[Senate Hearing 116-109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-109
INSERT TITLE HEREASSESSING THE IMPACT OF TURKEY'S
OFFENSIVE IN NORTHEAST SYRIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 22, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-991 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey.............. 4
Jeffrey, Hon. James F., Special Representative for Syria
Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition To Defeat
ISIS, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF TURKEY'S OFFENSIVE IN NORTHEAST SYRIA
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E. Risch,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson,
Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Menendez,
Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and
Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations will come to order.
We have an interesting hearing today, as evidenced by all
of our interest and participation here today.
And I would like to say good afternoon to all and thank you
to our guests who are going to, I think, be very enlightening
after the discussions I have had with them earlier today. And
of course, the situation we have is quite fluid, and I am sure
they can help us get up to date, which is difficult as fast as
this situation is moving.
This hearing today is intended to assess the geopolitical
and humanitarian impact of Turkey's cross-border attack on U.S.
interests in the Middle East, determine how best to salvage
U.S. interests moving forward, and evaluate the state of U.S.-
Turkey relations.
Before we talk about the current state of affairs in Syria,
it is important to recall the path that brought us here.
To begin, the Syrian civil war is a complex, multi-sided
conflict that has drawn in Russia, Iran, the U.S., NATO allies,
and other entities. Over the course of this 8-year-long
conflict, Syria's brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad, with the
support of Russia and Iran, has relentlessly bombed towns and
cities across Syria, resulting in over 500,000 deaths and
leaving over 10 million people displaced.
We are all aware of the many confirmed uses of chemical
weapons by the Russian-backed Assad regime, adding to the
humanitarian suffering and violations of international law. The
Syrian, Russian, and Iranian regimes now hope to build upon the
successful defeat of the self-declared Islamic caliphate and
expand their control over the northeast of Syria. These are the
circumstances we find ourselves in today.
Beginning in 2011, the Islamic State took full advantage of
the chaos in Syria to gather its strength. The group's
ascendance was accompanied with a nearly unprecedented level of
cruelty.
By 2014, ISIS had gathered enough strength to spill over
the Syrian border into Iraq. ISIS captured huge swaths of
territory and declared the formation of its so-called
caliphate. The world watched as the Yazidis faced slaughter on
Mount Sinjar. Iraqi soldiers were marched to mass graves in the
Camp Spiker massacre. Women and children were sold into
slavery. Execution videos made by ISIS were packaged as
recruitment materials.
After several false starts, the United States led a Syrian
Kurd and Arab fighting force and a 91-nation coalition intent
on defeating the caliphate. With a limited number of boots on
the ground, U.S. and coalition air power, coupled with an
effective Kurd-based ground force, forced the territorial
defeat of ISIS. The heavy Kurdish involvement in the defeat of
ISIS has come at great cost. Nearly 11,000 Syrian Kurds have
been reported killed and many more wounded.
That brings us to the present day. Turkey's relationship
with the region's Kurdish population has been fraught for
centuries and particularly over the last three decades. U.S.
support for Syrian Kurdish fighters in the war against ISIS
created massive tensions in the U.S.-Turkey relationship.
Turkey views the Syrian Kurds as an extension of the insurgency
group known as the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or the PKK, which
has fought an insurgency against Ankara for the past three
decades. On and off violence has affected the citizens and
country of Turkey for years, which is why the U.S. has worked
for months to help address Turkey's security concerns.
Let me be clear. Turkey's misguided invasion into northern
Syria now threatens to unravel all the progress the U.S. and
our partners have fought so hard to achieve.
ISIS is defeated, but elements remain that could
reconstitute and pose a threat to U.S. national security
interests and those of our allies in the region.
Our counterterrorism concerns emanating from Syria and the
surrounding region remain very real. Continuing regional
conflict and instability, coupled with opportunities to
establish sanctuary space, creates conditions for ISIS revival
with the potential to attack the U.S. homeland and our allies.
Absent continued counterterrorism pressure, ISIS is likely to
return whether in Syria or elsewhere. Only through vigilance
will we keep ourselves safe. Partnership with the Kurds will
remain an important part of that strategy.
Turkey has assured us they will continue to battle the
Islamic State. To say the least, I remain skeptical of Turkey's
counterterrorism guarantees. We have tread this ground before.
We have offered Turkey the opportunity to combat ISIS and its
affiliates. Turkey has promised to provide forces to combat
ISIS. But Turkey has failed to follow through with those
forces. Worse, sometimes the forces in question had
questionable ties to jihadist or al Qaeda-linked groups.
The fact of the matter is that Turkey's primary concern is
its decades-old struggle against PKK. Countering ISIS falls
much further down Turkey's list of priorities.
In addition to sacrificing our gains against ISIS, Turkey's
actions threaten further instability and chaos in a country
that has already suffered years of destruction and devastation.
Reports of Syrian and Russian troops occupying abandoned U.S.
positions underscore that Turkey's actions have opened the door
to Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers. Additionally, the
humanitarian toll of this incursion has been swift and severe.
The U.S. withdrawal has created an opportunity to be
exploited by Russia. Indeed, on the day the U.S.-brokered
cease-fire is set to expire, President Erdogan met with
President Putin to discuss the future of Syria today. U.N.
Security Council resolution 2254, the framework for a political
resolution in Syria, a cease-fire, formation of a
constitutional committee and free elections, remains very much
in doubt with Putin's high level of involvement. We should very
strongly discourage unhelpful parallel talks and instead
reinvigorate the U.N.-brokered process on Syria's future.
ISIS detainees and foreign terrorist fighters, many of them
at makeshift prisons, add to the complexity. We have already
seen reports of breakouts at the al Hol camp. Further release
or escape of battle-hardened terrorists, particularly high
value individuals, will only serve as a strategic boon to ISIS
and swell their ranks.
Finally, there is the broader issue of U.S.-Turkish
relations. Prior to the Syrian invasion, Turkey's increasingly
autocratic posture and dangerous tilt toward Moscow was a cause
for serious concern. That remains a concern today. Turkey has
imprisoned Americans and U.S. consulate employees. It has
jailed more journalists than anywhere else in the world. It
also recently purchased and accepted delivery of the Russian S-
400 missile defense system despite the loud protests of
Turkey's closest allies. Now we are forced to confront a Turkey
that acts blatantly against U.S. national security interests
and brutally attacks U.S. regional partners over our most
strenuous objections.
While I appreciate efforts to reduce the violence through
negotiations, if Turkey maintains its aggressive path, it must
bear a cost for undermining U.S. security interests. That is
precisely why Ranking Member Menendez and I have written
legislation to sanction, block arms sales, and impose costs on
Turkey if it continues its ill-advised Syria invasion.
I took a little liberty by saying the Ranking Member and I.
There were many members of this committee who had input into
this. I want to compliment the staffs of both the majority and
the minority for working so hard on a bill that we think is a
good bill. It is still a work in progress. We have a number of
other fronts that have been opened up with other bills being
offered. In fact, some members of this committee have partnered
on some of those bills. I would urge when these kinds of things
happen, that we try, as best we can, to act as a committee. We
are much stronger when we are together, and I think that a bill
that comes out of this committee with a real push from the vast
majority of the committee would be very helpful. And we hope to
be able to move the bill that we are working on and continue to
work on today in the very near future.
Ambassador Jeffrey, DAS Palmer, I would appreciate hearing
your thoughts on this current crisis and its future
implications. I appreciate your time and thank you for your
attendance here today. I hope you can provide some guidance on
how the administration intends to tackle this difficult
situation and provide some ideas for a constructive path for
the U.S. Congress to take moving forward.
