The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

April 21, 2014

Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/21/14

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:15 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY: Before I take your questions I just wanted to congratulate on behalf of the President and everyone here at the White House Meb Keflezighi, who just won the Boston Marathon -- first American to do so in 31 years, which is quite an accomplishment and a great year to do it. (Applause.)

Q Pretty cool.

Q Well done.

MR. CARNEY: That's absolutely true. And that's all I have at the top, so I'll go to Julie.

Q Thanks, Jay. A couple of questions on Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are trading blame over who’s responsible for the shooting yesterday in eastern Ukraine. Can you just give us what the U.S. assessment is of what happened there?

MR. CARNEY: Julie, what I can tell you is that we continue to monitor events in eastern Ukraine closely. We've seen differing reports about what happened in Slovyansk yesterday but cannot independently confirm responsibility for these actions. Overall, we are concerned about the situation there, and we urge paramilitary groups throughout the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine to lay down their weapons and depart the buildings that they have occupied, as was called for in the accord signed in Geneva last week. We continue to call on Russia to use its influence over these groups to press them to disarm and to turn occupied buildings over to the authorities.

We commend the government of Ukraine for continuing to demonstrate restraint, and are hopeful that all parties in the Rada will shortly be able to agree on an amnesty bill to help deescalate the situation in the east. As we have said, if there is not progress within days we remain prepared, along with our European and G7 partners, to impose additional costs on Russia for its destabilizing actions.

So when it comes to that specific incident, we're still unable independently to confirm who’s responsible for what happened there, but there’s no question that there’s been a great deal of destabilizing activity and that Russia has influence over the groups that have engaged in that activity, who have seized buildings. And we continue to call on Russia to use that influence to pressure those groups to disarm and to return the buildings to authorities.

Q You mentioned a couple of steps that you commend Ukraine for taking in order to live up to the conditions of this accord. But do you have any indication that Russia is taking the steps that it agreed to under that agreement?

MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, they signed the agreement and they have committed themselves by signing to use their influence to stabilize the situation in Ukraine or to urge those over whom they have influence to disarm and to return buildings that they have occupied back to the authorities. And we continue to press them to do that. As we have made clear, should Russia continue to engage in destabilizing actions in Ukraine, there will be costs. There has been already. And should they escalate their destabilizing activity the costs will escalate.

So we're in a place now with the Vice President in Kyiv and meeting with Ukrainian government officials where we are demonstrating our support for that government, for the process that they have undertaken of both reform and near-term elections, and we are continuing to call on all parties to honor the agreements they made in Geneva.

Q But at this point, do you see any sign that Russia is doing that, is honoring the agreement they made?

MR. CARNEY: What we continue to see is a situation in eastern Ukraine that remains very volatile and tense and that requires that steps be taken to stabilize it because of the potential for it to become worse and more chaotic. What we hope to see from Russia is the use of its influence on those groups that clearly respond to that influence. And we have been very clear that we firmly believe that Russia has supported the so-called separatists in eastern Ukraine that have popped up with arms to seize buildings, to stockpile weapons, to erect roadblocks. And Russia needs to abide by the agreement signed in Geneva and to take steps to help stabilize the situation.

Q Can you just be any more specific about this coming days timeline? Officials have been using that since Thursday when this agreement was signed and we’re now at Monday. How much longer do you let this play out without seeing some kind of concrete sign that it’s holding and that progress is being made?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have an end date for you. We are in a situation where we have potential new sanctions that we could impose, as we mentioned last week, and we are closely monitoring events in eastern Ukraine and monitoring compliance with the agreement signed in Geneva, and we will be evaluating compliance in coming days.

Roberta.

Q What role did the White House play either in the timing or the substance of Friday’s announcement on Keystone?

MR. CARNEY: The Keystone process is run out of the State Department, in keeping with past practice by administrations of both parties going back many decades -- or much time. As I understand it -- and for details you need to go to the State Department -- the issue here has to do with a court decision in Nebraska and its impact on the ability for the state process to continue, for agencies to be able to comment. And absent a definite route through Nebraska, the decision, as I understand, by State is that that can’t continue until the situation in Nebraska is resolved.

Q And is the President frustrated at all at these delays, this indefiniteness in the process?

MR. CARNEY: The President wants the process to be conducted in a way that’s consistent with past practice and consistent with the interests that have to be examined when you’re talking about an international border being crossed by a pipeline. There have been a series of moments along the path here where politics has played a role in delaying the process, as you know -- actions that Congress took, for example. And then there have been other instances where either local or state concerns slow down the process, or, in this case, action by a state court had an impact on the process itself.

What the President has insisted on all along is that this process be run out of the State Department in accordance with established tradition for matters like these, and that’s been the case here.

Q So politics is not playing a role in this current delay?

MR. CARNEY: Again, this is a State Department process, it’s a State Department decision, so I would refer you to the State Department.

Q On Ukraine, you talked earlier about Russian support for these separatists who are occupying buildings and then these towns. What about evidence that they might actually be Russian? We’ve heard that Ukraine gave the OSCE photographs -- photographic evidence, they say, of actual Russians who participated in earlier events in Crimea or even Chechnya. Has the U.S. seen these pictures, validated them? What’s the response to these photos, which certainly suggest they’re not just supporting the separatists but --

MR. CARNEY: Sure. Well, there’s been broad consensus in the international community about the connection between Russia and the armed militants in Ukraine. And the photographs that you referred to that Ukraine has submitted to the OSCE I think reaffirm that connection. We have noted in the past reporting that -- public reporting that indicates Russian personnel being involved in some of the activity. The actions of the militants bear striking similarities to actions taken in Crimea. And I think President Putin himself noted the other day that Russia -- not just to separatists -- but Russia itself participated in that. So we don’t have any doubt about the connection there, and I think that the photographs that are reported on today simply reaffirm that.

Q So Russia then becomes -- if the separatists are still occupying these buildings and there’s no marked change since this truce, this accord, are the Russians -- do you guys believe that the Russians are negotiating in good faith? It has to be about negotiations and not a military solution, so if the Russians are not just supporting separatists but separatists may be Russian, how are you approaching the Russians on it?

MR. CARNEY: We’ve been very direct with Russia and that was the case in Geneva. Russia understands that the international community holds one view about the actions that Russia has taken and supported in Ukraine, and that we stand prepared, together with our partners, to impose further costs on Russia if Russia does not take action to help stabilize the situation in Ukraine and to cease promoting destabilizing activity.

And in the coming days, if Russia doesn’t abide by the commitments it’s made and we don’t see steps taken to reduce the instability in the region, steps taken to use the influence that Russia has on the militants to get them to disarm and to turn back over the buildings that they’ve seized, then we’re prepared to impose further costs.

Q And also on Yemen, do you know a sense of timing on how long it will take before you’ll know if the bomb-maker, al Asiri, was killed in these strikes?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re aware of the reports and I’d point you to the Yemeni government and what the government itself has said. In statements to the press, the Yemeni government has confirmed that air strikes were carried out these weekend against al Qaeda militants in remote training camps and in a convoy. According to the Yemenis, these individuals were planning to target civilian and military facilities in al-Bayda and elsewhere.

Now, I can’t speak to specific operations, but we have a strong, collaborative relationship, as you know, with the Yemeni government and work together on various initiatives to counter the shared threat we face from AQAP. So in terms of more details about the strikes that the Yemeni government has discussed, I would refer you to the Yemeni government.

Chuck.

Q Just to follow up, you keep saying that you need to see evidence of Russia not fulfilling its promises and what was agreed to. All there has been rhetorically is just the opposite. It’s been Putin saying he doesn’t even understand why parts of Ukraine were even handed over in the first place. I mean, he’s been very provocative. If anything, it’s been reescalating not deescalating. So I guess what is the “okay, enough” as of now?

