaign of violence against their own people must stop immediately. Yesterday’s assault on Masaya is another glaring example of Ortega’s efforts to cling to power no matter the cost to the people of Nicaragua. Since April, attacks on university students, journalists, clergy, have killed hundreds and the international community is uniting in its condemnation of the heinous act.

                              We welcome recent statements by the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and well over 100 – excuse me, well over a dozen countries condemning the government-sponsored violence. We urge others to join the international call for peace. We continue to support the Episcopal Conference of Nicaragua’s efforts to advance negotiations to resolve the current conflict, restore respect for human rights, and achieve a better, more democratic future for all Nicaraguans. We appreciate the church’s critical role as a mediator. However, we are concerned that those officials seeking to bring an end to the crisis are coming under physical and reputational attack by the Ortega government and its supporters. The path to peace for the Ortega government remains through early, free, fair, and transparent elections. We urge the Ortega government to take concrete actions now and to negotiate in good faith.

                              Next, I’d like to mention that today, USAID Administrator Mark Green is wrapping up his visit to Colombia, and that’s where he met with President Santos and President-elect Duque, as well as members of the Colombian congress, to reaffirm our strong partnership with the people and the Government of Colombia. Administrator Green also visited the Colombia-Venezuela border during his trip to the region to meet with some of the more than two million Venezuelans who have fled the crisis in their home country, which was created by the Maduro regime. While there, Administrator Green announced an additional $6 million in U.S. funding to provide food and health assistance to the thousands of Venezuelan migrants crossing the border every day, and for the Colombian communities that are hosting them.

                              Lastly, I’d like to announce that Secretary Pompeo will travel to New York on Friday, July the 20th, to meet with Ambassador Nikki Haley and members of the United Nations Security Council, the Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Kang, and Japanese Ambassador to the United Nations Koro Bessho, to discuss the latest on North Korea. The Secretary will also meet with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to discuss a range of issues, including preparations for the UN General Assembly high-level week in September and also UN reform.

                              The Secretary will then travel to Simi Valley, California, on Sunday, July the 22nd, to deliver remarks on supporting Iranian voices at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Center for Public Affairs as part of his visit with members of the Iranian-American community in the United States. Secretary Pompeo will travel to Simi – from Simi Valley to Palo Alto, California, where he and Secretary of Defense James Mattis will host the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop and also the Minister for Defense Marise Payne for this year’s Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations, otherwise known as AUSMIN. That takes place at the Hoover Institution at Stanford on July 23rd and 24th. This AUSMIN celebrates 100 years of mateship. It marks the U.S. and Australian forces fighting side by side in a battle for the first time. It’s been 100 years.

                              QUESTION: I think you have to say mateship with an Australian accent.

                              MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) I don’t think I could pull that off very well. That dialogue will focus on deepening our strategic alliance and developing initiatives to promote our shared vision of peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. The United States and Australia have held strategic talks annually since 1985.

                              And with that, I would be happy to take your questions.

                              QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. I want to start with some stuff that comes out of Helsinki.

                              MS NAUERT: Okay.

                              QUESTION: I’ll be really quick because I think there are probably going to be a lot about it. I wanted to ask you a broad question first, but since this question came up at the White House briefing just now and your colleague over there gave a rather unusual answer to it when she was asked about whether or not the administration would support or would help Russian investigators interview former American officials – or American citizens in general, but also former American officials, including a former ambassador to Russia. She said that this is something the President was going to take under advisement to talk about with his team. Why is this just not simply a – is this just not a non-starter to begin with?

                              MS NAUERT: Well, I —

                              QUESTION: Why are you even considering it?