With that, Senator Menendez.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
let me thank you for holding a hearing as quickly and as
propitiously as this one. I think that the urgency of now, as
it relates to Syria and our interests, cry out for a hearing
like this, and I appreciate and applaud your quick response to
it.
I want to thank Ambassador Jeffrey and Deputy Secretary
Palmer for coming before the committee. Ambassador, I
understand you came out of retirement for this post. And I am
not going to suggest you need a mental check.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. And I applaud your commitment to serving
our country. I think it is incredibly important.
Ambassador Jeffrey, we understand that you and Ambassador
Satterfield and the rest of our diplomatic corps and military
leaders on the ground had spent the past months doing the work
of diligent diplomacy, balancing an increasingly belligerent
NATO ally and a militia force in pursuit of defeating ISIS in
Syria.
However, your recent efforts in my view were hamstrung from
the outset since December--December--of last year when
President Trump made abundantly clear that he was more swayed
by President Erdogan's manipulative threats and persuasions
than by advice from his own diplomatic and military corps.
Indeed, the President's decisions over the past month are
yet another betrayal of U.S. foreign policy to Russia. A
betrayal of our Kurdish partners who fought and died alongside
us in the battle against ISIS, who are now throwing in their
lot with the Russian- and Iranian-backed Syrian government, the
regime that barrel bombed and gassed its own citizens and uses
ISIS as a political tool. A betrayal of our ally Israel, as the
current chaos further empowers Iran's pursuit of a land bridge
from Tehran to the Mediterranean. And a gift to ISIS, which has
been given the time and space to regroup, as well as thousands
of civilians continuing to flee even under this so-called
ceasefire.
Everyone in the region is recalibrating their relationship
with the United States. As thousands of Kurds, who we once
called partners, pelt U.S. troops with rocks and potatoes,
President Erdogan held a press conference with President Putin
today in Sochi where he said "we will continue to make big
steps with my dear friend, Mr. Putin, to provide the long-
lasting peace and stability to Syria." That betrayal is fully
in view in that press conference where Russia has agreed to
join Turkey in cutting a swath of land for Turkey that
ultimately, at the end of the day, is a cleansing of Kurds who
have historically had this land as part of where they have
lived going back in time.
As the pause in hostilities expires as we sit here, it is
clear that the United States has been sidelined. Russia and the
murderous Assad regime are calling the shots. We do not even
have clarity about whether, where, and how many U.S. troops
might remain. If there was any doubt before, Erdogan's
intentions are clear: an ethnic cleansing mission in
northeastern Syria at the expense of broader regional
stability, including the fight against ISIS, and of partnership
and cooperation with the United States and other NATO allies.
NATO members commit to upholding principles laid out in the
articles of the North Atlantic charter, including solidarity
with allies in the alliance, as well as dedication to
democratic principles and practice. In recent years, Turkey's
behavior has belied nearly every single one of those
principles. Purchasing the S-400 air defense system from NATO's
main opponent, Russia, and developing increasingly close
relations with the Kremlin. I know that I hear the majority
leader and even some of my colleagues suggest we have to worry
about not pushing Turkey into Russia's arms. They are there.
They bought the S-400. They could have bought the U.S. Patriot
missile system, interoperable as a NATO ally. They were meeting
with Russia and Iran in Astana about the future of Syria, and
they strike a deal with Russia to ultimately pursue their
interests.
Erdogan has cracked down on human rights and eroded
democratic institutions in his country. The most journalists
imprisoned anywhere in the world is not North Korea, Iran, or
Russia. They are in Turkey. And Erdogan's aggression in the
region extends to the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus where
Turkish military ships bully international energy companies
conducting legitimate exploration activities. And over the
weekend, the ``New York Times'' reported on Turkey's interest
to pursue nuclear weapons. This is not the behavior of a
constructive democratic actor or NATO ally.
But I am hoping we can use today's hearing to get a full
assessment of how the United States is now pursuing our
interests on the ground in Syria. The President's effective
abandonment of American interests in Syria, opening the door
for Turkey's incursion into northeast Syria, has unequivocally
harmed American national security, potentially increased the
threat of terrorism against the homeland and against Americans,
and solidified Russian and Iranian political and military power
across Syria and beyond.
The American people are smart enough to see through the
President's hollow claims of fulfilling a campaign promise to
bring American troops out of the Middle East. He has simply
moved most of the troops from Syria into Iraq where reports
today say that leadership in Iraq is saying they cannot stay
there and has also sent thousands more troops to Saudi Arabia
over the past year. How is that getting out of the
entanglements of the Middle East?
So as we must when Presidents do not, the Congress has
stepped in to put America's interests first. I was pleased to
join Senators Young, Murphy, and Gardner from this committee in
introducing a resolution condemning Turkey's actions, calling
on the President to reconsider his decision, and calling for a
comprehensive strategy against ISIS.
Moreover, as the chairman has mentioned, we have worked on
legislation to address not just Turkey's actions, but also
calling on the administration to submit a comprehensive review
of our counter-ISIS strategy, humanitarian and stabilization
assistance for Kurds in Syria in areas liberated from ISIS, and
accountability for crimes against humanity, as well as
sanctions on Russia.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing, and I
look forward to working with you to move this bill through the
committee and to the floor. I think the fierce urgency of now
continues to dictate that we move expeditiously.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez, and I could not
agree with you more about the urgency of this and also the fact
that we do need to work together because it is very obvious
that a once strong ally in Turkey and a fellow member of NATO
has really gone in a very bad direction and wound up in a very
bad place. So I think it is best if we all work together to do
this, and there are good signs that there is a lot of
involvement from most every member of this committee.
Ambassador Jeffrey, thank you so much for joining us today.
The Honorable James F. Jeffrey is the Special Representative
for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition
to Defeat ISIS. Ambassador Jeffrey is a senior American
diplomat with a variety of experience, having served as the
Deputy National Security Advisor from 2007 to 2008, as well as
the United States Ambassador to Turkey from 2008 to 2010.
Ambassador, I think you are about as well qualified as any
person to sit in that seat and help us wrestle with what is a
very difficult situation and a situation that is much different
than what you found when you were dealing with Turkey.
So with that, the floor is yours. Please enlighten us.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. JEFFREY, SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR
SYRIA ENGAGEMENT AND SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE GLOBAL COALITION TO
DEFEAT ISIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Jeffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Ranking Member, members of this committee, it is an honor
to be here.
I have submitted a written statement for the record. What I
would like to do is to summarize our views in the next few
minutes and then answer your questions.
As you have indicated, the focus of today's hearing is a
tragic situation in northeast Syria, including the U.S.-Turkish
agreement to bring about a ceasefire on the 17th of October and
the just announced a few hours ago Russian-Turkish agreement
for a ceasefire in other parts of that northeastern strip.
But to understand why this happened, how the Trump
administration has responded, and what lies ahead it is
important to keep in mind the underlying situation,
specifically the most horrific, destabilizing, and dangerous
conflict of the 21st century, as Senator Risch just mentioned,
the Syrian civil war raging since 2011. This devil's brew mixes
together the three champions of Middle East disorder: a local
despot, Assad, arguably worse than Saddam or Qaddafi; an
ideological state on the march, Iran; and several variants of
radical Islamic terror from ISIS to Al Nusra, and all exploited
cynically by an outside power, Putin's Russia.
Thus, all our actions in Syria are driven by our core
objectives: defeating Islamic terror, restoring Syria to a
civilized state, and ensuring the removal of all Iranian
commanded forces from that country. Some argue that these
objectives are too ambitious, but frankly, we have no other
choice than to pursue them in order to lead the world out of
this crisis.