Q What are you waiting for?

Q What is the cutoff line here?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have a specific deadline for you except to say that the agreement was signed in Geneva; we are closely monitoring events in eastern Ukraine.

Q Is this days?

MR. CARNEY: The situation in coming days, you can expect that we will move forward with the imposition of further costs on Russia if Russia does not take action to comply with its commitments in Geneva.

Q What is the action that you guys are waiting for -- pulling troops back?

MR. CARNEY: To see that there are actions taken that help stabilize the situation. And that would mean militias -- armed militias disarming, removing themselves from buildings that they have seized and occupied.

The other side of the story, which is very important, the Ukrainian government, again, showing great restraint and professionalism, is taking steps that it can to help reduce tensions and deescalate, and that includes actions in the Rada to offer amnesty to those who have participated in these actions.

Q By saying what you just said, this means that Lavrov’s claim that somehow this was -- that the Ukrainian government was behind this recent incident is --

MR. CARNEY: Again, we don't have -- as I said regarding the incident in Slovyansk, we don't have independent confirmation of exactly what transpired there. But broadly speaking, we have seen obviously a great deal of activity seemingly coordinated -- almost indisputably coordinated in eastern Ukraine when it comes to armed groups seizing buildings, occupying them, declaring themselves autonomous or independent and then absolutely in violation of Ukrainian law and constitution.

Q Can you give us some -- moving to the announcement today at the Justice Department about the expanded potential executive -- of what applications for clemency to the President -- that make it to the President’s desk -- can you fill in some of the gaps of some of the criteria that is going to be included in that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, probably the gaps would best be filled over at the Department of Justice. What I can tell you, as we've said before, the President wants to make sure that everyone has a fair shot under the clemency system, and he has asked the Department of Justice to set up a process aimed at ensuring that anyone who has a good case for commutation has their application seen and evaluated thoroughly.

The number of commutations that are granted will depend entirely on the number of worthy candidates. And in terms of how many deserving candidates are out there, I couldn't begin to speculate. But there’s a process in place that reflects the President’s belief that everyone should have a fair shot under the system for consideration.

Q Under this same thing, is there any -- does the President want a process to reconsider the classification of marijuana?

MR. CARNEY: Our views on that have not changed and I don't think this is a related --

Q There’s no ongoing effort to change it from being a Schedule 1 controlled substance?

MR. CARNEY: Not that I'm aware of. I'd refer --

Q That would have an impact on how many -- this does have some impact on --

MR. CARNEY: For details you should go to DOJ. And I don't want to venture too far out here because I'm not a lawyer or an expert in this, but this has to do with the Fair Sentencing Act the President signed into law in 2010 and the observation that the President has made, and others of both parties have made, about the inconsistency between current law and sentences that many are serving now. And the President simply wants a process by which everyone who might potentially have clemency available to him or her get the consideration that they deserve.

Q Is there any interest in -- does the administration want the Justice Department to look into reclassifying marijuana?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything new on that issue since the last time we talked about it.

Jon.

Q Back to the Keystone decision. It's obviously a decision that has big political ramifications. Was there any communication between the White House and the State Department before the State Department moved forward and decided to delay the decision?

MR. CARNEY: Again, this is a process run out of State. State has made an announcement related to --

Q I'm just asking if they talked to State before --

MR. CARNEY: -- the Nebraska court decision. I don't have any conversations that I'm aware of. This process is run out of State and this is in reaction to, as I understand it, a Nebraska Supreme Court decision which could ultimately affect the pipeline in that state -- the pipeline route. And again, they have the details and the expertise over at State in the running of this process, but it stands to reason that if you're in the middle of a process by which agencies -- and you're at the stage where agencies are supposed to comment on a pipeline route and that route itself may be in doubt because of a state Supreme Court decision, it stands to reason that more time is needed for that to be resolved before the process at State can be concluded.

Q So the President is happy with the decision the State Department took?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I know there’s a great urge, and has always been, to make this about politics, but we've seen along this process -- along the way here, along the route, a series of actions taken in keeping with past practice where the reviews are done out of the State Department. We are at a process where agencies were able to weigh in and then we have a state Supreme Court decision. The State Department has more details or can brief you more fully on it, but that obviously has a potential impact on the pipeline route, and therefore, the decision that the State Department made was made.

Q Does the President have any power in this area? Could he overrule the State Department? Could he tell them to speed this up? Does he have any personal views on this? Is he glad to see it pushed until after the elections, or would he like to see this thing finally resolved? I mean, he’s had the answer I think -- the questions on this for years now.

MR. CARNEY: The President has been consistent in always wanting the process to be conducted on the merits and in keeping with past practices of administrations of both parties. And we have seen attempts to inject politics into this, actions by Congress, for example, that have actually served to delay the normal process that the State Department runs, again, in administrations of both parties.

So obviously nobody, as I understand it, at the State Department or here could anticipate the Nebraska Supreme Court decision. That decision was made; there’s an assessment made by those who are running the process that it could have an impact on the pipeline route, so State Department made the decision that it made.

Q But does he have the power --

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have -- I haven’t talked to him about it.

Q But does he have the power? I mean, could he call the State Department and say --

MR. CARNEY: I’d refer you to State for how the process works. It’s obviously his administration, but his interest is not in ruling by fiat, but for letting the process be properly managed and completed.

Q And then can I get you just to respond -- obviously there have been some Democrats who are I guess furious about this delay. Senator Begich of Alaska said, “I am, frankly, appalled at the continued foot-dragging.” Mary Landrieu said, “This decision is irresponsible, unnecessary, and unacceptable.” Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota, said it is absolutely ridiculous that it has been delayed yet again. Your response to these Democratic senators?

MR. CARNEY: My response to any questions about this or statements about this is that it is a process run by the State Department, as has been the case in previous administrations of both parties. There was a decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court -- not here in Washington, but by the Nebraska Supreme Court -- that affects potentially the pipeline route, and the State Department that’s running the process has made a decision about the impact of that decision on the process itself. So I would refer you to the State Department.

Q You’d refer these senators to the State Department?

MR. CARNEY: I mean, those are just the facts, Jon. The process has to be compliant with past practice.

Major.

Q I know you said earlier that we haven’t been able to -- this administration hasn’t been able to independently verify all the facts of what happened this weekend, but do you know enough to say that there is nothing that you know so far that would justify Russian forces coming in to protect Russians in Ukraine, as some in the areas where this violence occurred have asked for?

MR. CARNEY: That would be, as a general matter, significant and dangerous escalation of the situation. We have made clear that that kind of action, direct military intervention by Russia in Ukraine, in eastern Ukraine, would be a serious escalation of the situation there and would be met with a serious escalation of the cost to Russia. So that’s our view on that as a general matter and a specific matter.

We’re still assessing the events of the weekend, but there’s no question that the overall situation has been greatly worsened by the intervention of armed militants who have seized buildings, stockpiled weapons, blockaded roads, and done so in the name of either joining Russia or being independent and being generally pro-Russia. And our whole position has always been that Ukraine’s future has to be for Ukraine to decide and it should not be dictated to by outside states -- in this case, Russia. The Ukrainian parliament and government --

Q -- use it as a pretext to expand Russian action inside Ukraine?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I can’t speak to how it might be viewed in Moscow, but that is, of course, a very serious concern as a general matter, that pretext of the kind that we’ve seen, some of them fairly blatant and transparent, only serve to further destabilize the situation in Ukraine.