                              MS NAUERT: I can’t answer on behalf of the White House with regard to that, but what I can tell you is that the overall assertions that have come out of the Russian Government are absolutely absurd – the fact that they want to question 11 American citizens and the assertions that the Russian Government is making about those American citizens. We do not stand by those assertions that the Russian Government makes. The prosecutor general in Russia is well aware that the United States has rejected Russian allegations in this regard. Those have been refuted by, among other things, the Southern District Court of New York in other cases that are somewhat related. Instead, we continue to urge Russian authorities to work with the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue those in Russia who in fact perpetrated the fraudulent scheme that Russia refers to. That targeted not only Mr. Browder, but also his company and others, and also the Russian people as a whole.

                              QUESTION: So does that mean that at least speaking for the State Department, that you would object to, oppose, and not allow or not grant a Russian request or demand to interview a former ambassador, someone who worked – used to work for this building?

                              MS NAUERT: And I believe some of that would fall under the Department of Justice, so I’d have to loop in the Department of Justice on this. This is something that just came out.

                              QUESTION: Yeah.

                              MS NAUERT: I didn’t get a chance to see the entire White House briefing a short while ago, so I will just tell you —

                              QUESTION: Well —

                              MS NAUERT: — that Russian assertions are absolutely absurd at this point.

                              QUESTION: Well, I get that. But I mean, is this something that’s just out of the question that you’re not going to allow? Because her response has, frankly, caused a great deal of concern not just among members of the previous administration, but among former officials going back (inaudible).

                              MS NAUERT: What I’ve provided you right now is all that I have for you on this, but I will be sure to look into it —

                              QUESTION: All right.

                              MS NAUERT: — and understand that it would be a grave concern to our former colleagues here.

                              QUESTION: Secondly, the Russian Government has spoken several times over the course – since Helsinki about how it’s ready to “implement the agreements,” quote-unquote, that the two presidents reached in Helsinki. As far as I can tell, there weren’t any agreements, and no one seems to know exactly what they are other than in very broad terms like agreeing to assist with North Korean denuclearization and —

                              MS NAUERT: And I think broad is the correct term to use here.

                              QUESTION: Okay. So there were no specific agreements reached?

                              MS NAUERT: There were sort of three takeaways from the meeting, three proposals that we are currently assessing. Again, we’re still digging into the details. I know some of you have had a lot of questions about it – understandably so. It’s a little too fresh to be able to provide all the details.

                              Among the things that were proposed: a high-level working group with business leaders from both countries. That’s one of the things. Another thing that’s been proposed is convening some sort of an expert council which would include political scientists from the United States and from Russia, diplomats, former diplomats, former military officials. The U.S. and the USSR many years ago did something very similar to this, so it’s not entirely a new concept, but it’s just something that was proposed. Also another proposal was that our NSC meet with the Russian NSC to discuss follow-up meetings. Anything on that, I’d have to refer you to our NSC for questions about that.

                              These are certainly all modest proposals. The President had said going into this that we wouldn’t solve all the world’s problems in one meeting, in one conversation with the Russian Government, but we think it’s a pretty good place to start.

                              QUESTION: He was right about that. But would the – so these aren’t even agreements yet. They’re just proposals.

                              MS NAUERT: They are proposals, yes.

                              QUESTION: All right. And then lastly, on this whole – this MH17 question. Does the U.S. Government still stand by its previous statements and positions that – in support of the Dutch investigation team that held that Russia was responsible for downing it?

                              MS NAUERT: We certainly do. The United States Government has long said that Russia is without a doubt responsible for shooting down MH17. As recently as May, we put out two statements, and I’d like to read a bit from those statements. The first one came out on May the 24th. It said, “The United States has complete confidence in the findings of the joint investigation team as presented today by the Dutch public prosecutor. The missile launcher used to shoot down Malaysia Airline Flight MH17 originated from the 53rd anti-aircraft brigade of the Russian Federation stationed in Kursk.” It goes on to say, “MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile fired from the territory in eastern Ukraine controlled by Russia and Russian-led forces.” That was May 24th.