Now, in dealing with today's situation in northeast Syria,
Turkey is obviously the immediate heavy. It has acted unwisely
and dangerously, as you have indicated, despite, as I am ready
to describe, warning after warning and incentive after
incentive from this administration to choose differently,
including a package of economic and security commitments and a
visit to Washington. As a result, millions of vulnerable
Syrians, our Syrian Democratic Forces, SDF, partners in the
field in the northeast, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and the Gulf, and
in the end, Turkey itself through this intervention are all
made less secure, and ISIS is made more emboldened.
But in digging out of this mess, let us remember that with
Turkey's actions, we face yet another all too common regional
phenomenon, this time with a NATO State that is a major
neighbor to a conflict feels that its existential security on
its border is not advanced by American policies and
unfortunately acts against them.
As we in the administration, you in Congress, and our
partners and allies around the world strive to overcome this
crisis, it is critical to keep in view these larger issues and
objectives.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jeffrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador James F. Jeffrey
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, distinguished Members of
the Committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify on this
important issue. As you know, I have just returned from Ankara and I
look forward to discussing the October 17 Joint Turkish-U.S. Statement
(October 17 Joint Statement) on northeast Syria, which established a 5-
day pause in Turkish military operations in the northeast running to
October 22, a withdrawal of Peoples Protection Unit (YPG) forces from
those areas controlled by the Turkish military, and if all goes well a
more permanent halt to the Turkish operation, as well as joint Turkish-
U.S. efforts toward the population in the affected `safe zone' area to
ensure security, decent treatment of religious and ethnic minorities
and restoration of the security smashed by the Turkish offensive
beginning October 8.
The conflict in Syria has raged for over 8 years, fueled by Bashar
al-Assad's regime and his despotic and barbaric treatment of Syrian
citizens, Russia's continued enabling of Assad's brutality, and Iran's
malign influence in the region.
U.S. strategic objectives and national security interests in Syria
remain the enduring defeat of ISIS, al-Qa'ida, and their affiliates in
Syria, the reduction and expulsion of Iranian malign influence; and
resolution of the Syrian civil war on terms favorable to the United
States and our allies and in line with U.N. Security Council Resolution
2254. A sound strategy for use of our assistance resources is key to
achieving these goals.
The United States has worked closely with our local partners,
including the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northeast Syria, in the
campaign to defeat ISIS since 2014. Our cooperation led to the
territorial defeat of the so-called ``caliphate'' earlier this year.
During this time, the United States and our Coalition partners provided
assistance to restore essential services, support local security and
governance, to alleviate humanitarian needs, and to help restore the
local economy in areas liberated from ISIS. These efforts helped meet
basic needs and create an area of relative stability in Syria, and
enable the enduring defeat of ISIS elements there.
One longstanding issue in this campaign has been Turkey's belief
that there is no distinction between the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK),
which both the United States and Turkey have designated as a terrorist
organization, and the YPG and our partner the SDF. Turkey thus views
the YPG--a key component of the SDF--as an existential threat which
receives support from the United States. To Turkey, our cooperation
with and support to any of these bodies is akin to supporting a
statelet on its southern border run by a terrorist group it believes
has declared war on Turkey. The State Department has led efforts over
the past year and a half to reduce that friction and achieve better
coordination of U.S. and Turkish efforts regarding Syria.
When President Trump announced a strong, deliberate and coordinated
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria in December 2018, the
Administration said we were transitioning primary responsibility for
the defeat of the few remaining ISIS remnants in Syria to our allies
and partners on the ground inside Syria.
Beginning in January 2019, the Administration worked with Turkey on
implementing a safe zone in northeast Syria that would prevent the
resurgence of ISIS, protect Turkish security interests vis-a-vis the
SDF/YPG, facilitate stabilization, and create conditions to enable the
safe, voluntary, dignified return of refugees and internally displaced
persons (IDPs).
This effort culminated in U.S.-Turkish military-to-military
arrangement in August for a security mechanism; the SDF was informed
and supported the elements of that arrangement. The United States,
Turkey, and the SDF all began executing the arrangement in late August.
We believe we very quickly implemented the initial steps of the
arrangement to create an area along approximately 140 km of the border
region in the northeast. This included YPG voluntary withdrawal to
approximately 5-14 km from the Turkish border of armed personnel
generally, displacement of heavy weapons to 20 km from the Turkish
border, U.S.-Turkish cooperation on Turkish air activity over northeast
Syria, and joint U.S.-Turkish patrols in the relevant area.
Turkey from President Erdogan on down disputed the conduct and
implementation of security mechanism activities, but, more importantly,
pressed beginning in early September for an entirely different
concept--one Turkey had tried and failed to foist on the United States
and, through us, the SDF since January: a 32 kilometer zone to the key
east-west highway, M4/10, along the entire northeast from the Euphrates
to the Iraqi border, and sole Turkish military, as opposed to joint
U.S.-Turkish engagement on area security. Turkey also began stressing
its desire to move up to four million Syrian refugees now in Turkey
into cities to be constructed in the area, an initiative that went far
beyond the scope of the military-to-military arrangement. The United
States at every level has underlined our resolute opposition to this
plan as a threat to our SDF partners, the fight against ISIS elements,
and overall security in Syria.
Indications grew in September 2019 that Turkey was planning for a
large-scale unilateral operation. Again, all levels of the U.S.
Government warned Turkey not to act.
Erdogan, however, said that Turkey would soon move forward with its
long-planned operation into northern Syria. He was told clearly,
including by the President, that U.S. Armed Forces would not support or
be involved, and that the United States does not endorse such actions,
but that we would not put U.S. forces in harm's way. President Trump
also publicly warned Turkey that the United States would take measures
sanctioning the Turkish economy if Turkey were to take steps that the
United States considers ``off limits.''
Turkey launched this operation despite our objections, undermining
the D-ISIS campaign, risking endangering and displacing civilians,
destroying critical civilian infrastructure, and threatening the
security of the area. Turkey's military actions have precipitated a
humanitarian crisis and set conditions for possible war crimes. As the
President warned Erdogan, we have used diplomatic and economic tools
available to us to press Turkey to halt its military actions.
On October 14, President Trump signed an Executive Order designed
to encourage Turkey to halt its offensive military action in northeast
Syria and adopt a ceasefire. It provides the United States with the
authorities to deliver severe economic consequences and apply
additional pressure if Turkey continues with this offensive. The United
States has imposed sanctions on three senior Turkish Government
officials: Hulusi Akar, the Minister of National Defense; Suleyman
Soylu, the Minister of the Interior; and Fatih Donmez, Minister of
Energy, and on two ministries, Defense and Energy. Turkey must follow
through on its commitments from the October 17 Joint Statement with the
United States to avoid further sanctions under this new E.O.
The United States undertook various diplomatic initiatives to
reinforce our sanctions, including a Presidential letter to President
Erdogan on October 9 and a Presidential message to him 3 days later. In
the latter we warned the Turks that the SDF was likely to turn to
Russia and the Assad regime if Turkey continued its offensive, which
then occurred. The President then dispatched the Vice President,
Secretary Pompeo, and National Security Advisor O'Brien to Ankara to
negotiate with Turkey the terms of a ceasefire and the YPG's evacuation
from affected areas. As I indicated already, on October 17 those talks,
including 5 hours with President Erdogan, produced a Joint Statement
outlining a pause that will lead to a ceasefire--that Turkey and the
YPG are adhering to--for 120 hours to allow the withdrawal of the YPG
from the Turkish-controlled safe zone. In return, the United States
committed not to impose new sanctions under the October 14th E.O.,
``Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons
Contributing to the Situation in Syria.''. Turkey has committed to a
permanent ceasefire upon completion of the YPG withdrawal; in return,
the United States would lift the sanctions now imposed under the E.O.