Q You said a moment ago when asked what has Russia done to comply with the agreement, you said, well, they signed it. Is it possible that it was signed knowing full well that the separatists or the provocateurs or whatever you want to call them inside of Ukraine would say, well, we don’t recognize the Ukrainian government in the first place, therefore, it’s not binding, therefore, signing it had no practical effect for the very government you’re hoping will help enforce it?

MR. CARNEY: I mean, people -- they might have rationales for why they act, but that’s not -- such action wouldn’t be lawful in Ukraine under the Ukrainian constitution, under Ukrainian law. Certainly, intervention by another state in violation of a sovereign state’s territorial integrity would be a transgression of international law, as we saw in Crimea.

So, I mean, I’m sure there are all sorts of unsustainable rationales for why these kinds of things are done and some of them are just pure propaganda. But what we’ve seen out of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian parliament are steps that have been designed to demonstrate restraint and demonstrate a resolve to work with those regions of Ukraine that may want greater autonomy. And the Ukrainian government has committed itself to a process of constitutional reform. There are national elections scheduled for May 25th and the Rada itself has moved along in a process that could result in the passage of legislation that would allow for amnesty to participants in this activity. So I think, again, what you have seen on the Ukrainian side of this is a series of steps clearly designed to deescalate the situation, and we have not yet seen that from the other side.

Q You said a moment ago, in the coming days the cost might go up for the Russian government. Would it be reasonable to interpret that as by Friday?

MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to put a timeline on it, Major. I will simply say that we will assess Russia’s actions in keeping with the commitments it made in Geneva and then evaluate those actions, and in coming days make a decision about whether or not further costs will be imposed because of Russian actions that destabilize Ukraine.

Q The State Department said they’ve been investigating a chemical weapons attack in Syria, a new one. How serious is this situation and how does it affect ongoing administration policy here?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we have indications of the use of a toxic industrial chemical, probably chlorine, in Syria this month in the opposition-dominated village of Kfar Zeita. We are examining allegations that the government was responsible. We take all allegations of the use of chemicals in combat very seriously and we are working to determine what happened. We will continue consulting and sharing information with key partners, including, of course, at the OPCW.

So this is a matter that’s being investigated and we’re working to determine what happened. And once that has been established, we can talk about what reaction, if any, or response, if any, there would be from the international community.

Q What does it tell you in the context of what the administration has touted has been general success of getting the Syrians to dismantle --

MR. CARNEY: Indications of use -- we are still establishing what happened and who was responsible. We’re examining allegations that the regime was responsible. We continue the process with our partners that Syria committed to -- the Assad regime as well as Russia committed to that has led now to more than 65 percent of the Syrian regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons being removed for destruction, and that process continues.

Q Jay, a couple of minutes ago you said in the coming days you can expect we’ll move forward to impose higher costs on the Russian economy. And then just to Major, you said we’re going to evaluate whether or not --

MR. CARNEY: Yes, sorry, the second -- I don’t have a transcript of what I said. We will make a decision about --

Q Whether or not you’re going to impose the costs?

MR. CARNEY: Again, depending on Russia’s actions.

Q I know, but -- okay, so you haven’t decided.

MR. CARNEY: I think I was pretty clear about that.

Q It sounded pretty definitive before that you were going to impose higher costs. Now you haven’t decided yet whether you’re going to?

MR. CARNEY: We have an agreement that was signed by Russia, that committed Russia to take steps to help stabilize the situation in Ukraine, and that includes using its influence on these armed militias -- militants, rather, to disarm and to return buildings that they’ve occupied back to the authorities in Ukraine. So we are evaluating the application -- or implementation of the commitments made in Geneva, and we’ll take steps in coming days as dictated by compliance with those agreements.

Q Okay. So it sounds like higher costs or further sanctions are ready to go if you decide the Russians haven’t complied. Is that what you’re saying?

MR. CARNEY: If progress is not made in coming days, we will impose further costs.

Q And are these further costs by economic sector or are they more individuals? Or could you describe what they would be?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not going to foreshadow -- as I think Ambassador Rice said on Friday, I’m not going to foreshadow specific sanctions that are under consideration, or individuals or entities that might be under consideration. We have said all along that the three executive orders that the President signed give him and the administration broad flexibility in the imposition of sanctions and the ability to escalate costs in response to escalation by Russia or other individuals and entities that violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

So I think the way to look at this is that the response by the United States and our partners will depend upon the degree of escalation by those violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. So if there is no progress made on the commitments reached in Geneva in coming days, we will impose further costs.

Q Okay. But one of the -- part of the things to factor is how willing Europe, in particular, even more than the U.S., is willing to pay a price of its own, because these sanctions are not without some kind of a blowback. How confident are you that European allies are willing to shoulder the burden of the effect of further sanctions?

MR. CARNEY: I think what you’ve seen, Mara, is a great deal of consensus and unanimity among European nations and the United States and others in how we view the action that Russia has taken in Ukraine, in condemning it and in calling for steps to deescalate the situation there, and also to impose cost, as as the EU and separate European nations have done, as has the United States.

Leaders of various partners in Europe have spoken to the very question that you’ve asked and made clear that there have to be costs that will be imposed on Russia should Russia choose to escalate. And we will work in concert with our European partners and allies and our G7 partners to do just that, as appropriate, depending on the degree to which progress is made or not made in the coming days.

Wendell.

Q The decision to offer expanded clemency criteria for non-violent drug users, was this discussed between Justice and the White House?

MR. CARNEY: Wendell, the President wants to make sure that everyone has a fair shot under the clemency system. He has asked the Department of Justice to set up a process aimed at ensuring that anyone who has a good case for commutation has their application seen and evaluated thoroughly. In terms of how many deserving applications are out there, I couldn’t begin to speculate, but there is a process in place that ensures -- or that hopefully will ensure that everyone has a fair shot under the system.

The President continues to believe that a resolution is needed for the many offenders who are serving unfairly long sentences under outdated guidelines, and that the clemency process is not an appropriate vehicle to address that injustice in a comprehensive way. That should be done through bipartisan legislation like the measures currently working their way through Congress. And as you know, this is an issue on which there is a bipartisan coalition that believes action needs to be taken and there are measures in Congress that reflect that.

Q The use of chemical weapons apparent, possible use of chemical weapons in Syria -- is this an indication that the President has been unable, basically, to get the Assad regime to keep from going over this red line he drew?

MR. CARNEY: Again, Wendell, we have indications of the use of a toxic industrial chemical, probably chlorine, in Syria this month in an opposition-dominated village. We’re examining allegations that the government was responsible and we’re working to determine what exactly happened.

As you know, the United States and other nations are participants in an agreement that commits the Assad regime to relinquishing its stockpiles of chemical weapons and relinquishing them for destruction. And that process continues, and we’re now, I believe, at roughly 65, 67 percent of those weapons being turned over for destruction. But this specific incident is obviously, as a general matter, something that is of concern and that’s why we’re investigating what happened and allegations of who is responsible.

Q And the action in Yemen -- what does this say to the President’s stated desire to actually reduce the use of drones? And can we presume that this group pose a new threat to the U.S. and its allies?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me answer that in a couple of ways. First of all, I can’t speak to specific operations, as you know. But we have a strong collaborative relationship with the Yemeni government and work together on various initiatives to counter the shared threat we face from AQAP. We support the Yemeni government’s efforts to tackle terrorism within their own borders; and beyond that, for details of these reported incidents, I would refer you to the Yemeni government.

Again, without speaking about specific operations, I can tell you that in May 2013, President Obama spoke at length about the policy and legal rationale for how the United States takes direct action against al Qaeda and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, including with drone strikes. And as the President made clear, we take extraordinary care to make sure that our counterterrorism actions are in accordance with all applicable domestic and international laws, and that they are consistent with U.S. values and policy.