                              May 25th we put out another statement that said, “We strongly support decisions by the Netherlands and Australia to call Russia to account for its role in the July 2014 downing of the Malaysia flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine and the horrific deaths of 298 civilians. It’s time for Russia to acknowledge its role in shooting down the plane and cease its callous disinformation campaign.”

                              We stand by those statements.

                              QUESTION: So why no statement yesterday on the anniversary?

                              MS NAUERT: We joined – and perhaps some of you haven’t seen it, but we joined our G7 colleagues and put out a foreign ministers statement – I believe it was Monday of this week. And I can read for you a bit of that statement. It says, among other things, “We, the G7 foreign ministers” – Canada, France, Germany, et cetera, along with the European Union – “are united in condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of the downing of Malaysia Air Flight MH17, a civilian aircraft flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur July 17th, 2014.”

                              It goes on to say – I’m skipping down a few paragraphs – “In a rules-based international order, those responsible for unacceptable actions such as the firing or launching of a missile of Russian origin which intercepted and downed a civilian aircraft must be held accountable. To this end, we call on Russia to immediately engage with Australia and The Netherlands in good faith and to address all relevant questions regarding any potential breaches of international law. We once again express our deepest condolences to the family and the victims of that flight.”

                              QUESTION: Right. I —

                              MS NAUERT: Our position on Russian culpability for this has not changed. Our policy on this has not changed.

                              QUESTION: Okay. I’m aware of that statement and I’m aware of what you just said.

                              MS NAUERT: Okay.

                              QUESTION: But why no statement from either you or the Secretary yesterday on the anniversary?

                              MS NAUERT: Matt, we have put out three statements in two and a half months and we think that that covered it. We preferred to go with the G7 statement and I hope the decision that the United States made this time to go with the G7 statement doesn’t cloud anyone’s judgment about our steadfast conviction that Russia stands responsible for the shoot-down of MH17 and we stand behind the Dutch investigation.

                              QUESTION: Okay. But it’s just that you guys put out statements on anniversary – I’ve counted 14 that have been issued this year – Srebrenica, Tiananmen Square, death of an OSCE – an American working for the OSCE, the Good Friday Agreement, Rwandan genocide, any number of things. The Secretary puts out a national day statement a day, basically. Eighteen – there’s been 18 days in July, there have been 18 so far. I mean, countries like Comoros, Solomon Islands, Maldives. I just don’t understand —

                              MS NAUERT: I get it.

                              QUESTION: — why, for the first time in four years since —

                              MS NAUERT: I get it.

                              QUESTION: Well, why is it less a priority that —

                              MS NAUERT: You seem to think there’s something nefarious going on here.

                              QUESTION: No, no, no. I’m – no, I’m not. That’s —

                              MS NAUERT: I’ve just pointed to —

                              QUESTION: I don’t think there’s something nefarious.

                              MS NAUERT: — three statements that we’ve put out on this and I want to just say it one more time again before we —

                              QUESTION: It’s just that people notice when things don’t happen.

                              MS NAUERT: I get it. People seem to notice things. Let me just underscore one more time: The United States holds Russia responsible for the shoot-down of —

                              QUESTION: All right.

                              MS NAUERT: — MH17 and let me leave it at that. Okay?

                              QUESTION: Thanks.

                              QUESTION: Heather —

                              MS NAUERT: Lesley.

                              QUESTION: — I have a follow-up: Given the whole drama that’s gone on after the President’s visit to Helsinki, a lot of the allies – U.S. allies have believed that something – that the Secretary should have said something about it afterwards, specifically that the Secretary —

                              MS NAUERT: The Secretary should have said something about —

                              QUESTION: — should have reacted afterwards to placate the allies over concerns they have on what the President said. What was the Secretary’s view of the President’s —

                              MS NAUERT: Well, let me just pause you right there and address that. I think what you’re referring to is the Secretary held a bilateral meeting after the President’s press conference – is that what you’re referring to? And after the bilateral meeting, a few reporters shouted questions. Is that what you’re referring to?