This solution will save lives and contribute to long-term stability in
the region.
Assuming the pause moves to such a longer-term halt, we will work
with Turkey and local residents on the humanitarian and social
commitments of the October 17 Joint Statement, cooperate with our local
partners against ISIS even as the U.S. military continues the
withdrawal directed by the President, and press for full implementation
of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254, the only hope for a long-term
resolution of the underlying Syrian conflict.
To these ends, we are looking to organize a number of senior level
meetings with our international partners involved in the Defeat-ISIS
Coalition as well as our Syria-focused group. Our intent is to re-
affirm with our Coalition partners the shared goals of ensuring that
ISIS does not re-emerge.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. DAS Palmer and I look
forward to taking your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
With that, we will hear from Mr. Matthew Palmer. Mr. Palmer
is a Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and
Eurasian Affairs. He is a member of the Senior Foreign Service
and oversees U.S. policy with respect to the Western Balkans
and the Aegean. His former positions include posting at the
U.S. embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, the U.S. mission in the U.N.,
as well as the National Security Council.
And as I understand it, you are going to forego an opening
statement, and both of you are going to take questions from the
committee. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Palmer. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
So with that, first of all, I want to say, Mr. Jeffrey, I
appreciate your focus on trying to get in a better place than
where we are. There has been a lot of debate about what was the
precipitating factor.
Would you agree with me that with Assad having amassed
30,000 troops on the northern border and the heat having been
turned up as much as it had in recent weeks and months, that
this invasion was inevitable into Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It was a very real possibility, Mr.
Chairman. It was not inevitable.
First of all, we told Turkey what exactly would happen.
They would not get very far in this offensive, and they have
not gotten very far. As you see, they now are in ceasefire
agreements with both us and the Russians, and we told them
exactly how this would play out, that it made no sense to
scramble the entire situation in northeast Syria in order to do
something they could not attain, which is to put together under
their own control a 32-kilometer deep, 440-kilometer wide
security zone, as they called it, in northeast Syria, somebody
else's country. Rather, we offered them again the incentives
that my colleague and I can go into more detail in terms of our
very important bilateral relationship, as well as a security
zone that we set up and got Turkish agreement to in August with
the agreement of the SDF, our partners in the northeast--we
refer to them as Kurds, but it is a Kurdish-Arabic group, with
one portion of the Kurds supporting it, but we call it the SDF.
I think that is the best term--with the SDF in agreement to
allow patrolling of Turkish and American joint units down to 30
kilometers and the withdrawal of the YPG, which is the more, if
you will, PKK-oriented part of the SDF, from the immediate area
of the border.
That was a deal that not only was on the table that we were
executing until Turkey decided in October to go for broke with
this offensive despite, as I said, warnings not to do this all
the way up to President Trump.
The Chairman. Thank you.
What is your prognosis as far as attempting to put the
genie back in the bottle and back up to what was offered to
them in the first place?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I have to caution everybody that I have
been wrong at least as much as I have been right in predicting
things on Syria. I think we are in a better place now than we
were a week ago. We have an agreement with Turkey that is about
to--actually as I am speaking--the 120 hours that we agreed on
Thursday for the YPG forces to withdraw from an area that was
controlled by Turkey. That was the term we used, where the
Turkish forces had been as of last Thursday, essentially the
central 130 kilometers of this 440-kilometer zone in the north
of Syria between the Euphrates and Iraq.
The YPG was to withdraw during that period. The Turkish
military was to maintain what was called a pause. And at the
end of that--that is now--the Turkish military is to go to a
halt, a more permanent essentially ceasefire, although the
Turks did not want to use that word.
Meanwhile, we promised during that 120 hours not to put on
any new sanctions on Turkey under the executive order on
sanctions on Syria that we distributed on the 14th of October.
And with this commitment, if it is met by the Turks, we will
then lift those sanctions that we did put on three Turkish
ministers and two Turkish ministries.
Meanwhile, basically taking a page from what we had done,
Putin and Erdogan got together in Sochi, Russia today to come
up with a similar ceasefire in many regards for the rest of
northeast Syria, except the Turks got even less, the ability to
patrol with the Russians 10 kilometers deep and a potentially
not particularly believable Russian commitment to get the YPG
out of that area.
So Turkey has not really gained all that much from this, as
I said, but in the process has scrambled the entire northeast,
undercut our efforts against ISIS, and brought in the Russians
and the Syrian regime forces in a way that is really tragic for
everybody involved.
The Chairman. Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Ambassador, did you advise the
administration to green-light, in essence, Turkey's intentions
and desires to invade in Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I certainly did not, Senator, but
nobody in the administration green-lighted the Turkish----
Senator Menendez. So in December when the President made
the remarks that, well, you know, and indicated he wanted to
get out, which caused the Senate to cast a vote to try to
dissuade him, as well as colleagues particularly on the
Republican side to speak to the President, was that not already
the beginning of the end? And then the decision.
Were you consulted about the removal of troops as
precipitously as they were?
Ambassador Jeffrey. The President then in February modified
his decision and agreed that we would keep a residual force on.
Furthermore, in December, when the President said he would
withdraw ground troops from that area, he said he would
continue to maintain them in al-Tanf in the south of Syria and
that we would maintain air support over the----
Senator Menendez. But that has all changed. He is talking
about taking everybody out. Now he is maybe leaving a couple
hundred around oilfields.
So my question is, were you consulted about the withdrawal
of troops, as was recently done?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I personally was not consulted before--
--
Senator Menendez. You were not consulted even though you
are the Special Envoy here in the context of Syria.
Let me ask you this. Is it not fair to say that the SDF has
been a reliable partner in the fight against ISIS?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Is it not fair to say that we cannot
achieve an enduring defeat of ISIS through air power alone
without some type of ground forces?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We need ground forces. They do not
necessarily have to be American, Senator.
Senator Menendez. That is right. And this is exactly the
point. It was the Kurds who were largely our ground forces. It
is the Kurds that lost about 11,000 to 13,000 of their people.
It is the Kurds that were detaining over 10,000 ISIS fighters
and families for us. So it does not have to be us. But when you
betray the entity who you were fighting on the battlefield with
and you basically leave them when you are finished using them
and say, you know, you are on your own, it is a hell of a way
to send a global message that, in fact, do not fight for the
United States because when they are finished with you, they
will let you die on the battlefield.
Is it not true that U.S. troops would be at risk of
significantly higher casualties in fighting a resurgent ISIS
without SDF partners or some similar partner?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that the SDF has now
sought military and political protection from Bashar al-Assad
Russian-and Iranian-backed government?
Ambassador Jeffrey. They have come to an agreement in
certain areas to coordinate. That is true.
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that we have a greater
risk of creating a vacuum where Iran can ultimately position
itself to build its long-sought land bridge to the
Mediterranean, which is a threat to our ally, the State of
Israel?
Ambassador Jeffrey. At this moment, we are looking at all
of our political, military, and economic options to avoid just
that, Senator, under this new circumstance.
Senator Menendez. Well, I do not know what our options are
when we get out, we do not have any guarantee on airspace that
we are going to be able to use airspace for any missions
whether it be anti-ISIS or defending our ally, the State of
Israel. I do not know what guarantees there are.
Is it not fair to say that Iran is not an agent of Russia?
Russia is not going to be able to tell Iran thank you for
fighting, get out now.
Ambassador Jeffrey. You are absolutely right. Iran and
Russia have divergent interests in Syria. Unfortunately, both
of them are allied against our interests and supporting
Assad's.
