- Good afternoon, all.
I thought I'd take a few moments
to offer a few comments on the strategy
for South Asia that President Trump
outlined last night in his address to the nation,
and then take a few of your questions on that subject.
I think the President did a, I think, fairly thorough job
in terms of describing the new military approach,
and I think the important point in that
is a conditions-based approach
as opposed to a time-based approach
that had specified troop ceiling levels and timetables,
and I think the President's been quite clear
that what will be different this time
is he has empowered our military commanders on the ground
to make more timely decisions,
to conduct battlefield operations
based upon the conditions on the ground,
and with the battle plans that Secretary
of Defense Mattis will be approving.
That is going to change the dynamic
on the ground considerably.
These are some of the same tactics
that have been employed in the very successful campaign
to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq,
and so I think we're taking a lot
of lessons learned from our success there
and we'll translate those to Afghanistan.
This is going to take some time
for our military to go through a new set of training
with some of the Afghan forces.
The fighting will still be borne by the Afghan forces,
by their military and their security forces,
but we believe that we can turn the tide
of what has been a losing battle
over the last year and a half or so,
and at least stabilize the situation
and hopefully start seeing some battlefield victories
on the part of the Afghan forces who have fought
very bravely, but they've been fighting, I think,
with less than the full capabilities that we can give them.
I think similarly on the diplomatic front,
we too are going to adopt a conditions-based diplomacy.
We're going to condition our efforts along with the progress
we see being made by the Afghan Government,
who must continue the reform efforts
that we've been working on for some time,
in particular, much more rigorous
efforts around the anti-corruption.
Now, part of the corruption challenge, in some respects,
has been the methods and ways in which we have
been delivering some of our aid.
We've not been as accountable, I think, to ourselves
in terms of ensuring that our aid programs,
development programs are delivering
the results that they were intended to deliver.
Some of that has been challenged
by the security environment.
It's very difficult for many of our aid
workers to operate in Afghanistan.
So as the security environment improves,
we expect to adopt a different approach
as to how we deliver on the development
and assistance that supports the Afghan
Government in their reforms as well.
I think the President was clear this entire effort
is intended to put pressure on the Taliban
to have the Taliban understand:
You will not win a battlefield victory.
We may not win one, but neither will you.
And so at some point, we have to come
to the negotiating table and find
a way to bring this to an end.
Now, this is a regional approach
and part of why this effort took as long
as it did is we chose not to just focus on Afghanistan,
but we undertook a fairly comprehensive review
of our relationships in Pakistan
and our relationship with India.
And we see this approach as requiring an integration
of all three of those strategies,
and use Pakistan, India to also bring pressure
to bear on the situation in Afghanistan.
Pakistan in particular can play
an important role here, certainly in delivering
the Taliban to the negotiating table.
Pakistan has suffered acts of terrorism,
their citizens have suffered acts of terrorism
I think as dramatic as any we've seen anywhere,
and we stand ready to help Pakistan
address terrorist organizations inside of their country,
but they must adopt a different approach themselves.
Pakistan and the U.S. historically
had very good relationships, but over the last
few years, there has been a real erosion
in the confidence between our two governments.
There's been an erosion in trust
because we have witnessed terrorist organizations
being given safe haven inside of Pakistan
to plan and carry out attacks against U.S. servicemen,
U.S. officials, disrupting peace
efforts inside of Afghanistan.
Pakistan must adopt a different approach,
and we are ready to work with them to help them
protect themselves against these terrorist organizations,
but certainly to begin to end their attacks
that are disrupting our efforts at peace.
We are going to be conditioning our support for Pakistan
and our relationship with them
on them delivering results in this area.
We want to work with Pakistan in a positive way,
but they must change their approach.
India is emerging as a very important
regional strategic partner with the United States,
and has played an important role
supporting the Afghan Government,
and in particular supporting their economy.
India has provided developmental assistance.
They've provided economic assistance.
They are hosting an important economic
conference in India this next week.
All of that is important to stabilizing Afghanistan
as a nation, get their economy functioning,
stabilize the country so that they can provide
more opportunities to their citizens.
These are all elements of what will lead
to stability and ultimately a peace agreement.
But the effort is, again, a regional effort.
Put pressure on the parties to understand
that this fighting is going to take everyone nowhere,
and it's time to begin a process,
it may very well be a lengthy process,
of reconciliation and a peace accord.
And Afghanistan, as the President said,
can choose its form of government
that best suits the needs of its people,
as long as it rejects terrorism,
never provides territory in Afghanistan
to provide safe haven for terrorists,
and accommodates all of the groups represented
inside of Afghanistan, ethnic groups and others.