Mr. Knoller.

Q Jay, is there something that prompted President Obama to think that the applications for commutation of sentence were not getting due consideration?

MR. CARNEY: Well, these are issues that the President and his administration have been working on for a long time. In 2010, Mark, as you know, the President pushed for and signed the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce disparities that punished crack cocaine offenses far more harshly than powder cocaine offenses. And since taking office, the administration has supported criminal justice reform at the state and local level.

Last summer, the Attorney General announced a series of changes to enforce our drug laws more fairly, effectively, and efficiently. And last December, President Obama commuted the sentences of eight individuals who are serving unduly harsh sentences issued under an outdated sentencing regime. So that’s basically a chronology that answers your question -- that this is a process that’s been in place and of interest to the administration and the President since the beginning, and reflected in the signing of the law in 2010 and the actions that he has taken since.

So making sure that everyone has a fair shot under the clemency system is what’s behind his request to the Justice Department that they set up a process aimed at making sure that anyone who has a good case gets consideration.

Q Is he satisfied with the recommendations he gets from the pardon attorney on both commutation and pardons?

MR. CARNEY: I haven’t had that discussion with him, but the process works in the way that it has and I’ve certainly not heard a suggestion that the process doesn’t work appropriately.

Roger.

Q Thank you. Mr. Biden is over in Ukraine. He’s going to be offering a package of technical assistance. Can you describe a little bit what that’s about, what that means, and would it include people from the Defense Department?

MR. CARNEY: Roger, what I can tell you is that the Vice President is in Ukraine to demonstrate our solidarity with the Ukrainian people and to discuss how the U.S. can support the international community’s efforts to stabilize and strengthen Ukraine’s economy and assist Ukraine in moving forward on constitutional reform, decentralization, anticorruption efforts, and free and fair presidential elections on May 25th. He’ll also be consulting on the latest developments in eastern Ukraine and on steps to enhance Ukraine’s short- and long-term energy security.

I don’t have anything to announce ahead of the Vice President in terms of specific assistance that we’ll be seeking to provide Ukraine. As you know, we have taken steps already to assist Ukraine through a package of loan guarantees passed by Congress. We’re working very closely with our partners on the IMF to ensure that assistance is provided to Ukraine as they seek to stabilize their economy in this very difficult time. And that kind of coordination will continue.

Q Can you say how many people it might be?

MR. CARNEY: No, again, I think I would wait for the Vice President to speak about his meetings and any assistance he might be offering.

Jon-Christopher.

Q Does the Vice President have any special message to deliver to the people from Belarus or Moldova as well as the Baltic countries while he is there?

MR. CARNEY: Well, he’s there, principally, Jon-Christopher, to demonstrate the United States’ support for Ukraine in all the ways that I just described. We have also made clear because of the events in Ukraine that we strongly support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent nations. In addition to that, we have taken steps with our NATO partners to reassure NATO allies, like Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, who are NATO allies. And I’m sure you’re aware of the actions that we have taken as an alliance to demonstrate that reassurance both in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as we well as in Poland. And that process continues.

So I think that there are slightly different answers to the questions that you asked. But as a general principle, I think that this whole situation in Ukraine has demonstrated the world’s commitment to sovereign nations’ territorial integrity, and that there are costs that will be imposed on nations that violate the territorial integrity of another nation, another sovereign nation.

Q Jay, South Korea’s media are counting reports of increased activity at the North’s nuclear test site. Have we seen that? Is there a concern here perhaps that North Korea is maybe doing something -- planning something and maybe even while the President is in the South later this week?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything on those reports. Obviously, we monitor that kind of activity very closely, and we note a pattern of provocative actions from the regime in the DPRK that has been consistent unfortunately for many years. But I don’t have anything specific on those reports.

We obviously look forward to -- the President does -- his visit to Seoul, where the alliance that we share will be reaffirmed once again. And the importance of that relationship will be reaffirmed while the President is there.

Q Over the weekend, a very senior Pakistani journalist was shot at while he was coming from the airport. Of late, there haVE been increasing attacks on journalists inside of Pakistan. Is the President worried or concerned about increasing attacks on journalists inside the country?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we condemn Saturday’s vicious attack in Karachi on television journalist, Hamid Mir -- the latest in a series of worrisome attacks on journalists in Pakistan. Freedom of the press, including ensuring that journalists can safely carry out their vital mission, is of paramount importance to freedom of expression and to the healthy functioning of any democracy. We wish Hamid Mir a speedy recovery, and we urge the government of Pakistan to bring all those responsible for these attacks to justice.

Q Jay, ever since the Syrian crisis started, President Obama has called on President Assad to step down; very often he said he lost his legitimacy. He obviously hasn’t done that. And on top of that, they announced elections on June 3rd. Is he making a mockery of the President’s statement?

MR. CARNEY: No, he’s making a mockery of his own pretensions to being a democratically elected leader. A presidential referendum, which is what this would be, is a parody of democracy and would have no credibility or legitimacy within Syria or outside of Syria.

Q And does this show any chance of reconciliation in terms of any peace talks with the opposition?

MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, would this --

Q Yes, would this announcement of elections -- because he seems adamant that --

MR. CARNEY: This announcement that has no credibility and would be a parody of democracy? I don’t think that’s the way for the process to move forward.

Q No, but my point is the U.N. says that the only way to end the Syrian crisis is through a political transition. So now that you don’t have this opportunity by him announcing the election, so what’s the outcome for the Syrian crisis?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the process that can lead to the political transition has to be a negotiated process and resolution through or with the opposition, and it would not include a referendum of the nature that has been announced that bears no hallmarks to true democracy, but is a sham, really.

So the need for a political resolution remains. It’s the only way that the Syrian people can achieve a future where they have more freedom and are subjected to less tyranny. And we continue to support the opposition; we continue to support the Syrian people through the substantial humanitarian aid that we provide; and we continue to push for a process whereby a negotiated settlement that leads to a political transition can be reached.

Q Before the break, Speaker Boehner was asked about the unemployment extension that passed the Senate and said that it’s up to the White House essentially to come up with a new proposal on jobs before he’ll consider an unemployment extension. He said he told the President that in December and he’s been waiting and hasn’t heard a real jobs proposal since then. What’s the outcome here for those 2 million people who aren’t getting their checks?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think you’ve noted that more Republicans have made clear their support for extension of vital unemployment insurance emergency benefits since the last time we discussed this in this room. And we continue to press Congress to take action to restore those benefits.

I don’t have the latest on how that effort is progressing on Capitol Hill, but our position remains very clear, which is that these are benefits that should be extended. Extending them would be, of course, hugely impactful to the families who receive them directly, but also of great benefit to the economy. And Congress ought to take action.

Q Is the White House willing to consider offering some kind of a deal with Speaker Boehner on some of his priorities for those --

MR. CARNEY: I just don’t have an update. What we’ve seen in the past in these kinds of situations generally are an attempt to throw spaghetti against the wall on sort of ideological things that have nothing to do with making sure that these benefits get to the people who need them.

Thanks very much, everybody.

END
2:04 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

April 18, 2014

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, 4/18/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:15 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here. As you can see, I have some guests with me today -- Ambassador Susan Rice, the President’s National Security Advisor; Ben Rhodes, the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications. They are here to brief you on the President’s upcoming trip to Asia. I think Susan will start.

If you could --

AMBASSADOR RICE: Ben will start.

MR. CARNEY: Oh, Ben will start, sorry, and then Susan. And if you could address the questions you have for them at the top of the briefing, I will stick around for questions on other subjects. But we want to try to get through this by 2:00 p.m. because I know some of you will want to cover the President’s remarks at the Commander-in-Chief Trophy presentation.