Senator Menendez. Now, in the midst of facing, according to
the Department of Defense Inspector General, that there are
still 14,000 to 18,000 ISIS fighters despite this conversation
consistently about ending the caliphate, and these other 10,000
that are detained, which if the Kurds have to just defend
themselves, they are not going to be busy detaining ISIS
fighters. That is potentially a hardened force of 30,000 if
they reconfigure it together.
What is our plan to defeat them and to end that threat?
Ambassador Jeffrey. For the record, it is the SDF which is
about 50 percent Arab. It is the Arab-Kurdish coalition in the
SDF that is still maintaining control over essentially all of
those detainees, the 10,000 you mentioned, Senator. That is an
accurate figure.
The 14,000 to 18,000 are scattered in, if you look at the
map, three areas: as you are looking at it, Iraq particularly
the Sunni Arab areas, the northeast that we are talking about
today, and the rest of Syria more or less under the control of
either the Syrian Government or the Turks in the northwest.
In those Assad-controlled areas of Syria, ISIS is running
amuck without much control. We do some air strikes into there,
but it is not really an area we can have a whole lot of action
on other than to monitor it and, as I said, strike when we have
a good target.
In the northeast--that is the area that we are focused on--
we are going to work with the SDF. That is our plan. The SDF
leader, Commander Mazloum, has committed to us that he wants to
continue working with us, and that is what we are looking at
the options that I mentioned earlier right now urgently.
And in Iraq, we are continuing to work with the Iraqi
Government and with the coalition of some 20 or 30 nations from
around the world to keep ISIS under control there.
Senator Menendez. Now, Ambassador, I have a deep, deep
respect for your service, and you are dealt the hand you are
dealt and that is what you do as a career person.
But let me just say they are running amuck under the Assad-
controlled area. We still have the expectation that the SDF, as
they fight for their lives, is going to be fighting ISIS for
us. That is an incredible expectation. And in Iraq, the forces
that we are transferring out of Syria there--we are being told
by the Iraqis they are not going to be able to stay.
So I do not see a strategy or a plan that will make sure
that the homeland is secure against a potential of a resurgence
of ISIS that is a threat to the national interests and security
of the United States. And I hope to see it, but I do not see it
as of now, which is why we have asked--we think it is only fair
that all Members get a briefing from the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of State, and the CIA Director about the dynamics
of this. And we cannot seem to get a briefing. Something is
wrong when we have such a major national security interest and
Members of the U.S. Senate, both Democrats and Republicans,
cannot get a hearing. I hope you send the message back to the
administration. That is not acceptable.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. We are going to break here for a few minutes.
There are two votes. We will vote on the end of the first one,
which has now past, and the beginning of the second one, and
then we will reconvene due to the importance of this hearing
and everyone wanting to get their thoughts in. So with that,
the committee will be at ease.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. I apologize
for the delay, but that is what happens when you are trying to
walk and chew gum at the same time, which we can occasionally
do and sometimes cannot.
We have got another vote going on, but instead of breaking,
I think what we will do is rotate the chair so that everybody
can break.
But in the meantime, Senator Romney, the floor is yours.
Senator Romney. I appreciate very much the testimony of
those who are here today. Ambassador Jeffrey, your lifetime of
service to our diplomatic efforts, as well as our military, is
remarkable and greatly appreciated. We obviously get defined by
events we might not have imagined, and this is one of those
times for our country and, of course, for you as well.
I am going to ask a few questions briefly and then get to
something of more substance, but maybe some yes or no if
possible.
Were you on the phone call with President Erdogan along
with our President?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I was not, but I was very thoroughly
briefed on it, Senator.
Senator Romney. And were you consulted before the decision
was made to withdraw our troops?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I was consulted on the framework of
that call, the points that the President was going to make and
such. The specific decision to withdraw our troops has been a
longstanding debate within the administration going back to
early 2018.
Senator Romney. But were you advised about the decision to
withdraw all of our troops following that Erdogan call?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That specific decision I was not in
advance.
Senator Romney. Do you know when the Kurds were informed of
our decision to withdraw our troops?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Immediately thereafter, Senator.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Do you have a sense of how many Kurds have been killed
since we withdrew our troops?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Again, it is a mix. In fact, the area
that we are talking about that the Turks went into is a largely
Arab area. And I do it myself. I use the shorthand ``Kurds.''
But we are talking about the SDF and the YPG, which are mixed
groups. But in that area, it is probably in the low hundreds of
killed in the fighting up to the ceasefire on Thursday.
Senator Romney. And does ISIS remain a terrorist threat?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely.
Senator Romney. As I read your written testimony, I was
impressed that it is extraordinary in a number of ways in that
as you describe--it is on the third page of your written
testimony at the very bottom. You say the United States at
every level has underlined our resolute opposition to this
plan--this is the Turkish plan--as a threat to our SDF
partners, the fight against ISIS elements, and overall security
in Syria.
Turn the page, the next paragraph down. Erdogan, however,
said that Turkey would soon move forward with its long-planned
operation in northern Syria.
And next paragraph. Turkey launched this operation despite
our objections undermining the de-ISIS campaign, risking,
endangering, and displacing civilians, destroying critical
civilian infrastructure and threatening the security of the
area.
There is no discussion here of we wanted to end endless
wars and this was the result of a long strategy of America to
get out of the region. It was instead, based upon what you are
saying here, Erdogan basically said we are coming in, get out
of the way, and America blinked. Am I reading that wrong?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Largely correctly, Senator, with one
very, very important exception. It is not that we got out of
the way because we were not militarily in the way. We had told
Turkey we would oppose any such action diplomatically and
through sanctions. President Trump was very open on that in his
tweets, and Turkey had heard this at every level. The
leadership either did not believe it or they thought that their
existential security concerns overrode what we might do to
them. And they went in despite a very carefully packaged set of
incentives and sticks to get them to stay with the security
agreement we had done in August with them, and suddenly
President Erdogan told President Trump he was not going to
stick with it and he was coming in.
Senator Romney. But we withdrew our troops quite
precipitously. You say that is unrelated to the fact that
Erdogan was going to come in militarily?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely. We had two outposts of
about 12 men each on that whole area, but their purpose was
basically to observe if there was any firing across the border.
They were not a defense screen or anything else.
The troops that the President has decided to pull back and
have been pulled back in the Manbij area and in the Kobani
area--they are well south and west of where the Turks came in.
It is just that there was a danger that as the Turks, as you
are looking at the map, would come in and as possibly Russian
and Syrian troops because we knew that the SDF would turn to
them came in from the west, our troops would be caught in the
middle and their retreat path would be. So it was a prudent
decision taken by our military leaders to get those troops out
of the way, sir.
Senator Romney. If one assumes that it was a good idea for
us to withdraw troops from Syria--and I am not one of those,
but even if one were to assume that and even if one, like
myself, believes it is a good thing that we are apparently in a
ceasefire setting and hopefully we will have a permanent one,
would it not have been preferable and desirable for us to have
negotiated a posture with Turkey and our Kurdish allies such
that we did not have the casualties which have resulted from
Turkey coming in in a heavy way and bombing and killing our
allies, which has given us a terrible black eye around the
world and has led to unnecessary casualties? Why could this not
have been negotiated?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Well, again, we negotiated extensively
with the Turks, including the security zone mechanism that we
had in August that we were carrying out with them with our
troops and their forces. We negotiated until the very moment
that Erdogan's troops came in. The President wrote President
Erdogan a letter. The President then followed up with a message
to President Erdogan urging him not to act and pointing out
that it was likely that this would simply produce the Russians
and Syrians coming into the northeast, which is exactly what
happened.
