QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
This is a question on Bahrain.
Could you tell us what you did say to your Bahraini counterpart regarding the human rights
situation in this country?
The last Human Rights Report from the Department of State in 2012 pointed out, I quote, ìegregious
human rights problems in 2011 in Bahrain, including the inability of citizens to peacefully
change their government.î Thank you very much.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
We had a very good, constructive conversation about all of the issues of the region as well
as the internal issues of Bahrain.
And I expressed the concern of all people for the protection of the rights of everybody.
And we talked about the dialogue.
The Foreign Minister made it clear to me that they remain committed to the dialogue, that
they are engaged right now in advancing it, theyíre at some important stages within it,
progress is being made.
And what I did was encourage him to continue that dialogue and to reach a resolution with
respect to some of these difficult issues.
He assured me that they are going to continue in good faith, and obviously, all of us encourage
that and look forward to some positive results.
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) from Al-Jazeera, Arabic Channel.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Your Excellency, I have a question regarding the Syrian crisis.
Is there full agreement with the American position vis-a-vis the Syrian question, or
thereís still differences, especially when it regards the question of arming the rebels
in Syria?
The question for Mr. Kerry is, first of all, yesterday, you called for guarantees before
providing any weapons to the Syrian ñ moderate Syrian opposition.
You didnít specify what kind of guarantees.
Can you please elaborate?
And also, Iran said that Assad should remain until 2014.
This is a challenge to all the efforts of all parts who consider Assad as some president
who lost legitimacy.
Also, itís not just that the United States is not doing much apart from saying much maybe,
you just said President Obama considers Assad as someone who lost legitimacy.
Away from rhetoric, what kind of practical steps is the administration and President
Obama likely to take and in what timeline, please?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin by saying Iím not sure what guarantees youíre referring
to.
I never asked for or suggested any particular guarantees.
What I did say is there are greater guarantees now that the weapons are being transferred
to moderate and to ñ directly to Syrian opposition.
Thereís never a full guarantee, and I think I also said that when I was speaking.
But in addition, what I said ñ and I have no ñ I honestly have never suggested that
Iran ñ that thereís a date associated with Iranís support in 2014.
So let me make it clear --
QUESTION: No, the Iranians, they said that --
QUESTION: No, no.
The Iranians, they said that President Bashar Assad would remain in 2014.
SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, then the translation ñ we lost something in the translation, and
I apologize.
Thank you very much.
Thatís helpful.
In that case, that may be the Iranian position, but I donít believe it is the position of
the people of Syria.
And I think ultimately the people of Syria will speak on this.
The Syrian opposition clearly is promising a future for all of the people of Syria.
Bashar al-Assad is not, and what the Syrian opposition has said is that all people will
be protected: Alawi, Druze, Shias, Sunni, Christian.
All of the different people will be part of choosing the future of their government.
Bashar al-Assad has made it clear that he is unwilling to sit down and provide the negotiation
that was called for in Geneva last year.
Instead he has responded with Scud missiles, with assassinations, with releasing his army,
his air force dropping bombs, and trying to subjugate people much in the way that his
father did years ago.
So we are clear and have been clear.
There is a framework for a peaceful resolution.
The Iranians can support it, the Russians can support it, and Bashar al-Assad can support
it.
And that formula is set out in the Geneva communique, which provides for a transition
government with full executive authority chosen by mutual consent.
That means President Assad can choose who will represent him, and the Syrian opposition
can choose who will represent them, and then the Syrian people will choose who will represent
them as a country.
Now, that is a reasonable way to end the violence, a reasonable way to allow the people of the
country to determine their future.
And thatís what we are supporting.
Now, the Iranians can support that, and so can the Russians.
And I believe in my conversations with Sergey Lavrov that he does support that, and heís
prepared to try to help make that happen.
So this is really up to Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian opposition to determine if it will
be a peaceful outcome or whether or not the Syrian opposition will continue to put the
pressure on to try to bring him to the negotiating table.
And thatís where we are.
PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: (Via interpreter) As for the Syrian crisis, I think Mr. John Kerry
has answered part of the question when he talked about arming the opposition.
As you know, there is a change in the international position and the American position in this
regard.
Theyíre talking about weapons.
We hope that this happened sometime ago before, because this would have maybe lessened the
death and destruction that took place in Syria.
But now everybody has reached a conclusion and a conviction that Assad has chosen his
own way of ending this crisis.
This is something that ñ which cannot be accepted by the international community when
he rains Scud missiles on cities and towns in a manner reminiscent of World War II.
After the Rome meeting, I expressed optimism that the international community has started
or maybe more than just started.
Itís actually working in a way which we think will achieve victory for the Syrian people
in a much quicker way, and we will minimize the time and the losses, because with each
day that passes, more people are getting killed.
We think this problem could have been solved much quicker, but Bashar al-Assad chose his
own particular solution as we said.
As for the Geneva declaration, I was part of the committee which formulated that declaration,
and the question was clear.
We talked about authority should be transferred into a government with full powers to run
the country and army.
But after the meeting, I think itís Article 9 in the Geneva declaration, there was differences
over how to interpret that and especially on the power transfer question in particular.
The understanding was that we talked about a transition period and any discussion will
need to be confined to a certain timeline, because the Syrian regime has a way with any
initiative; they never say no, but they take time, then they ñ to accept it, then they
take time to interpret it, then time to deal with it, then to turn it into a failure.
And we remember initiative after initiative, this is a tactic to prolong the crisis until
another crisis happens somewhere else, which will lessen the pressure on them or some change
will happen or victory achieved on the ground.
Iím sure none of the three things will happen for simple reason, because itís not our demands
and itís not us who are fighting.
These are the demands of the Syrian people, maybe the vast majority of the Syrian people.
MODERATOR: (Via interpreter) Last question maybe.
Michael Gordon from New York Times.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned at the Rome conference on Syria and again here
today that when people try to assess whatís being done to help the Syrian Opposition Coalition
that itís important to look at the totality of the international effort, that different
countries, different nations are helping in different ways.
Has the United States reached an understanding with Saudi Arabia, with the U.A.E., and other
states about what sort of weapons should be provided to the opposition and whom specifically,
which groups they should be provided to?
Or do you have concerns that states like Qatar are providing weapons to groups that youíre
not entirely comfortable with?
And lastly, on the way over here, we heard that North Korea is threatening to abrogate
the armistice.
I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.
And to the Prime Minister, you mentioned that the international community seems to be more
receptive to the question of arming the Syrian opposition.
Have you had productive discussions with the Americans on who specifically in the opposition
should be equipped with arms and what they should be equipped with?
Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, with respect to the arms and the transfer, we did discuss.
We had a discussion about the types of weapons that are being transferred and by whom.
We are aware of what people are doing.
I donít think the United States is engaged in a specific allotment process or designated
process, but obviously we are aware.
And it is that awareness that informs the Presidentís decision about what is needed
and what the United States is prepared to do at this point in time.
In addition, we did discuss the question of the ability to try to guarantee that itís
going to the right people and to the moderate Syrian Opposition Coalition.
And I think itís really in the last months that that has developed as a capacity that
we have greater confidence in.
I think I said yesterday you canít guarantee that one weapon or another may not fall, in
that kind of a situation, into hands that you donít want it in.
But in terms of the fundamental balance of battlefield tactics and of effort, I think
itís pretty clear that the Prime Minister shares the belief in trying to do what we
need to do rapidly, and to try to effect this most effectively through the Syrian Opposition
Coalition, and thatís what weíre trying to do.
With respect to North Korea ñ and let me say one other thing on the thing ñ and partly
in answer to the question before, too.
The Presidentís purpose here, and I think everybodyís purpose, is to try to minimize
the killing, is to try to end the killing, end the violence.
And itís the Presidentís judgment for the moment that we would like to see whether or
not President Assad shares that view, and would like to, in fact, save this country
and proceed through the Geneva communique to a peaceful process.