And with that, I give you Ben Rhodes.

MR. RHODES: Okay, I’ll just be very quick in going through the President’s schedule, for this is his fifth trip to Asia, being able to go to Malaysia and the Philippines, which he was not able to do during the government shutdown last fall, as well as to two of our closest allies, Japan and the Republic of Korea.

We’ll begin in the evening of the 23rd, Wednesday, in Tokyo, where the President will have a private dinner with Prime Minister Abe. Following that private dinner, he’ll be down for the night.

The next morning he will have an official arrival ceremony at the Imperial Palace. This is a state visit that the President is taking to Japan. That will be followed by the bilateral meeting and joint press conference with Prime Minister Abe.

Following the press conference, the President will head to the Miraikan Science and Youth Event that we have set up, which will involve a tour of an exposition, followed by remarks by the President. Innovation is part of the comparative strength of the U.S.-Japan relationship economically, and we’ll be able to lift up some of that science and technological cooperation and innovation through this event. Afterwards, the President will have a cultural visit to a Meiji shrine.

Then, later that afternoon, he will attend a business roundtable that we are doing with a variety of business leaders in Japan, where he’ll have an opportunity to promote the SelectUSA Initiative that serves to advance investment in the United States and job creation in the United States. Then, that night, he will attend a state dinner hosted by the Emperor.

The next morning he’ll have a farewell greet with the Emperor of Japan, and then he will leave for Seoul. The first thing he’ll do in Seoul is go to the National War Memorial where there will be a wreath-laying ceremony. Then he will have a cultural stop at the Gyeongbok Palace. Following that, he will have a bilateral meeting with President Park of the Republic of Korea and joint press conference with her. And then, that evening, the two leaders will have a working dinner.

Again, this visit follows on the trilateral meeting that we had with Japan and the Republic of Korea during the Nuclear Security Summit as we’ve been both investing in these alliances but also the trilateral cooperation in Northeast Asia.

The next morning the President will once again have a meeting with business leaders to discuss the U.S.-Korea economic relationship, both the SelectUSA Initiative, also the implementation of KORUS, our free trade agreement. Again, throughout this visit the President will be making sure to have these types of engagements with the business community.

Then he will head to the Combined Forces Command, where he will have a briefing from the commander on the ground there about our efforts to be resolute in support of our Korean ally and also in the face of North Korean provocations. He will then have an opportunity to give remarks at Yongsan Garrison to an audience of U.S. servicemembers, as well as embassy staff. And that will conclude his time in Seoul.

Then he will move on to Malaysia, the first visit by a President of the United States to Malaysia since Lyndon Johnson. After an arrival ceremony upon arrival, he will attend a royal audience and state dinner that evening.

On Sunday, the 27th, the President will begin with a cultural visit to the National Mosque in Kuala Lumpur. He will then have a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Najib, a working lunch and press conference. Then the two leaders will head to the Malaysian Global Innovation and Creativity Center. Malaysia hosted the Entrepreneurship Summit, which grew out of the President’s initiative last year. They did an exceptional job, and are following up with a number of initiatives focused on entrepreneurship that can help grow the Malaysian economy but also serve economic growth in the Asia Pacific more broadly.

Following that tour, the President will head to Malaya University, where he’ll have a town hall with young leaders from across Southeast Asia. So this is a particularly interesting event in that we have invited young people from all 10 of the ASEAN countries to come to this town hall. The President will be speaking -- giving a speech there, but also engaging with the young people. We’ll be launching a Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative, somewhat similar to the initiative we have in Africa, to build relationships across Southeast Asia in coordination with our broader strategy of engaging the ASEAN countries -- again, not just at a leader level, but at a young leader level as well.

Then, that evening, he will also have a meeting with leaders in Malaysian civil society.

On Monday morning, the President will leave for the Philippines, where he will have a bilateral program with President Aquino and a joint press conference. Then, that night, he will attend a state dinner hosted by President Aquino.

And then finally, on Tuesday, the 29th, he will begin his day by viewing a new electronic* vehicle, the COMET. Those of you who have may have spent time in Manila know that this is one of the principal means of people getting around. There’s a new electric vehicle that’s being supported by a technology maker in the United States, and so he’ll have a chance to review progress on that project.

Then he will go to Fort Bonifacio, where he will give remarks to an audience that will include U.S. and Filipino servicemembers and veterans to underscore our deep security cooperation over the years, but also our security cooperation in the current environment in the Asia Pacific as we seek to build out and advance the relationship between our militaries.

Then he will have a wreath-laying ceremony at the American Cemetery, which holds such importance to those who fought in World War II. And that will conclude his visit and will return to the United States on that Tuesday, the 29th.

And with that, I’ll turn it over to Susan.

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you, Ben, and good afternoon. The President’s trip to Asia is an important opportunity to underscore our continued focus on the Asia Pacific region. President Obama has pursued a strategy of rebalancing to the Asia Pacific region given its stature as the world’s largest emerging region.

Over the next five years, nearly half of all growth outside the United States is expected to come from Asia. Moreover, it’s a region that includes several important U.S. allies, developing democracies, and emerging powers. So we increasingly see our top priorities as tied to Asia, whether it’s accessing new markets or promoting exports, or protecting our security interests and promoting our core values.

The countries that we’re visiting -- Japan, Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines -- intersect with our leading priorities. And these are modernizing our alliances, supporting democratic development, advancing TPP and commercial ties, investing in regional institutions like ASEAN, and deepening cultural and people-to-people exchanges.

Unlike many of the President’s overseas trips particular to Asia, there are no large summits involved, so the agenda in each country can focus intensively on energizing our bilateral relationships and advancing the different elements of our Asia strategy.

And at a time of ongoing regional tensions, particularly with regard to North Korea and territorial disputes, the trip offers a chance for the United States to affirm our commitment to a rules-based order in the region. There’s a significant demand for U.S. leadership in that region, and our strategy of rebalancing to Asia includes economic, political, security and cultural interests in Northeast and Southeast Asia. The different components of our strategy will be on display throughout the trip.

No other nation other than the United States has a network of alliances and partnerships in Asia that match ours. And our alliances remain the foundation of our strategy. We’re focused on modernizing these alliances to make them more relevant to the 21st century and to our security challenges, while building them into platforms for cooperation on regional and global challenges.

Given its rapid economic growth and political clout, Southeast Asia has been another cornerstone of our strategy. And the President’s historic visit to Malaysia, as Ben said, the first since Lyndon Baines Johnson, as well as to the Philippines, will advance our engagement with this critical region. Expanding American trade and investment links with Asia is also fundamental to our efforts to access new markets, create American jobs, export more goods from here in the United States to that very important region.

Throughout the trip, the President will have the opportunity, as Ben said, to meet with business leaders and to promote initiatives like SelectUSA that support investment in the United States.

The TPP is a focal point of our effort to establish high standards for trade across the Asia Pacific and to ensure a level playing field for U.S. businesses and workers. In visiting Japan and Malaysia, two of the 12 key TPP partners, the President will have the chance to continue to make progress on this important agreement while insisting that it meets America’s objectives. The President will reaffirm as well our steadfast commitment to our allies and partners, which allow us to deter threats and respond to disasters.

On the trip, the President will build on the progress of his recent trilateral meeting with Japan and Korea in The Hague, as we seek to advance trilateral defense cooperation more broadly. It will allow us to reaffirm our commitment to the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes consistent with international law. And it will allow us to underscore our commitment to help respond to humanitarian and other disasters.