So President Erdogan, again, looking at the Russian-Turkish
agreement and looking at our agreement from last week, the YPG
has pulled back but has not been really defeated or eliminated
from the game. So one Turkish objective was not achieved, and
Turkey has not gained much territory, if that was their
objective. And we told them all along that this would happen
and if they did that, they would run into a great deal of
trouble with us, thus the sanctions and the other steps we took
against them 10 days ago now.
Senator Romney. I would only note, Mr. Chairman, that our
President told President Erdogan that we were pulling out our
troops. We did so, and they attacked within a matter of hours.
And you say those are unrelated, but it would seem to me that
there was a relationship.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Romney.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Jeffrey, thank you for your service. We
appreciate it very much.
You talk about signals sent to Turkey. And I want to deal
with the war crimes that are taking place in that country. Are
you familiar with the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act that
was enacted by Congress in the National Defense Authorization
Act?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I am.
Senator Cardin. And are you familiar with the report that
was issued under that law?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Generally, Senator.
Senator Cardin. Well, you might want to tell us about it
because I am not familiar with it. I am not sure I received it.
Ambassador Jeffrey. I would have to look into it, but we
are examining war crimes in the context of what is going on in
Syria mainly with the regime because that has been our----
Senator Cardin. Absolutely. And the law required the report
within 90 days. I do not believe that was complied with. And
you are talking about sending the right signals to Turkey.
Do you not believe that if we would have issued visible
information about holding those accountable for the current war
crimes in Syria that may have acted as a deterrent to Turkey?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I cannot speculate on that. I will say
that if we are supposed to issue reports within 90 days on
something serious like war crimes, we should live up to that
requirement.
Senator Cardin. Are you familiar with the reports that have
been issued by the United Nations and other groups about
expected war crimes have been committed by the Turkish forces
in their invasion into northern Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We have seen some preliminary concerns.
We have not seen any detailed reporting. The detailed
reporting, of course--and there are volumes of it--is on the
Assad regime's actions throughout Syria. But we are very, very
concerned about what we and all of us have seen on video
footage and some of the reports that we have received from our
SDF colleagues, and we are looking into those as I speak.
Senator Cardin. Well, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said
last week that Turkey appears to be committing war crimes. Do
you disagree with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We would say that the Turkish supported
opposition forces, who were under general Turkish command, in
at least one instance did carry out a war crime, and we have
reached out to Turkey to demand an explanation.
Senator Cardin. Congress has already acted on this, making
it clear that ``never again'' should mean ``never again.'' And
the only way that is going to mean anything is if regimes that
commit war crimes are held accountable and it is not just swept
under the rug as part of any other type of resolution of a
conflict. Do you agree with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I certainly do. Whether they are foes
of the United States or allies of ours, everybody has to be
accountable.
Senator Cardin. Do we have your commitment here before this
committee today that the information concerning these actions
will be made available, and if it rises to the level of war
crimes, that the United States will seek an international forum
to hold those responsible accountable?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Within our constitutional requirements
to carry out foreign policy, this will be a very high priority.
Senator Cardin. That is not exactly what is said. My point
is, are you willing to make an assurance to this committee that
you personally will make sure that we do not just once again
refuse to hold those responsible for atrocities accountable for
their actions? It is a simple answer.
Ambassador Jeffrey. We will do everything in our power as
an administration to ensure that the world knows if there are
war crimes and that actions are taken to see that they do not
happen again. Absolutely.
Senator Cardin. Well, and I would appreciate if you would
get back to me in compliance with the law passed by Congress as
to compliance with the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act.
Senator Rubio and I introduced that legislation. We expect our
laws to be carried out. And I do think one of the consequences
of the failure to carry out accountability for war crimes are
more war crimes that are committed. And if we had a clear
indication that those crimes that had already been committed in
Syria, that there was now a process going on internationally to
hold them accountable, I am very confident that Turkey may have
done things differently in northern Syria.
Ambassador Jeffrey. We will do our best to adhere to our
legal requirements and also the spirit of what you said,
Senator.
Senator Cardin. You have indicated that you were not
consulted in regards to the decision to withdraw our troops
from northern Syria. Do you agree that the consequences of that
encouraged or gave an ability for Mr. Erdogan to move forward
into northern Syria and that that added to the national
security concerns of America, which you have already testified
to, in regards to facilitating Russia, Iran, and the Assad
regime?
Ambassador Jeffrey. No, I do not think that contributed to
this very tragic decision by the Turkish Government.
Senator Cardin. So if our troops there, if we had not
removed our troops, you believe that we would have seen the
same scenario with Turkey engaging American troops in northern
Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. They would not have engaged American
troops, first of all, because it was understood that neither
side would ever engage the other regardless of----
Senator Cardin. Well, would it not have been different?
Where our troops are today, Turkish forces and Russian force
are there now. If we had our troops there today, do you think
we would have had the same consequences?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We had the troops there. The withdrawal
did not take place or really start until well after the--
essentially most withdrawals of American troops----
Senator Cardin. I understand that, but you really believe
that Turkey was going to do this current engagement even if
American troops were in the region, making it very likely there
would have been a conflict between two NATO allies in northern
Syria? That is not believable.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Senator, let me explain this. If U.S.
troop had been given the order to stand and fight against a
NATO ally, I think you are right. The Turks may have thought
twice. They have never been given that order over two
administrations. In fact, we had told Turkey the absolute
opposite, that we would not----
Senator Cardin. You do not think that Turkey was holding
back an aggression against northern Syria because of the U.S.
presence in that region?
Ambassador Jeffrey. No, I do not think that at all.
Senator Cardin. Well, I will tell you you have lost me on
the credibility of your comments. Every expert I have talked to
on the military side has said that Turkey would not have risked
an engagement against U.S. troops, that that was something was
something that would never have happened.
Ambassador Jeffrey. That is absolutely true, Senator, but
the U.S. troops would have to have had the mission of resisting
the Turks. They did not have that mission. And a good question
to ask any military expert that says that is did they have that
authority and would they have acted without that authority. I
think the answer is no, they would not.
Senator Cardin. Just to complete this, then you agree with
the President's decision? As a professional, you are fully in
accord with the President's decision to relocate our troops.
Ambassador Jeffrey. I carry out the instruction----
Senator Cardin. My question is--you have now said it did
not have any effect. So do you agree with this policy or not?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I agree that Presidents have to make
that decision, not people in the bureaucracy such as me.
Senator Cardin. And for the record, you did not answer my
question.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Thank you. And I apologize if this has been
asked before. I just wanted to get some clarity.
The U.S. policy toward Syria, the official policy, as it
was described--it had three objectives: prevent the resurgence
of ISIS; number two, to give the U.S. leverage in any future
political solution in Syria so that it would arrive at an
arrangement that is pursuant to the Security Council resolution
which calls for a new constitution and for a new election; and
the withdrawal of all Iranian forces. Is that an accurate
assessment of our Syria policy?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It is, Senator.
Senator Rubio. Is that still our policy?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It is, Senator.