How they want to organize themselves is up to them.
But we have to recognize that their culture
is a tribal culture, and their history
accommodates the nature of those relationships.
There's no reason their form of government
cannot accommodate that as well.
So we want to facilitate a reconciliation peace process,
and we will facilitate them coming to some conclusion
around how they want to govern themselves.
That's really the essence of the strategy.
And before taking your questions,
I do want to make one comment on North Korea.
I think it is worth noting that we have had
no missile launches or provocative acts
on the part of North Korea since the unanimous adoption
of the UN Security Council resolution.
And I want to take note of that.
I want to acknowledge it.
I am pleased to see that the regime in Pyongyang
has certainly demonstrated some level of restraint
that we've not seen in the past.
We hope that this is the beginning of this signal
that we've been looking for that they are ready
to restrain their level of tensions,
they're ready to restrain their provocative acts,
and that perhaps we are seeing our pathway
to sometime in the near future having some dialogue.
We need to see more on their part,
but I want to acknowledge the steps they've taken thus far.
I think it's important to take note of that.
So with that, I'm happy to take your questions.
- [Heather] I'll call out on some of the reporters here.
Please keep your questions tight.
We don't have that much time today.
Matt Lee from the AP, we'll start with you.
- Thanks, I'll be really brief.
It seems like, to me, at least,
that with the no nation-building concept
of the President laid out last night and what you just said,
that the main difference, other than the timetable part
of the military stuff, the main difference
between this new approach and the old one
is that you're eliminating 2/3 of what used to be known
as the clear, hold, and build strategy.
In other words, we clear, or you clear,
you hold, and we won't build.
You will.
So if that's correct, what happens
to the anti-corruption efforts
that you mentioned, the good governance,
the counter-narcotics, the education programs?
What happens to those?
And more specifically, what's that gonna mean
for particularly Afghan women and girls
who have been assured for the last 16 years
by two separate administrations
that they wouldn't be abandoned?
- Well, I don't want to suggest that there's
that dramatic a difference in terms of our expectations
for Afghan Government performance.
And as you point out, there's been
enormous strides achieved in Afghanistan,
both in terms of the numbers of millions of children
that are now in schools being educated,
the role of women in the Afghan economy now
has been dramatically changed.
I don't expect any of that to be rolled back.
I think that has become part of
the Afghan Government structure.
It's become part of what the Afghan
people themselves, I think, expect.
If you go back many years ago,
prior to all of this disruption, that was Afghanistan.
That was the nature of Afghanistan 30, 40, 50 years ago.
So I think it is part of their culture already.
We want to support that.
In terms of the clear and hold, that is still the approach,
is that areas will be cleared and Afghan Security Forces
can hold those areas, thereby enabling
some growth in the Afghan economy.
Part of what Afghanistan struggles under is they do not
have control over but a portion of their economy.
So as the forces are able to either hold areas
and stabilize them, certainly not give up further ground,
and they're still losing ground today, as you well know.
So this is gonna take a little while.
But it's to stabilize and then hopefully begin
to regain control, and as ground is gained,
it will be held by Afghan Security Forces,
while allowing the Afghan Government to continue
what it has been very successfully doing
under our assistance now for many years,
and not roll back any of those gains that have been made.
I don't think that's the aspiration
of the Afghan Government or the Afghan people, either.
So we're gonna continue to help them institutionally.
We may be taking different approaches and not putting
so much of the U.S. taxpayer dollar on the ground,
building schools and building infrastructures.
We think there are plenty of others
that we are gonna call upon for assistance as well.
Rather, we're there to facilitate and ensure
that there is a pathway for reconciliation and peace talks
as this pressure begins to take hold,
and we believe, we already know,
there are certain moderate elements of the Taliban
who we think are going to be ready
and want to help develop a way forward.
How long that will take will be, again,
based on conditions on the ground.
- [Heather] Right, Andrea Mitchell, NBC.
- Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, a question that embraces
both the military side and the diplomatic side.
On the military side, won't the new rules of engagement
mean that in the short term at least,
our forces will be more at risk
because they will be potentially doing
night raids against the Taliban again,
not just training but actually supporting
in a more active role because the Afghan troops are not
all up to par here to push back against the Taliban advance?
And on the diplomatic side, why didn't the President
mention Russia's rearming of the Taliban,
which General Nicholson has been talking about very openly?
He seemed to be letting Russia off the hook in his speech.
And do you have enough people, given the fact
that there are not Trump-confirmed diplomatic appointees
in many of these positions in the region?