Our Asian partners frequently look to the United States as a partner of first choice given our significant and unique capabilities, and our technical expertise. And indeed, in each of the countries we will be visiting, we have seen in the last few years tragedies of the sort that have been exceedingly taxing and traumatic for the people of those countries. And in each instance, the United States has been able to lend prompt and very effective support to our friends and partners in support of their response.

We have demonstrated throughout -- whether from the Japan earthquake in 2011, the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines, the Malaysian Air flight 370 tragedy, and now the ferry disaster in South Korea -- that we are there for our friends and partners when they need us most.

Ben and I are happy to take a few questions.

Q You’re obviously heading to Asia against the backdrop of the situation in Ukraine. And I’m wondering what your sense is of how that crisis is impacting the way that some of these Asian leaders are viewing their own territorial disputes with China and the threat that they feel from Beijing. And while we have you here, if you could just give us a sense of the status of this agreement between Russia and Ukraine, given that the pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine have said that they have no plans to leave the buildings they’ve occupied.

AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, Julie, we’ve been in close communication, as you can imagine, with our allies and partners around the world, including in Asia, as it relates to what is happening in Ukraine. And we have been talking with them about the importance of a strong international front to uphold principles that they and we all hold dear: the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, the need for peaceful resolution of disputes. And we will continue to have that discussion throughout each of the stops on our trip.

And I think it’s fair to say that Japan and South Korea, major global economies, will -- as we have had to -- continue to reassess the implications of what has transpired in Ukraine for their economic and diplomatic relationships, and particularly with Russia. And we have coordinated closely with Japan in the G7 context on our shared responses to what has happened in Ukraine and will continue to do so.

But I think the countries of the region clearly are watching this carefully and are cognizant of the implications for the larger international order, given the importance and the unity of the international community in insisting that Ukraine’s sovereignty be upheld and maintained and the global condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its efforts to destabilize Ukraine.

These are countries that are part of the United Nations. And you will have seen that, a couple of weeks ago in the General Assembly, there was an overwhelming vote of condemnation of Russia’s actions. And we all share a commitment to, as I said, a rule-based order.

With respect to what has transpired since the agreement yesterday in Geneva -- which, as you know, committed all the signatories of four countries, but obviously, particularly Russia and Ukraine, to disarm the irregular forces that are engaged in destabilizing activities -- to require that those forces vacate the buildings and public spots that they are occupying illegally; that there be an amnesty granted to those that lay down their arms willingly and peacefully; and that there be a constitutional process, which is Ukraine’s own constitutional process, to resolve the issues that -- the political issues that are so critical to Ukraine’s future.

Now, we expect, and we will be watching whether Russia does or does not uphold its responsibility to use its very considerable influence to restrain and withdraw those irregular militia from the buildings and spaces that they’ve occupied. We’ll look to see what Russia says, what it does, and whether it supports another critical aspect of the agreement, which was the agreement that the OSCE will send in monitors to those towns where they’re most needed to help to facilitate a peaceful resolution of these standoffs.

So we will see over the coming days whether Russia upholds its agreement. We’ve already seen the Ukrainian government begin to take steps to do its part by beginning to take steps to implement an amnesty law for those that do lay down their arms; by the President and the Prime Minister making very constructive public comments today about constitutional reform and decentralization.

If we don’t see action commensurate with the commitments that Russia has made yesterday in Geneva, which we all welcome, then obviously we’ve been very clear that we and our European partners remain ready to impose additional costs on Russia for failing to adhere to its obligations.

Q Did you give Russia -- did Secretary Kerry and others in Geneva give Russia a firm deadline on when you needed to see that progress happening by?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Secretary Kerry had very direct discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, both privately and in the context of this quadrilateral meeting; made very clear the United States’ expectations. And we will be looking to see in the coming days whether the agreement that was reached is, in fact, implemented. It will be obvious as events unfold.

Q Susan, how do you think the situation in Ukraine -- or do you think at all it will influence the conversations you’ll have with South Korea and Japan about the air defense identification zone that the Chinese established; the concerns, as Julie brought up, about disputes over territories in that region? And what are you trying to accomplish with Japan and Korea on the question of the IDIZ -- ADIZ, rather?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, Major, I expect that the issue of territorial claims and disputes in the region will come up in our discussions in both countries. The United States’ position has been very consistent and very clear: We don’t take a position on the sovereignty claims, but we have insisted that these disputes be resolved peacefully on the basis of international law and through -- without resort to coercion or the threat or the use of force.

That has been consistent, and that is indeed the same principle that we have applied to the situation in Ukraine. So I expect whether we’re talking about the ADIZ or other aspects of the maritime and other territorial claims, that we will continue to reinforce that American perspective.

Q Ambassador Rice, back on Ukraine -- it seemed as though earlier in the week senior administration officials were saying that sanctions -- new sanctions could come immediately after the meeting if there was no progress. And then Secretary Kerry -- and apparently it seemed the President -- pushed that deadline back to past the weekend. Is that, in fact, a hard deadline that the United States is looking at?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, in fact, there was some progress in Geneva yesterday. And while Geneva was a document to which all sides committed, and it was a document with some very positive commitments in it, what we have said is it’s not the words, it’s the actions. So we will be watching very carefully over the coming days to see whether the commitments that were made in Geneva -- which, if honored, would be a very positive set of actions -- are in fact honored. And if they’re not, we have been very clear that we are ready, along with our partners, to impose additional costs.

Q Just to be clear, I’m saying that now that there has been progress, would the period of time you’re watching, is that over the weekend?

AMBASSADOR RICE: It’s over the coming days.

Q And then the other thing I wanted to ask you about is there’s a report out in The Times of London that the United States is looking at actually putting sanctions on President Putin’s personal wealth in Switzerland -- in hidden accounts in Switzerland. Is the United States looking at sanctioning the President of Russia personally?

AMBASSADOR RICE: I’m not going to get into foreshadowing particular individuals or entities that the United States may target. But let me just say we’ve been clear that there are additional individuals, officials, close associates of senior leadership, oligarchs, and those entities that they’re associated with that remain very much potential targets of additional sanctions. We’ve also said that there are other potential ways in the framework of our executive orders that we could impose costs, should that be necessary.

In the event of a dramatic escalation or significant escalation, including, as we’ve said repeatedly, the potential for Russia to move its own forces on the border inside of Ukraine, that those costs and sanctions could even include targeting very significant sectors of the Russian economy. But beyond that, I’m not going to be specific.

Q Madam Ambassador, are you saying given that one of the leaders of the pro-Russian forces has already rejected this agreement and claimed that the current Ukrainian government is illegitimate, are you saying that we hold Moscow responsible for making sure that these rebels, if you will, pro-Russian forces leave the buildings they’ve occupied and the roads they’ve barricaded?

AMBASSADOR RICE: What we’re saying is that we believe that Russia has considerable influence over the actions of those who have been engaged in destabilizing activities in eastern Ukraine. And we expect -- and Russia, indeed, is committed to use that influence to try to deescalate and defuse the situation. And that includes vacating the buildings, disarming, vacating those other public spaces that are being illegally occupied, allowing and cooperating with the OSCE monitors and other steps, including public statements that would signal a commitment to try to work constructively to deescalate the situation.

Q Ambassador Rice, can you give us a better understanding of the conversations that have taken place in regards to reports, and now in fact confirmation from members of the Jewish community in Donetsk reporting that there were some pamphlets, perhaps isolated, nonetheless outrageous -- as described by the Secretary of State as “grotesque and beyond unacceptable”; what the President’s thoughts were when he heard about that, and what the administration is committed to doing to make sure that this isn’t something more than an isolated incident?