Senator Rubio. Well, if that is still our objectives, I
wanted to kind of get some background. What we all have heard
about the concerns of a couple things on ISIS, the prisoners
going free, the flow into Iraq potentially, but also the
potential that they would seize some of these oilfields
previously held by the Kurds which would provide revenue. How
much thought or preparation are you aware of that went into
this decision before--how much thought and preparation went
into preventing those things from happening before that
decision was made?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I cannot determine how much thought
specifically went into that. What I do know is that we were
prepared ever since December 2018 when the President announced
the withdrawal of U.S. forces over time to deal with the
situation when we did not have U.S. forces on the ground. We
were looking a coalition allies. We were looking at U.S. air
support in the air and we were looking again with other ways to
work with the SDF. So we had plans in place, and these plans,
of course, are largely still in effect. The people that are
being detained are still being detained by the SDF not by us,
and the stabilization operations against ISIS along the
Euphrates by the SDF are still going on. Fortunately, we still
have our forces there----
Senator Rubio. We would have to have known that the absence
of a U.S. presence would make it harder for the SDF to focus on
those priorities. They would have to make their number one
priority facing the Turks. So was there any advance thought
given to if we leave, here is what we are going to do to make
sure the SDF does these or can still do these things?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Exactly. And what we realized was we
had to work some kind of arrangement between Turkey and the SDF
so that the SDF would not be, as you said, diverted from the
fight against keeping ISIS suppressed because ISIS as a state
has been defeated since March, and sucking the forces up to
stand off against the Turks. So that was part of our overall
strategy. That is why we did the joint security mechanism with
the Turks in August to get them to----
Senator Rubio. But none of those plans are in effect any
longer.
Ambassador Jeffrey. No, but now we have a ceasefire that
has replaced them.
Senator Rubio. Well, the ceasefire expires here in a couple
minutes. I do not know what the time is over there.
Ambassador Jeffrey. The ceasefire under the terms of the
agreement--we are verifying this now if both sides agree that
it has been fully maintained. And we already have a letter from
the commander of the SDF forces, Mazloum Kobani, that it has
been adhered to. We are waiting for the Turkish. If so, then
the ceasefire becomes--it is not a ceasefire. It is now a
pause--becomes a half of Turkish military operations. So it is
in effect a more permanent ceasefire I do think so, yes.
Senator Rubio. So you are saying you believe that if they
withdraw from these areas, that the Kurdish forces will still
be able to house these ISIS killers.
Ambassador Jeffrey. This is one that we are looking at
whole series of options under this different set of
circumstances, including what we will be doing with our forces
as we continue the withdrawal, where will we be working with
the SDF, with us, with our coalition partners, and with air
power.
Senator Rubio. By the way, I must ask, why would the Kurds
even care what we want them to do any longer? We are not there
alongside them. They have now had to align themselves with
Assad and the regime. So why are they even interested in our
opinion at this point about what we want them to do with these
prisoners?
Ambassador Jeffrey. The Kurds never fought--I am sorry. The
SDF never fought ISIS because we wanted them to. They fought
ISIS because it was an existential threat to them to deal with
ISIS, and they still feel that way.
Senator Rubio. Real quick. Let me ask you about the
withdrawal of Iranian forces. How do we do that now? For
example, how do we prevent Iran from seizing some of these
oilfields--them or their aligned groups--and using it to
generate revenue to recoup the costs of their engagement in
Syria? But also it gives them some leverage over some of these
Arab tribes that are in the area. So what is our plan now to
limit that? Where do we do that from?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It is part of an overall political
settlement to this conflict in Syria. First of all, there are--
--
Senator Rubio. What seat do we have at that table? We are
not there anymore.
Ambassador Jeffrey. We are still there, Senator.
Senator Rubio. In the southern part, al-Tanf.
Ambassador Jeffrey. We never placed primary responsibility
for our overall policies in Syria on our U.S. military
presence. That was primarily devoted to defeating ISIS, and it
was very successful doing so. But the Turkish presence in the
northwest, which we generally do support, is really operations
against Iran inside Syria, which we do not talk about. The
Israelis do not talk about. But they do continue. We are
supportive of Israeli operations. We are very supportive of
diplomatic and particularly economic pressure against the Assad
regime. And our hope is that if the Assad regime wants to
return to the international community of nations, it has to do
certain things, and at the top of the list is inviting the
Iranian forces to go home.
Senator Rubio. I am out of time. Just a very quick thing
here I want to say, and that is it is my belief that Erdogan's
goal is not a safe zone. It is a strip of land from the Iraqi
border to the Euphrates under his control that has few, if any,
Kurds there where he can relocate 3.5 million Syrian Arab
refugees back into the country. That is his real goal here. Is
it not?
Ambassador Jeffrey. He has said publicly repeatedly,
including in New York at the United Nations, that is his goal
here today. And my assessment is he is not going to get that or
anything close to that.
Senator Rubio. But that is what he said is his goal.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely.
Senator Rubio [presiding]. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ambassador Jeffrey, the joint statement that you negotiated
with the Turks does not specifically define the parameters of
the safe zone. Can you clarify the areas where Turkish troops
can operate according to the agreement?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It was actually Vice President Pence
who negotiated it. We were just there supporting him.
That is a very good question. We never used a map. We
basically used, at the time the thing went into effect, which
was 2200, 10 o'clock at night, Ankara time on the 17th of
October, wherever Turkish troops were is where the safe zone
that we referred to existed.
This sounds like a sloppy way to do things. It actually
worked. The SDF/YPG forces knew what that region was because we
had been in constant--I had personally been in constant contact
with them throughout the negotiation. The Turks knew where
their forces were, and that is exactly what we have seen. It
has worked because we did not get specific because we did not
want to challenge various Turkish interpretations of what a
safe zone should be like. What we wanted to focus on was where
the Turkish forces were and where the YPG forces were in that
area. They have all withdrawn as has been reported to us, and
the Turkish forces, with some minor changes, have not moved
from that area. So it has worked. But it basically is
essentially--when we did the security mechanism in August, we
established a central block in northeast Syria along the
Turkish border of about 30 kilometers.
Senator Shaheen. I understand that. I am sorry to
interrupt, but I am running out of time here.
You are using the terms ``YPG'' and ``SDF''
interchangeably, and you said that the YPG have withdrawn from
that zone. Is it true that all of SDF forces have withdrawn
from that zone?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That was a decision of the SDF
commander, yes.
Senator Shaheen. And he said that they have all withdrawn?
Ambassador Jeffrey. He has in writing.
Senator Shaheen. Because we had a meeting last night with
the head of the Syrian Democratic Council who did not reaffirm
that. She suggested that they have not withdrawn from that safe
zone.
Ambassador Jeffrey. One, we have a written letter to the
Vice President from Mazloum Kobani saying that. Two, on the
ground, we believe that that is the case. We are asking the
Turks urgently if they have spotted anybody in that zone that
they can point out to us. But, yes, I think that that
commitment was--and it was for all armed personnel. He did not
distinguish. And I think that was a good decision between the
YPG, which is a Kurdish offshoot of the PKK.
Senator Shaheen. No, I understand.
That joint statement also said that Turkey and the United
States are committed to de-ISIS and Daesh activities in
northeast Syria, including coordination on detention
facilities. Exactly what did the Turks commit to in terms of
securing ISIS detention facilities and camps in northeast
Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We began talks with them in January
2018 after the President announced the withdrawal in December.
And the Turks showed some interest in some staff work
concerning detention facilities in that up to 30-kilometer deep
zone. There are very few detention facilities right now in the
area where the Turks are. So at the moment, the questions is
pretty moot.
Senator Shaheen. But they did, in fact, shell two prisons,
Ayn Issa and Maruk, that the Syrian Democratic Forces had to
flee from to escape the shelling. Is that correct? And
detainees were able to escape from those two facilities?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I will check. Ayn Issa I think was a
displaced persons camp for people who were basically associated
with ISIS. So they were not technically detainees, but we will
check. But that is true. A few people did escape.
Senator Shaheen. And so how exactly will Turkey prevent an
ISIS resurgence? And again, what have they committed to do to
continue to fight ISIS?