                              QUESTION: No, no, I’m not referring to that.

                              MS NAUERT: Okay.

                              QUESTION: I’m just saying – I’m asking what is the – what is the —

                              MS NAUERT: You’re saying you think that the Secretary should have spoken earlier.

                              QUESTION: I’m asking whether —

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah.

                              QUESTION: — what was the Secretary’s feelings about what the President said? Does he believe that there is – that there was damage done to allies?

                              MS NAUERT: Well, it’s – what’s interesting about that is many folks in the Beltway seem to think that our phones have been ringing off the hook from diplomats around the world calling to complain. No, that is not the case that we are seeing here. The Secretary stands by his previous statements, as does the President, that Russia did indeed meddle in the 2016 election. The Secretary has made that clear many times before in congressional testimony and in interviews with many of you as well. The President indicated that very same thing yesterday, the day before, and I believe earlier today.

                              The Secretary spoke at the cabinet meeting earlier today. I have a few quotes for you I can certainly read to you in case some of you missed that. The Secretary also has full confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies. That is the very same thing that the President said. They both stand by their confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies. Our policy and our overall positions have not changed and we will continue to hold Russia responsible for its malign activities.

                              QUESTION: The – Senator Corker has invited the Secretary – he asked the Secretary to come and testify on Russia next week. Has he agreed to do that?

                              MS NAUERT: So the Secretary and members of Congress have, for a few weeks now, been going back and forth to find a time that works for all of them for the Secretary to brief on North Korea. There was a tentative date – I believe it was a few weeks ago – and that had to be pushed. This is, in fact, that meeting. Our legislative affairs team have been – has been working with the Hill to try to find a date that works for both. So that is the general topic for the conversation.

                              The Secretary will also read out his most recent trip, or actually two trips ago I should say, because we’ve been around a lot of places, in which he went to obviously North Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, and then we ended up in Brussels. So the Secretary will read out his conversations regarding all of those trips. I imagine, as Senator Corker and others are interested in asking about Russia, the Secretary would certainly be happy to answer their questions. Okay?

                              QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up on that?

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi, Nick.

                              QUESTION: Hi, Heather. There was a lot of frustration in the – Senator Corker said he – it – it had been a, quote, “pain in the back side” in getting the Secretary and other senior State Department officials up to testify. Do you have any response to that?

                              MS NAUERT: I guess I would just say the Secretary’s had a really busy schedule. I haven’t briefed here recently. That’s because I’ve been on the road along with the Secretary. And if I think my schedule is busy, his is really something else. So he’s been gone a lot. Every minute of the day as I look at that schedule, this guy is working. He’s working hard. Whether he’s on the phone or he’s traveling or conducting meetings, there’s a lot going on. So we’ve been working hard to try to find a mutually exclusive time to brief Capitol Hill, and I know Secretary Pompeo looks forward to doing that.

                              QUESTION: So that – to – that Wednesday date has not yet been confirmed? They said Wednesday at 2:30.

                              MS NAUERT: I don’t have a specific time for that, but I can double-check and get back to you on that. Okay?

                              QUESTION: Heather —

                              QUESTION: Just one quick – can I just —

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah.

                              QUESTION: — have one quick follow-up on Russia? So when you said these were proposals that had been discussed, these three proposals, Vladimir Putin characterized them as agreements, and you’re saying —

                              MS NAUERT: I’m sure he did, and that is something that certain governments will do sometimes where there will be something that’s under discussion and a government says that it is an agreement. Those are proposals and we are – we will certainly take a look at that. Okay?

                              Hi, Barbara.

                              QUESTION: Can I follow up on North Korea?

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah, sure.

                              QUESTION: Just in terms of what Mr. Pompeo said today about the remains of the American service people coming back in the next couple of weeks, we know that there are going to be forensic tests when the remains are returned, but what do you know about the nationalities of those remains already? Are you quite certain they are Americans?