AMBASSADOR RICE: The President expressed his disgust quite bluntly. I think we all found word of those pamphlets to be utterly sickening. And they have no place in the 21st century. And we have conveyed that view very forcefully to all concerned. Secretary Kerry had that conversation very plainly with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday. And indeed, the joint statement that was issued in Geneva made reference to anti-Semitism and other forms of biased action and behavior precisely for that reason, because we were so outraged and alarmed by the surfacing of such pamphlets.

Q Ambassador, you mentioned TPP. Would you describe that now in the context of this trip as being at a stalemate? And if you don’t have any deliverables on that, on this trip, will that make it less of a success?

And one follow-up to your other comments about the trip -- some analysts are calling this a “China containment tour.” Do you view that differently?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, with respect to TPP, first of all, we have made a great deal of progress over the last many months in terms of achieving ultimately a comprehensive, high-standards regional trade agreement. And we expect very much that the President’s travels and our continued work in the coming weeks and months on TPP will continue to yield progress. And we expect that as a result of that we will be able to conclude an agreement.

So I think this is yet another opportunity to advance our efforts, and I believe that our TPP partners view it that way. And in the run-up to the trip, some progress has been made and we expect it to continue through and after the trip. So this remains a very important aspect of our rebalance to the Asia Pacific region, one that holds great promise for the countries in the region as well as for the United States. There has been some outside estimates by experts that suggest that as much as $123.5 billion in additional exports annually from the United States could accrue from a successful conclusion of the TPP. So we’ll continue to work towards that given its significance to all concerned.

With respect to the trip and whether it ought to be viewed as a containment of China, I would say this trip has a very positive, affirmative agenda and that’s how we are looking at it -- as an opportunity to solidify and modernize our alliances and partnerships; as an opportunity to advance our economic agenda, including TPP and our commercial interests; as an opportunity to affirm our commitment to the region and its security; and to show that the United States is and will remain for the long term a major security partner and a force for rule of law, stability and democratic development; and also, as I said, an opportunity to deepen our people-to-people ties and relationships, hence the Young South Asian Leaders Forum, which we’re looking very much forward to hosting the President’s opportunity to engage with civil society and young people throughout the region.

So this is a positive trip with a positive agenda that underscores that the United States’ commitment to this region is growing, and is a cornerstone of our global engagement and is going to be there for the long term.

Q Ambassador Rice, I know you’ve said repeatedly that you expect the Russians to use their influence to rein in these pro-Russian groups, but a day later, a day after this agreement, have you seen any actual sign that they’re doing that?

AMBASSADOR RICE: We’ll continue to watch very carefully how they proceed -- what they say, what they do, and how indeed the OSCE monitors are allowed to operate when they deploy, which we believe will begin over the weekend.

So I don’t take the statements of an individual rebel leader here and there as dispositive or definitive at this stage. But I do think over the coming days, as I’ve said, we’ll have the opportunity to see what Russia can do and will do to uphold its end of that agreement.

Q Can you say definitively whether or not Putin’s assets -- or whether you are considering sanctioning his assets? Can you say --

AMBASSADOR RICE: I just said I’m not going to get into naming individual potential targets.

Q But you’re willing to say that sectors are on the table.

AMBASSADOR RICE: We have said from the outset -- and if you read the President’s third executive order -- that there is a potential for sectoral sanctions. And we’ve even illustrated in that executive order the range of potential sectors.

Q Why not knock down, then, the idea that Putin --

AMBASSADOR RICE: I just don’t think it’s constructive, as a policymaker, as we make very complex and difficult decisions, to start to get into naming individuals that may be on our sanctions list. In fact, if you know how sanctions enforcement works, to presage that is counterproductive.

Q China has obviously been looking very carefully about how the President talks about these maritime disputes in the South and East China Sea. Is he going to use the kind of language that Danny Russel used a while ago which kind of angered China somewhat? And on a separate issue, is the President going to meet Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, or will anybody else from the delegation?

AMBASSADOR RICE: On the question of territorial disputes, I mean, I think you will hear the President say what has been consistently U.S. policy, which is that these disputes need to be resolved, ought to be resolved through peaceful means, not through coercion, not through threats, not through anything other than peaceful diplomatic means based on the rule of law -- and in this instance, the international law, and particularly the law of the sea. And that will continue to be our strong view, and we have shared that in all of our engagements with concerned parties, including when the President had the opportunity to meet with President Xi Jinping most recently in The Hague.

With respect to your second question, I think that the President is not likely to have that meeting, although there may be other engagements at other levels.

Q Ambassador Rice, you mentioned that the U.S. has demonstrated to its Asian allies that we’ve been there when they needed it the most. Does the administration feel any need to reassure them? Is there any worrisome-ness from them about U.S. willingness to defend them in terms of aggression in the region?

AMBASSADOR RICE: There should be no question that where we have alliance commitments and treaty obligations in the Asia Pacific region or anywhere else in the world, we will uphold those obligations willingly and definitively.

Q But has there been any unease expressed from --

AMBASSADOR RICE: No, I’ve not heard unease expressed. In fact, I think that we go to the region at a time when our allies in the region are very much appreciative of and committed to our alliance relationships. And these alliances are only strengthening in the context of a more uncertain security environment.

MR. RHODES: We’ll take one more because Jay needs to do domestic stuff.

Q Ambassador Rice, can you inform us or give us any additional information on the possibility of a joint U.S.-NATO monitoring of the elections in Ukraine coming up in May?

AMBASSADOR RICE: NATO doesn’t do election monitoring.

Q Well, then U.S. -- is there any form of monitoring that might be possible going on?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, I expect that if the Ukrainian government invites in outside monitors that they may be forthcoming; whether they invite them from non-governmental organizations, individual friendly states, the EU, the OSCE, is their choice, of course. But NATO is an alliance, not an election-monitoring or political organization.

Thank you all very much.

MR. CARNEY: Okay. Thank you all for that. And I’ve got a few minutes for questions on other subjects.

Victoria, in the back.

Q Going back to the anti-Semitic flyers, does the U.S. have any knowledge of who did put those flyers out?

MR. CARNEY: I think Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Rice have addressed our views on the existence of such flyers. I don’t think that we have specific, confirmed information about who produced them, but their mere presence is highly disturbing. And that view was expressed by Secretary Kerry to Foreign Minister Lavrov, and we expect that everyone in Ukraine and the region should, if they haven’t already, make clear that they oppose that kind of really disturbing and highly provocative action.

Q I’d like to stay with human rights. It’s nearly a year now since Hassan Rouhani was elected President of Iran, and there have been over 500 executions in that country since he was elected, many of them for minor crimes -- according to a new report by Britain’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office -- which is second only to China. And also, they report that the persecution of religious minorities has not gone down under him either. In fact, internal reports indicate that they’ve gone up. Do you regard Hassan Rouhani as a moderate one year into his presidency?

MR. CARNEY: We’re not in the business of assigning labels to leaders of any country. We’re in the business of assessing how they lead and the actions they take. As you know, since his election, we have been pursuing with Iran a very a clear-eyed effort with our allies on the P5-plus-1 to press Iran to forsake and give up its nuclear weapons program. And we continue to work on that effort.

What we haven’t done is change our view of Iran’s objectionable practices in a whole range of areas, including its abuse of human rights within Iran itself; including its support for terrorist organizations; including its support for the Assad regime. So that’s our overall view. But what is certainly the truth is that in the wake of his election, an opening appeared to see if we could in a verifiable way produce an agreement with Iran for Iran to forsake its nuclear weapons program. And it is in the interest of the United States, the region, and the world that we pursue that opportunity.

Q Do you think it’s possible, or do you think it’s not practical to put pressure on Rouhani at the same time to do more about his human rights record as it is to work with him on the nuclear issue?