There are lots of options that remain if, in days or weeks or whatever, that that opportunity
is not taken advantage of.
So I think when you look at the whole of those countries that are engaged, the numbers of
nations that have come to the table to stand for the Syrian people, there was a very significant
amount of support for the Syrian coalition at this point in time.
With respect to North Korea, I think President Obama and the American people and the world
would like to see the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, take responsible actions for
peace and for responsible activity within the region, and rather than threaten to abrogate
and threaten to move in some new direction, the world would be better served if he would
direct his people and make the decision himself to engage in a legitimate dialogue, in legitimate
negotiations in order to resolve not just American concerns, but the concerns of the
Japanese, of the South Koreans, of the Russians, the Chinese, and South Korea ñ I think I
said South Koreans ñ everybody in the region.
And so thatís our hope, and we will continue to do what is necessary to defend our nation
and the region together with our allies.
But our preference is not to brandish threats at each other; it is to get to the table and
negotiate a peaceful resolution to that crisis also.
PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: I will speak in Arabic, so if you want to use your headphone.
First of all, thanks God that North Korea is far away from here.
(Laughter.)
So you cannot blame us also for that.
(Via interpreter) As for the question of providing weapons, this kind of fame or reputation about
Qatar came from the Libyan crisis when Qadhafi started killing people left, right, and center,
and the international community was rushing in to providing weapons to the people who
were resisting Qadhafiís regime.
Qatar was amongst the first countries to support the rebels with some equipment, and at that
time and in that chaos, maybe some mistakes may have been committed.
But letís look from a practical point of view to this question.
Even if there is any party which is providing weapons and there are other parties which
fell into the same problem, but they were not mentioned ñ only Qatar was mentioned
because of a political difference and not a practical difference, the political difference
between the brotherly countries of this area, who is helping who.
They think we are supporting a certain party in Egypt, and of course, everybodyís right
to choose who they support.
And they have their right to, but who has more right to support is the peoples, whether
the Egyptian, Libyan, or others.
The problem started here.
Maybe something happened, but not at the magnitude that was portrayed, especially to Western
countries, because Western countries, once people talk about terrorism, they pay attention,
and I donít blame them for that.
Now, any western government or the United States will be ñ if people want to attract
your attention, they talk about terrorism.
We tried that in the past with our friends in the West.
As for Syria, I said in the beginning that if all worked with more diligence and seriousness,
this regime would have gone by now.
But everything which was provided by countries with the knowledge of other countries was
provided through a certain regime, and everybody was keen that such help and support would
go for self-defense and nothing more than self-defense or other than self-defense.
But the longer the crisis goes on, other parties will get involved.
We donít want that.
We want the moderate parties to prevail and we want our support to go to the moderate
factions.
And therefore, itís very important that this issue is not used by the Syrian regime because
they know the West gets alarmed when they hear these stories, and maybe this was manipulated
by some brotherly states in this region.
And therefore, this thing was blown out of proportion and exaggerated.
And Iím not an expert on arms, but if there is some rocket-propelled grenades or RPGs
or anything provided, this will not threaten the world order.
And of course, we are against that approach anyway, but it is dangerous somewhat when
there is a regime which shoots down civilian aircraft and what ñ the bombing of a nightclub
in Germany, and what Qadhafiís regime did to bring down the TWA aircraft or the French
aircraft.
You know how these regimes provided weapons to some extremist groups and factions.
We want regimes to have a legal outlook.
They respect their countries, they develop their countries, they fulfill the needs of
their people, and not the kind of regimes to create chaos and destruction to gain their
importance.
We are a small country who wants stability and peace with our neighbors, but we cannot
tolerate injustices committed in the manner that is inflicted upon the Syrian people.
So therefore, to say that terrorism, any terrorist now is Bashar.
Bashar is the terrorist who started all of this.
He is killing his own people.
Thank you very much.
I thank you once again.
I thank my friend, His Excellency, the Secretary of State.
Thank you.