                              MS NAUERT: Barbara, I don’t have an answer for you on that. I can tell you we had two meetings this week. One was on Sunday the 15th – sorry, I’m going to get off on my dates here. Right, Sunday was the 15th?

                              QUESTION: No, Monday.

                              MS NAUERT: Monday was the 15th, the – Monday and Tuesday in which the United States had meetings with the North Koreans. And so those conversations continue. There’s a lot of work that has – is left to be done on a lot of different levels, and I’ll let you know when we have something more.

                              QUESTION: And then just a quick question about his meeting on – or his speech on Sunday addressing Iranian Americans. In a previous notice you mentioned that he would be meeting with members of the Iranian American community, and I didn’t see that on the latest notice that went out. Is that still happening? And if it is, who’s organizing that? Is the State Department organizing that?

                              MS NAUERT: Well, I can tell you the Secretary’s giving his speech. I haven’t looked at the full travel schedule just yet. I know that there are some members of the Iranian-American community who will be at that speech. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to, but I just have to —

                              QUESTION: It was mentioned (inaudible).

                              MS NAUERT: — I just have to go back and take a look – a closer look at the schedule. I don’t have an answer for you on that. We will be holding a background call at some point tomorrow, Thursday, and so we’ll be able to get you some more information about the specifics of that trip.

                              QUESTION: A follow-up on North Korea.

                              MS NAUERT: Okay, hi.

                              QUESTION: On the denuclearization of North Korea, the President yesterday said now there is no rush, there is no time limit for the denuke, which seems to be different from what was said before and just after Singapore and —

                              MS NAUERT: Well, we have not put timelines on this.

                              QUESTION: Yes, but —

                              MS NAUERT: You know that. We’ve been very clear about not projecting any timelines, saying —

                              QUESTION: — but Secretary Pompeo said it had to happen without delay before the summit.

                              MS NAUERT: We have said —

                              QUESTION: And after that he said – they said it will happen quite quickly – very quickly. And —

                              MS NAUERT: We have said there’s a lot of work left to be done. The conversations continue. I’m not going to get ahead of those conversations, and I’m not going to be able to read out every single conversation that we have on this matter. But we’re working on it. We have teams in place that are working very hard on this issue every day.

                              QUESTION: And just a quick one on NATO: After the summit and after Helsinki, there were some criticism about some comments the President made about Montenegro, called it a very tiny, little country with very aggressive people, and the fact that he could question again the fact that the U.S. could defend NATO allies in case of an attack. So what —

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah, I – I would have to refer you to the White House to comment on the President’s comments about Montenegro. I can tell you that the President reiterated our ironclad commitment to NATO’s collective defense last week. The summit declaration that came out at the end of the summit stated clearly that any attack against one ally will be regarded as an attack against all as set out in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. But beyond that, I’d have to refer you over to the White House.

                              QUESTION: Well, but he also said in this interview last night that Montenegrins are aggressive and they could cause World War III. What are the allies supposed to make of comments like that?

                              MS NAUERT: Matt, to my awareness —

                              QUESTION: I mean, is this a bad – an attempt at a bad – or a bad attempt at a joke?

                              MS NAUERT: Look, to my awareness we have not received any calls on this issue.

                              QUESTION: Do you remember how many Montenegrins, if any, were – troops were at Bagram when the Secretary visited the coalition forces there?

                              MS NAUERT: I don’t. I recall there being Polish troops there, and we thank them for —

                              QUESTION: No, Montenegrin. You’d know if there were any Montenegrin —

                              MS NAUERT: I am not aware of that.

                              QUESTION: And then just —

                              MS NAUERT: I know there were Polish forces there —

                              QUESTION: And then just —

                              MS NAUERT: — and let me just while we’re talking about it, thank you for your contribution.