MR. CARNEY: Victoria, again, our approach on the range of disagreements we have with Iran has not changed, even as we pursue a potential agreement with Iran with our P5-plus-1 partners over its nuclear weapons program.

Michelle.

Q The U.S. has said repeatedly that we won’t go to sectoral sanctions unless Russia invades Ukraine. But in essence, haven’t they already? And isn’t this -- it was almost an invasion by invitation. Wouldn’t you see it as being an invasion already? And doesn’t this set a precedent for the future that this could happen again, I mean, especially because we’re going on this trip --

MR. CARNEY: What we’ve said, Michelle, is that the President has authorities available to him to impose sanctions that can escalate in breadth and severity according to, or in response to actions taken by Russia, or other individuals, entities, groups that might take action that undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty or territorial integrity.

And our very clear explanation of the executive orders the President signed says that we now have the flexibility essentially to escalate the consequences to Russia as Russia escalates.

So I think your question reflects the fact that there are things short of an armed invasion by Russian army battalions that Russia can do and has done, especially with regards to Crimea, that represents a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And we have a number of tools at our disposal to respond to actions short of a full-scale armed intervention by Russia.

David.

Q Jay, on immigration, the Wall Street Journal reported today that Speaker Boehner appears to be telling Republican donors that he’s hellbent on passing immigration reform. Then, his spokesman -- the Speaker’s spokesman came out and said nothing has changed on their position. The other day, the President called Eric Cantor; there seemed to be a sense that their conversation went well from the White House, but Cantor put out a statement immediately denouncing the President’s sort of demagoguery of Republicans on immigration. Does the White House think that the Republicans are purposely sending two different messages here as some sort of endgame? Or what motive might they have here about why they’re doing that?

MR. CARNEY: I think your question reflects a reality, which is there is a great deal of internal conflict within the Republican Party on this issue -- the President said as much yesterday. The politics of this are hard for the GOP because of opposition within the Republican base to immigration reform.

There is also great support among some Republicans for immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, here in Washington and around the country, and great support for comprehensive immigration reform from groups and organizations and individuals who traditionally support the Republican Party.

The President is aware of these countervailing pressures, but he hopes that, as he said yesterday, the wisdom of passing comprehensive immigration reform will overcome the resistance to doing so within the Republican Party in the House, and that we can get this done for our economy, for our security, for our future.

Q But do you read the signals that the Republicans have that define -- their leadership has a defined strategy here, and that’s what’s going on, or that there is this sense that they have to play both sides?

MR. CARNEY: I think there is a certain amount of probably not deliberate confusion about the approach House Republicans are going to take and have taken, because we have seen over a number of months now, since the passage in the Senate of comprehensive immigration reform, a variety of indications and counter-indications from within the House leadership itself as to what its intentions are.

The President is focused on making clear the advantages; focused on making clear that there is overwhelming support in the country, bipartisan support for doing this -- overwhelming support among very disparate elements within our nation. Business leaders large and small, labor, law enforcement, evangelicals -- they all support comprehensive immigration reform. There is an island of opposition within the House Republican conference to pursuing this, and that is unfortunate given the kind of coalition that’s been assembled here on behalf of reform.

But the President believes there remains an opportunity here for the House to act, and hopes that it does.

Alexis.

Q Jay, can I just follow on David’s question? Because the President has spoken personally to the Speaker and to Congressman Cantor himself, does the President take his cues about what the intention may be at the House conference from the Speaker himself and from Cantor, from those conversations, separate and apart from what David is highlighting as the external public confusion?

MR. CARNEY: Are you asking -- sorry --

Q Is the President taking his cues about what the desire and the direction of the Speaker and the Majority Leader may be directly from them in the conversations that he has?

MR. CARNEY: Well, since he speaks with them, or has spoken with them directly --

Q So he trusts they’re telling him?

MR. CARNEY: Well, he believes that Speaker Boehner sincerely supports the idea of getting immigration reform done. Now, he’s not suggesting that they would each write a comprehensive immigration reform bill word for word in the same way, but that the Speaker believes it’s necessary to move forward and get it done. But as we have seen more than once in recent years, that doesn’t always mean the House will act.

And what we’re trying to do is make clear that this isn’t about President Obama, it isn’t about the Democratic Party. This is an opportunity for Washington to demonstrate to a broad, diverse, bipartisan coalition that it can get things done on behalf of the country that can benefit our economy and our security.

So that's the approach that we've taken. The fact that there is internal disagreement and conflict within the Republican Party on this issue isn’t new. But what is new, at least in the last year or so, is that there have been some indications at various times that the House Republicans are serious about pursuing this. But they ought to get around to doing it.

Q Just to follow up --

MR. CARNEY: I think we can do one more because POTUS is about to speak.

Q To follow on immigration quickly, it now appears that many who are pro-immigration reform are, in fact, turning on the White House. Today FAIR said that together, both Congress and the administration have manufactured a painful moral crisis in our communities. Of course, what they’re talking about is the deportations. What is the situation as far as the White House is concerned? If you were -- if the White House were to, as they’re being asked by your allies, in fact, to limit deportations even further, what’s the downside of that? Why won't you do that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, this question has been addressed numerous times by the President, by others, by me in terms of the fact that you can't -- you cannot solve this problem through administrative action, the broader problem that a broken immigration system represents. What the President has asked his new Homeland Security Secretary to do is review procedures pursued by DHS when it comes to deportations, and to do so with an eye towards the pain caused for families when there are separations, and to make sure that we are following the prosecutorial discretion guidelines that have been in place that are aimed at making sure that the focus is on those with criminal records and similar situations.

Now, I think it's important, and it has been noted of late in the last 48 hours -- I think there was a story in The New York Times yesterday about the fact that that effort to more carefully follow these guidelines has caused a reduction in deportations and more of a focus on the priorities that DHS has laid out and that the President supports.

I also think, when you go back to the top of your question, that some of the comments that we've seen of late have been clarifying for the advocacy groups about what the problem is here and where the obstacle is when it comes to getting comprehensive immigration reform done. And I think that some of the groups have seen the comments as clarifying for that reason.

Our focus, again, is on -- in addition to what the President has asked Secretary Johnson to do -- trying to get House Republicans to “yes,” trying to get the Congress to respond to the will of this broad coalition and diverse coalition of interests that support comprehensive immigration reform. And that's what we're going to keep at.

If I may, Ben laid out the President’s schedule on the Asia trip, so I just wanted to, in the week ahead, alert you to the news that the President and First Family will participate on Monday, April 21st, in the White House Easter Egg Roll. The event will feature live music, sports courts, cooking stations, storytelling and Easter egg-rolling.

On Tuesday, the President will travel to Oso, Washington, to view the devastation from the recent mudslide and to meet with families affected by this disaster, as well as first responders and recovery workers. Following his visit to Oso, the President will travel to Tokyo, Japan, where he will begin his four-nation trip to Asia.

And with that, I'll end today’s daily briefing. For some reason, some of you might expect that I have bounteous brunches at my house sometimes on the weekends. But I assure you if I were to invite you this weekend you’d find some cereal boxes and maybe a couple of eggs. (Laughter.)

Anyway, thanks very much.

Q Jay, is there a red fox running loose on the White House grounds? (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: As I'm told and seen.

Q Will it be at the egg roll? (Laughter.)

END
2:02 P.M. EDT

Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/21/14

FACT SHEET: U.S. Crisis Support Package for Ukraine

Remarks by the President and the First Lady at the Easter Egg Roll

Weekly Address: President Obama Offers Easter and Passover Greetings

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, 4/18/2014

Readout of the President's Meeting with Leaders from the American Legion

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

Statement by the President on Easter Weekend

Executive Order -- Expanding Eligibility for the Defense Meritorious Service Medal

Statement by the President