- Well, on the military operations side
of it, I would really defer to the Department of Defense
to answer that one, other than I know the approach
is going to be, as I said, similar
to what we have had success elsewhere.
As Secretary Mattis describes it,
it's a by, with, and through approach,
and I think that's part of why the need
for a step-up in troop levels is so we can now,
at the battalion level, organize and help
the Afghan army fight in a different way
with close ground advisement at the battalion level
and the ability to call in support
on a more timely basis as needed,
to ensure victory as opposed to either stalemate or defeat.
With respect to the comment about Russia,
to the extent Russia is supplying arms to the Taliban,
that is a violation, obviously, of international norms
and it's a violation of UN Security Council norms.
We certainly would object to that
and call Russia's attention to that.
If anyone is gonna supply arms,
it needs to be through the Afghan Government.
In terms of our footprint on the ground, we have
very competent, capable, experienced people there now.
Our Afghan ambassador is remaining on the job at this time.
We have a Pakistan ambassador that's been nominated.
We hope to have that person cleared
through the process soon.
And even in the transition in Afghanistan,
as Ambassador Hale transitions out, we've nominated
Ambassador Bass, a very experienced diplomat.
Been chief, been running the embassy
in Ankara, Turkey, very complex place.
He's very well-equipped to step into this situation as well.
And we are looking at a couple of different people
for the special representative
to Afghanistan and Pakistan position.
It's open currently.
It's being filled with a very experienced individual today.
So we're ready to get going with very competent people
we have, and I'm not at all concerned
about the competency level or the experience
of the people that we have working on this.
I'm quite confident with them.
- [Andrea] And India?
- [Heather] All right, no, this next question.
Martha Raddatz from NBC, ABC, excuse me.
- It's all right.
Secretary Tillerson, I know you don't want to talk
about the military, but you were just using
some military terms, and battalion level and that.
I know and understand why the administration
does not want to talk about tactical moves,
but strategy, don't the American people deserve
to know approximately how many more
of their sons and daughters will be going back
to Afghanistan in a war that's lasted nearly 16 years?
- Well, I think, and again, I don't want
to speak for Secretary Mattis,
but I think the intent is there will be visibility
to troop levels once the decision has been made.
I think what the President has conveyed,
and I agree wholeheartedly with him,
is that we are not going to signal ahead what our plans are.
We're not going to signal ahead an increase,
a decrease, the timing of any of that.
It will be driven by conditions on the ground.
The only way we can defeat an enemy that is as nimble
and as cagey, tactically, as this enemy,
is we have to be as cagey and tactical as they are.
And we've not been fighting that way.
- [Martha] Could that include strikes in Pakistan?
- I'm not gonna comment on what it could include,
but the President has been clear that we are going
to protect American troops and servicemen.
We are going to attack terrorists wherever they live,
and we have put people on notice that if you are harboring
and providing safe haven to terrorists, be warned.
Be forewarned.
And we're going to engage with those
who are providing safe haven and ask them
to change what they're doing and help us help them.
Because in my view, the greatest benefactor,
other than the Afghan people themselves,
to achieving stability and peace
in Afghanistan, are the people of Pakistan.
They will benefit more than any other nation.
- [Heather] Margaret Brennan, CBS.
- Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I'm back here.
You said no preconditions to talks.
Specifically, are you saying that the U.S. no longer expects
the Taliban to accept the Afghan constitution
and specifically the rights of women?
And on Pakistan, did you articulate, in specific terms,
or do you plan to, to Pakistan the consequences
of their actions, whether it be sanctions,
dropping their non-NATO ally status?
I mean, what exactly have you communicated
or do you plan to communicate?
- Well, I had a good call with the prime minister
of Pakistan yesterday afternoon to give them
a bit of a forewarning of what they were going
to hear in the President's speech.
And also, we did touch on the points I've made to you today.
We are going to be engaging with them
in a very serious and thorough way as to our expectations
and the conditions that go with that.
And all of those things you just listed are on the table
for discussion if, in fact, they are unwilling
to change their posture or change their approach
to how they're dealing with the numerous
terrorist organizations that find
safe haven inside of Pakistan.
Again, it is in Pakistan's interest to take those actions.
When we say no preconditions on the talks,
I think what we are saying is,
look, the Government of Afghanistan
and the Taliban representatives need
to sit down and sort this out.
It's not for the U.S. to tell them
it must be this particular model,
it must be under these conditions,
and I think that's what the President means
when he says we're no longer nation-building.
Look, we've tried taking certain principles
and forms around the world and sometimes it works.
In a lot of places, it doesn't work.
We don't know what's gonna emerge here.
We're gonna be there, obviously, to encourage others.