                              QUESTION: Just a last thing, in terms of the Hill, there is – some leading Democrats are demanding that the interpreter from the State Department who was the translator for President Trump in Helsinki testify. It’s my understanding that this kind of – that’s pretty much an unprecedented request and that has never happened before. Do you guys have a position on whether staff should be hauled in to testify before —

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah, we – and that’s the question that I asked, is there any precedent for this. We’ve not been able to find that just yet. I can tell you there’s no formal request to have the interpreter appear before any congressional committees at this point. Overall, as a general matter, you know we always seek to work with Congress, and that’s all I have on this.

                              Okay. All right. Hey, Rich.

                              QUESTION: Hey, Heather. Thanks. Was the Secretary involved in urging the President to make his statement yesterday or —

                              MS NAUERT: He was not.

                              QUESTION: He was not?

                              MS NAUERT: He was not. There were reports that he was; those were inaccurate reports. That was the President’s decision and his team’s decision to go out. The Secretary did not weigh in with the President on that matter.

                              QUESTION: And really quickly on the trip to the United Nations, is there any room in the schedule or any potential for a meeting with any North Korean officials while the Secretary is there?

                              MS NAUERT: I will be up there with the Secretary. I’ll be the first to tell you if there are any North Koreans up there.

                              QUESTION: Why didn’t he weigh in with the President?

                              MS NAUERT: It was the President —

                              QUESTION: I mean, his job is the top foreign policy advisor —

                              MS NAUERT: It was the President’s decision. I know that the Secretary met with the Vice President at the – over at the White House compound overall earlier this week, and that’s it. That’s it.

                              QUESTION: But he didn’t feel the need to talk with the President – I’m just wondering.

                              MS NAUERT: Matt, I wouldn’t read too much into this. I think the President has a ample staff that he consults with regularly, plenty of people, and he made that decision on his own. I’d refer you back to the White House. I think Sarah Sanders covered that one well.

                              QUESTION: Iraq. Iraq.

                              MS NAUERT: Hey, Laurie.

                              QUESTION: Yeah, hi. The UN has responded to the protests in Iraq by calling on the government to fully respect and address the people’s legitimate concerns. What’s your comment on those protests?

                              MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, the overall protests – you mean about the electricity and all the —

                              QUESTION: And the corruption is a big part of it.

                              MS NAUERT: Right. Overall I can just tell you we support people’s rights to peacefully protest. We certainly understand when there are electricity shortages, when there are oil shortages and things of this sort, that that is something that would be certainly upsetting to people. The Iraqi Government has said that it safeguards the right of its citizens to protest. They also have the right to maintain the security of public and private property in Iraq. They’ve expressed an intent to do more to address protesters’ grievances, including the lack of services of electricity and also economic opportunity. Overall, though, this would be an internal Iraqi matter of this.

                              QUESTION: Corruption is a big part of the problem. Are you – is the embassy there prepared to help the Iraqi Government deal with its corruption issue, find ways to improve that situation?

                              MS NAUERT: I – we have a excellent relationship with the Government of Iraq. We are in constant contact with areas that we may have concerns about. Some of that, Laurie, would be covered under our private diplomatic conversations, so I’m not going to get into that, but I can just tell you we have a lot of conversations with the Government of Iraq.

                              QUESTION: And if I could ask you a question about Turkey today, that the Turkish court rejected Pastor Andrew Brunson’s appeal to be released from prison – what’s your response to that?

                              MS NAUERT: I can tell you we have obviously been very closely engaged in Pastor Brunson’s case and with the Turkish Government on that case in particular. We’ve not seen any credible evidence against Pastor Brunson that he’s guilty of the crimes that the Turkish Government accuses him of. The case against him is built on anonymous sources, accusations, and a lot of speculation. It’s a concern of ours. We believe that he is innocent. We continue to call on the Turkish Government to quickly resolve his case in a timely and transparent and fair manner. I can tell you that our charge, Phil Kosnett, was – as well as other U.S. embassy officials – were present at the proceedings on the 18th for Pastor Brunson. If we have anything more for you, we’ll certainly let you know.

