Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–May 11, 2015 – 1:03 P.M. EDT
MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. I hope you all had a good weekend and spent some quality time with your mothers — even on the phone if necessary. Let me do two quick things and then we’ll go to your questions.
The first is, the President and his team here at the White House have been monitoring the storms that occurred overnight in Texas and throughout the Midwest. The President is receiving updates. We know that our officials in FEMA — or at FEMA offices in both Kansas City and Denton are closely monitoring the response efforts. At this point, we have not received any official request for federal assistance, but we continue to be in close touch with the state and local officials who do have the primary responsibility for responding to those storms.
Obviously, we’re thinking about the communities that were affected, some quite violently, overnight by these storms. We’re going to keep them in our thoughts and prayers, and we’re going to continue to stand with them as they rebuild from the destruction that they saw as a result of the weather.
The second thing that I want to point out is today is the last day for Jessica Santillo, who has served the President in a number of capacities, including in his campaign but also here at the White House. She’s been a fixture in lower press, dealing with many of your inquiries about a variety of things, including the Affordable Care Act. And throughout all of that, she has demonstrated the kind of professionalism and grace and commitment to this cause that is certainly something that we all admire. And she’s going to move on to some private sector opportunities, and we certainly wish her well as she does that. But she’s definitely going to be missed around my office.
So thank you, Jessica, for your service.
Nedra, let’s go to your questions.
Q Great, thanks. What changed since last Friday’s announcement of the Saudi King’s visit to lead to the trip being called off?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Nedra, the goal of the meeting that the President has planned for Camp David later this week is to discuss the best ways to deepen and modernize the important security relationship between the United States and our GCC partners. The countries who are participating in the meeting have obviously made decisions about who they believe is best positioned to represent their countries at the meeting. And given the goals that I’ve just outlined, we agree that the right people will be attending, and are confident that we’ll have the right people around the table at Camp David for discussing and acting on these priorities.
As it relates to the travel plans of the King, I’d refer you to his office for more information about his change in travel plans. There are a couple things I can tell you about that.
The first is there’s been no concern raised by our Saudi partners, either before the change in travels plans or after, related to the agenda at Camp David. So I know that there had been some speculation that this change in travel plans was an attempt to send a message to the United States. If so, that message was not received, because all the feedback that we have received from the Saudis has been positive.
You’ll recall that Secretary of State John Kerry was in Riyadh last week, where he had the opportunity to meet with the King directly. And in the context of that meeting, the King and other senior members of his national security team that visited with Secretary of State Kerry expressed satisfaction and even some optimism about the possibilities of the Camp David agenda. Secretary Kerry also met with all of his counterparts in Paris last week. These are his GCC counterparts. And even coming out of those discussions, there was widespread agreement that this was going to be a worthwhile session with the President of the United States, and each of those countries indicated that they were looking forward to it.
I’ll close by just pointing out that Saudi Arabia will be ably represented at the meeting by the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. He’s the former interior minister. He is somebody who is obviously well known to members of the President’s national security team, and he’s well known to the President himself because he has convened meetings with the President in the Oval Office two times over the last two years or so. He’ll also be joined by the Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who happens to be the son of the King and is the chief defense official.
So obviously, for the purposes of having a meeting about how to deepen our security cooperation with our partners in Saudi Arabia, having the Crown Prince and the Deputy Crown Prince, both of whom have leadership responsibilities when it comes to providing for the security of Saudi Arabia, gives us confidence that we’ll be able to have a robust discussion at Camp David, but also that we’ll be able to follow through on the commitments that are made in the context of the meeting.
Q Is it safe to assume, since your deputy announced the visit on Friday, that the King had formally accepted the invitation at one point?
MR. EARNEST: Yes, that is true.
Q And does the White House consider this a snub of any kind? Or how do you interpret this then?
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, for the reasons that the King changed his travel plans, I’d refer you to Saudi Arabia. What I’m confident that they will tell you is that the travel plans are completely unrelated to the agenda that’s planned for Camp David. And again, that is based on the private conversations that the Secretary of State has had with the King himself and with other senior officials in Saudi Arabia, both in Riyadh and in Paris. That’s evident from the public statements that we have seen from senior members of the Saudi Arabian national security team so far. And we continue to be confident that the senior officials who will be representing the interest of Saudi Arabia at the meeting will be able to — are empowered to not just represent the views of Saudi Arabia in the meeting, but also to implement any decisions that are made in the context of the meeting.