But it's gonna be up to the Afghan Government
and the representatives of the Taliban
to work through a reconciliation process
of what will serve their needs
and achieve the American people's objectives,
which is security, no safe haven for terrorists
to operate anywhere in Afghanistan now or in the future.
- [Heather] Tom Rogan with The Washington Examiner.
- Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the force protection concerns
and Ambassador Bass shortly going
to Afghanistan and the SRAP discussions.
But how are you going to get someone
who is able to go out beyond the wire
and negotiate functionally, regularly in that weekly basis
with individuals from the Haqqani Network
and that force protection concern?
- Well, we are going to have to
improve the security environment.
The environment today is not conducive
to carrying out those types of activities.
You're exactly right.
And so part of what we're going to have to do is,
first, ensure we're ready to engage
when conditions permit us to engage.
It, again, is why Pakistan is very
important in this discussion as well.
Pakistan can facilitate much of that discussion.
And there are other regional players
to which this particular conflict
and this unstable situation in Afghanistan are important.
We've had discussions with the Chinese
about a role they might be able to play.
We've had discussions with the Russians
about the role they could play if they choose to.
And certainly regional players in the Gulf,
GCC member countries, are very interested
in seeing this area in Afghanistan stabilized as well.
So there are a lot of partners out here on the periphery
that I think will have, from time to time,
important roles they can play.
Ultimately, it comes down to the two parties,
the Afghan Government and the Taliban representatives.
- [Heather] Felicia Schwartz with The Wall Street Journal.
- Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Going back to Pakistan, officials for quite some time,
Democratic and Republican administrations,
have tried to get the government to stop
giving safe haven to the Haqqani Network, terrorist groups.
What leverage do you think you have?
- Well, I think it's, obviously,
we have some leverage that's been
discussed in terms of the amount of aid
and military assistance we give them,
their status as a non-NATO alliance partner.
All of that can be put on the table.
But at the end of the day, Pakistan has to decide
what is in Pakistan's best long-term
interest from a security standpoint
for themselves and for their people.
Quite frankly, as I evaluate Pakistan's current situation,
if I were the Pakistan Government,
I would have growing concerns about the strength
of the Taliban and other organizations inside of Pakistan
who seem to be growing their numbers and their presence
to the point that at some point they become a real threat
to the stability of the Pakistani Government itself.
I think they need to be thinking
about what is in their best long-term interest
and how can we work with them to achieve a safer,
more stable Pakistan in the next decades to come as well.
I think it really is up to them.
They've got to ask themselves that question.
Why does this work for them and why is this going
to continue to support their stability
and the survival of their government in the years ahead,
if they continue to allow these elements to just grow
and maintain their presence inside of Pakistan.
- [Heather] Last question, welcome, AFP.
- Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Don't you fear on the other side that too much pressure,
too tough pressure on Pakistan may
destabilize the Islamabad and may have
destabilizing all the region with having
Taliban stronger in the country?
- That is a concern, and that's why I made
the comments I just made, that I think it's important
that Pakistan begin to think about its ability
to contain these groups as well.
It's why, though, we take a regional approach.
The U.S. alone is not going to
change this dynamic with Pakistan.
India and Pakistan, they have their own issues
that they have to continue to work through,
but I think there are areas where perhaps even India
can take some steps of rapprochement on issues with Pakistan
to improve the stability within Pakistan
and remove some of the reasons why they deal
with these unstable elements inside their own country.
As I said, other regional players
have strong interest in Pakistan.
China has strong interest in Pakistan.
Having a stable, secure future
Pakistan is in a lot of our interests.
They are a nuclear power.
We have concerns about their weapons,
the security of their weapons.
There are many areas in which we believe we should be having
very productive dialogue that serves
both of our interests and regional interest as well.
Again, this is not a situation
where the U.S. is saying, "Look, it's just us and you."
What our approach is to bring, as I said,
these regional approaches is to bring
all the other interest into this effort.
Much as we've done with North Korea
and assembling this global effort in North Korea,
I think too often we try to distill these challenges down
to where it's just the U.S. and some other country
and only between the two of us can we solve it.
We have to enlarge the circle of interest
and bring others into the effort as well,
and that's what we'll be doing with Pakistan as well.
- [Heather] Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, everyone. - Thank you.
- [Heather] We'll see you tomorrow.
We'll have a press briefing at 2:00 p.m.
Thanks.
- [Reporter] Thank you.
For more infomation >> Guys: Protect Your Pregnant Partner and Unborn Child if You Travel to an Area with Risk of Zika - Duration: 0:38. 
No comments:
Post a Comment