                              QUESTION: Wait, so you’re not calling for him to be – for his release?

                              MS NAUERT: Well, we always call for the pastor’s release. We would certainly like that to happen.

                              QUESTION: Well, I mean, at the NATO summit just last week, the President of the United States fist bumped President Erdogan and said keep up the good work and all this kind of thing. How is this —

                              MS NAUERT: Matt, I’m not going to be able to answer for everything that every – whether it’s the President or whether it’s Secretary Mattis or somebody else, I’m not going to be able to answer for that. I don’t —

                              QUESTION: Well, then I just wonder if that plays into the kind of kid gloves treatment that you’re giving to the Turks right now. Previous statements have been very hard.

                              MS NAUERT: I don’t think so, Matt. We have followed this case extremely closely.

                              QUESTION: Yeah.

                              MS NAUERT: Members of Congress are also following this closely. I can tell you it’s something that the Secretary cares deeply about, especially one’s religious freedom. We do have a religious freedom ministerial that’s coming up next week that is important to the Secretary. This is something we are actively involved with and care deeply about. You may not see all the actions, activities, conversations the United States Government is having on behalf of American citizens, so I’m not going to be able to say anything more to you on that. Okay.

                              And last question. Abbie, go ahead.

                              QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

                              QUESTION: Afghanistan?

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah, sure.

                              QUESTION: There have been reports out over the last week that the U.S. is engaging or seeking to engage in direct talks with the Taliban. Do you have a response to that? Is that what the U.S. is doing?

                              MS NAUERT: Yeah. Abbie, I can just tell you that we’re exploring all avenues to advance a peace process in close consultation with the Government of Afghanistan. Our position on this hasn’t changed. Any peace and reconciliation talks have to be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned. We stand by that position, and that is something that we’ve not backed away from.

                              QUESTION: Heather —

                              QUESTION: So the U.S. would not engage in direct talks?

                              MS NAUERT: Abbie, that’s all I’m – all I’m going to say to you right now. We’re exploring all avenues to advance a peace process, but that peace process has to be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned. That’s very important in order to make it – in order to make it a long-term success. Okay.

                              QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

                              MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Elise, and then we’ve got to go, last question. Hey.

                              QUESTION: Can I – sorry, I had to run out for live shot. Can you —

                              MS NAUERT: Are you going to ask me something that somebody already asked me?

                              QUESTION: No, I already made sure that no one asked you this.

                              MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay.

                              QUESTION: Can you please fill us in on the kind of phone calls and meetings that the Secretary has had to do follow-up on the NATO summit or provide allies any kind of readout of what happened this week in Helsinki?

                              MS NAUERT: I can tell you that there was a readout provided with Ambassador Huntsman and Ambassador Hutchison from the NATO summit. Beyond that, I’m not aware of any particular high-level calls or engagements that we’ve had. Okay?

                              QUESTION: Thank you.

                              MS NAUERT: All right, guys. We’ve got to leave it there. Thank you so much; we’ll see you soon.

                              (The briefing was concluded at 3:41 p.m.)



                              The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
                              External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.



                            Press Releases: Video of Executions in Cameroon


                            Press Statement

                            Heather Nauert

                            Department Spokesperson

                            Washington, DC

                            July 16, 2018

                            The United States is gravely concerned over the recent video depicting men wearing military-style uniforms executing two women and two children, one an infant. International media, Amnesty International, and Cameroonian human rights organizations attribute the actions portrayed in the video to the Cameroonian military. We call on the Government of Cameroon to investigate thoroughly and transparently the events depicted in the video, make its findings public, and if Cameroonian military personnel were involved in this atrocity, hold them accountable.

                            All countries, including Cameroon, must uphold their international and national commitments and obligations to protect the human rights of their residents and promote accountability.‎



                            The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
                            External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.