So the point is, the President wanted to convene a discussion with our GCC partners with the goal of modernizing and deepening our security cooperation with them. I’ll point out that these GCC members consider the security cooperation that they have with the United States as integral to their own country’s national security. So it is in the interest of these countries to send senior members of their national security team who can represent the views of their country and ensure that they live up to any commitments that they make in the context of the meeting. And based on the list of attendees that we’ve seen so far, we’re confident that that will occur.
Julia.
Q Thanks. On that, with the change in plans that we found out about over the weekend that will now leave only two out of the six GCC rulers attending the summit at Camp David, how does the White House see that? I mean, does that number present a snub to the White House? And if not, why not a snub? If you’re only getting two of —
MR. EARNEST: I think we’ve identified the word of the day in the briefing today. No, fair enough. That was probably the word of the day in the briefing based on the press coverage before we even started going through these questions, which is why I’m happy to talk to you about them.
Well, we’ve walked through the situation in Saudi Arabia. We continue to be confident that the senior national security officials who can both represent the interest of Saudi Arabia at the meeting and follow through on any commitments that Saudi Arabia makes in the context of the meeting will be present and accounted for at the meeting.
The same is true when it’s applied to the four other countries that are participating in addition to Saudi Arabia. Let me give you another example. The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed, is the deputy commander of the UAE military, but is the principal interlocutor between the United States and the UAE when it comes to significant national security questions like this one.
So, again, we continue to be completely confident that Mohammed bin Zayed, as the senior representative of the UAE at the meeting, will, again, be able to represent the interests of his country in the discussion, and ensure that any commitments that he makes on behalf of his country will be fully and appropriately implemented. I would point out that there was never a commitment from anyone other than Mohammed bin Zayed to lead the UAE delegation at Camp David. We’re obviously pleased that — I mean, so I guess the point is, taken together, if you look at the individuals who will be sitting around the table with the President at Camp David, we continue to be confident that these are individuals who can represent the interests of their country and implement any commitments that they make in the context of the meeting.
More importantly, the countries that are sending the delegations have confidence that these are the appropriate individuals to participate in this meeting. And, again, to the extent that we are seeking to reassure those nations about the importance of their security relationship with the United States, it’s in their interest to ensure that the right leaders are attending the meeting. We’ve heard from all the countries that they will be able to provide — or that the necessary officials will participate in the meeting at the right time. And we are confident that they’ve made the right decision about who to send.
Q On another topic — Secretary Kerry’s meeting with President Putin in Sochi. Can you explain the utility of that?
What is the U.S. hoping to get out of that meeting? We’ve heard maintaining lines of communication, but it seems pretty clear where the U.S. stands in respect to eastern Ukraine. So could you just explain what you hope to get out of that?
MR. EARNEST: Well, we’ve talked quite a bit about how complicated the relationship is between the United States and Russia; that there are a variety of areas where the United States has been able to successfully work with Russia in pursuit of interests that benefit the citizens of both our countries. And that’s been a wide range of things.
Russia has participated in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran. They have been an important partner in putting in place the sanctions regime that has compelled Iran to the negotiating table, and we have been appreciative of the role that they have played in that effort. There’s much discussion about the way that the United States and Russia was able to work together to dispose of Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile. That would not have been possible without the leadership of Russia, using their unique relationship with the Assad regime, to both convince the Assad regime to declare their chemical weapons stockpile, but then also to effectuate the destruction of that chemical stockpile. And that did highlight the strong working relationship between the United States and Russia when it comes in pursuit of our mutual interests.
We’ve also, as you pointed out, not been shy about identifying those areas where we have had pretty sharp disagreements with Russia that’s principally come on the issue of Ukraine and the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that independent nation.
So I don’t have a preview of the specific meeting that Secretary Kerry will be convening in Sochi. But this relationship will, of course, be against the backdrop of those conversations.
Jim.
Q Continuing on Syria, what is the common ground that Russia and the United States have about Syria? Why is there reason for the talks themselves?
MR. EARNEST: Well, when it comes to Syria, I mean, obviously the significant concern that we had about Syria’s declared chemical stockpile was that it presented a significant proliferation risk; that when you’re in a chaotic war-torn country, like in Syria, that there is the risk that extremists could get their hands on those chemical weapons and proliferate them around the globe, putting citizens of both our countries at pretty deep risk. And so it was in the clear interest of the United States and Russia to get the Assad regime to acknowledge that chemical weapons stockpile existed, and to engage in a broader international effort to ensure that those chemical weapons were destroyed so they couldn’t be used anywhere else.
So that’s a pretty good example of where our interests align.
Q But going forward, Josh, I understand what’s already happened. But sending the Secretary of State to talk about what’s going forward, what is the common ground he’s looking at that you feel might cause Syria to reengage and help settle a civil war there?
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I don’t want to leave you with the impression that this is going to be the only thing that they discuss. There are a lot of things that are obviously on our mutual list of interests here. But it’s clear that it’s not in anybody’s interest for there to continue to be this widespread violence and chaos inside of Syria. This is why we’ve been able to effectively build a coalition of more than 60 countries to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. Because the prospect of these violent extremists getting a foothold inside Syria and establishing a safe haven does pose a risk most immediately to countries in the region, but it certainly poses a risk to countries around the world. So we’ve obviously been able to work with Russia in pursuit of that effort.
But more broadly, I’m confident that a lot of the conversation that the Secretary of State will have both with his counterpart and with President Putin will include a discussion about the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and ongoing efforts to try to deescalate the violence in that country.
Q But respectfully, I’m still not hearing what’s in it for Syria, because Syria [sic] has backed Assad — continues to back Assad. And while they did help with the ridding of the nuclear weapons, how is the civil war in Syria hurting Russia? Because it continues to leave the man they want in power, in power. What is in it for Russia?
MR. EARNEST: What’s in it for Russia is that it is not in their interest for there to be a chaotic war-torn country where violent extremists could seek to establish a safe haven. And anytime you see that kind of violence and chaos in a country like Syria, that obviously raises significant concerns from countries in the immediate vicinity of Syria, but also around the world.
Q But do those extremists really threaten Russia? Don’t you think they mostly threaten the West?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think President Putin would be happy to convey to you what he believes is a long list of risks and threats that are posed by violent extremists. And I know that this counterterrorism area is an area where the United States and Russia had been able to effectively cooperate. So I know that President Putin shares that concern.
Kristen.
Q Josh, thank you. Has the President spoken to the Saudi King?
MR. EARNEST: The President has not recently, but I would not be surprised if the President does have an opportunity to consult with him directly prior to the start of the Camp David meetings.
Q Do you anticipate that could happen today?
MR. EARNEST: It’s a possibility.
Q Okay, but nothing specifically planned?
MR. EARNEST: Well, we’ll let you know if there is a conversation.
Q Okay. And you were making the argument that these Gulf nations are sending the appropriate representatives.
MR. EARNEST: That’s right.
Q But the President is still not meeting with his counterparts. So does that not diminish the gravitas, the seriousness, the effectiveness of this summit?
MR. EARNEST: Not in the mind of the President and not in the mind of anybody here. There is important work to be done to deepen and modernize these security relationships. And having the senior security officials from each of these countries represented in a way that they can participate robustly in the discussions represent the interests of their country and follow through on any commitments that they make in the context of the meeting gives us some confidence that this will be a worthwhile session.
And again, the goal here is for each of these countries to strengthen — further strengthen the important security relationship that they have with the United States. So it’s in the interest of these countries to send the appropriate individuals who can participate in the discussions, and we’re confident that that’s what’s occurring.
Q Is the United States, is the President prepared to offer any concessions to any of these nations, perhaps allow them to buy more weapons, for example, than they currently —
MR. EARNEST: Well, I guess if any sort of agreement like that were reached, I would not at all characterize that as a concession. These are partners of ours, and we have an interest in the continued security cooperation that we have with them.
So whether it’s intelligence cooperation, counterterrorism efforts, or even enhancing the national defense of these countries, this is something that the United States is invested in and has been invested in for quite some time. And this will be the substance of the discussions that will be underway at Camp David. I don’t have anything to preview in terms of what kinds of outcomes we anticipate that we’ll see, but I do believe and the President continues to believe that the appropriate individuals representing these countries will be in attendance.