Ambassador Jeffrey. In the area where Turkey is and, in
fact, in the entire area along the Turkish border, 30
kilometers deep, there is very little ISIS presence. The ISIS
presence in the past several years has been along the Euphrates
far to the south and in the Manbij area west of the Euphrates.
Turkey has a fairly good record of fighting ISIS in
northwest Syria, particularly in the al-Bab area in 2016, and I
am sure that if ISIS showed up, Turkey would take it on as well
because it has been repeatedly attacked by ISIS inside Turkey.
And we will coordinate with them, as we have in the past with
them, on information concerning ISIS and operations that they
do and we do. We are used to doing that. But again, ISIS is not
a major issue in that part of the northeast at present.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I appreciate that it is not a major
issue because with the SDF and our support, we have driven them
out of Syria.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Exactly.
Senator Shaheen. But does that suggest that Turkey is not
going to move into Manbij?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Turkey is not going to move into Manbij
according to the agreement that we just saw with the Russians.
Senator Shaheen. So Russia has moved into Manbij.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Syrian forces and some Russian advisors
are in Manbij right now, and judging from this agreement, they
have no intention of letting Turkey back in--not back in but
into it.
Senator Shaheen. And a final question. Can you speak to how
Iran has been empowered by our decision to move out of Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Iran is under extraordinarily tough
economic sanctions. It is under pressure from Israel, supported
by us and other allies throughout the region. I do not see it
being empowered particularly. The one area that Iran is
interested in is the American forces in the south along the
main east-west highway from Tehran to Beirut at al-Tanf, and
President Trump has decided we will not pull out of there. I do
not think Iran is particularly empowered by this.
Senator Shaheen. So you do not think that our moving out
and allowing Russia and Iran and Assad to decide the future
fate of Syria helps to empower Iran in the Middle East?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We have not decided on anybody other
than the Syrian people under the relevant U.N. resolutions to
decide the fate of Syria, and we certainly have not handed it
off to these guys.
Senator Shaheen. We may have, but we are not there anymore
and Russia and Iran are there. And so is Assad. So I think it
is----
Ambassador Jeffrey. Again, the U.S. Air Force is very much
there right now. And that is now something that the Department
of Defense and the White House are looking at. Our military
forces are still in al-Tanf and plan on being there.
But honestly, I am a diplomat. This is the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Military power is not the only tool we use
to achieve our goals in this world. We use diplomatic. We use
political. We use economic.
Senator Shaheen. No, I understand that. But when we pulled
out the troops, we had earlier pulled out our diplomatic
personnel, our USAID personnel. We had stopped--this
administration had stopped the stabilization funding that
Congress appropriated last year so that it did not go into
Syria. And so the other tools that we have to support a
solution in Syria have also been taken away.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Johnson?
Senator Johnson. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your
service.
Chairman Risch started out his questioning or his opening
statement with a little bit of a history lesson. I want to
throw a couple more details in here.
The Arab Spring protests in Syria began in the spring of
2011. At that point in time, Syria's population was almost 21
million. Today, some estimates places it as low as 17 million.
Over 5 million Syrians are refugees. Over 3 million, I believe,
are in Turkey. There are about 6.5 million Syrians displaced
within Syria. So you have more than half the population out of
their homes, and it is a mess.
By some estimates, there were already 100,000 Syrians
killed in the conflict by the end of 2013.
In June 2014, ISIS moves in and takes over Mosul.
Aleppo finally falls in December 2016 after all the barrel
bombing.
By the time this administration took office, approximately
300,000 people had been killed in the Syria Civil War. Iran,
Russia, Assad pretty well won the war.
The Kurds obviously joined us in defeating ISIS because
they were able to take over about a third of Syrian territory.
Correct?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Mainly, as I said, because they had an
existential threat from ISIS, but in the process, they took
over about a third of Syria.
Senator Johnson. One of my questions--we talk about
leverage. Now we do not have leverage. What leverage did we
have, let us say, in January 2017 after Aleppo fell and Iran,
Russia, and Assad were already pretty much in control of two-
thirds of Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. First of all, we had the leverage of a
totally broken state, which is what we still have today. Your
statistics are absolutely right, Senator. About half the
population of Syria is not under Assad's control. Much of the
area of Syria is not under Assad's control. That includes much
of the northwest, and we will see how it goes in the northeast
in the days and weeks ahead. Some of it is under Turkish
control right now. As I said, the SDF and we are still to the
south of that 30-kilometer deep band. So that is pressure on
him.
Again, Assad has Israel and the Iranians have Israel to
contend with in basically a silent war in the skies and on the
ground in Syria.
And the country is an international pariah. It has been
ejected from the Arab League. There is no reconstruction
assistance flowing into that country from anywhere, and we have
no difficulty mobilizing international sentiment in the U.N. or
anyplace else against Assad until blocked, of course, by
Russia.
Senator Johnson. So my concern is I do not want to see an
ethnic cleansing. I do not want to see ISIS fighters released.
I do not want to see ISIS reconstituted. You in your testimony
already said that the SDF and Turkey, quite honestly--it is in
their best interests to make sure that ISIS fighters do not
regain the battlefield. Correct?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Both Turkey and SDF have fought against
ISIS in certain areas, particularly in the case of Turkey.
Effectively SDF has always been effective. If they are not
forced to face off against each other, we can rely on both of
them against ISIS.
Senator Johnson. Where do the 3.3 million refugees from
Syria reside in Turkey now? Where did they come from?
Ambassador Jeffrey. They came mainly from the Arab areas.
There are about 300,000 Kurds who fled because they are
politically not aligned with the essentially pro-PKK sentiments
of the PYD, which is a political ring of the YPG, the military
force. But most of them came from the Arab areas, the Aleppo
area in particular, all the way down to the Jordanian border.
They fled across into Turkey.
Senator Johnson. So the SDF and the Kurds--are they just
primarily protecting the region in Syria that they always
occupied, or have they moved into Sunni areas that the Sunnis,
if they ever could return from refugee status into Syria--you
are going to have a dispute in terms of who owns what.
Ambassador Jeffrey. The YPG, which was the Kurdish militia
that we joined up with, as I said, that has ties to the PKK, as
it spread out into Arab areas with our encouragement in the
fight against ISIS down along the Euphrates into Manbij,
renamed itself in 2017 SDF, Syrian Democratic Forces, to
reflect the fact that it is now an Arab, as well as Kurdish
force. But, yes, their motivation was to take out ISIS. In the
process, they wound up with a lot of territory which is not
uncommon in war.
Senator Johnson. Precisely. But is that going to be a
festering problem when we hopefully at some point in time
stabilize Syria? Now you have 5 million refugees trying to
return to Syria. Some are going to be basically squatting in
their homes?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That was on our top 10 list of
festering problems, the idea that we had a largely Kurdish-led
force over a pretty significant Arab population, but it was not
one of our top five festering problems.
Senator Johnson. One of the things I was concerned about is
are we going to maintain a no-fly zone, in effect. According to
your testimony, it sounds like we are willing to do that. Is
that true?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We are doing that at the moment. We
still control, as they say in military terminology, the
airspace at least over our forces, which is much of the
northeast. How the thinking is in the Pentagon and what we are
going to do in the days ahead I am not fully abreast of, but
when they have sifted out their options, they will share them
with us.
Senator Johnson. Well, I would certainly encourage the
administration to maintain that no-fly zone. I think that would
be one of the ways we could prevent ethnic cleansing and
further slaughter.
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Senator Rubio. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. I would like to thank Chairman Risch and
Ranking Member Menendez for convening this important hearing,
and I would like to thank both of you for your service.
No one wants to see American troops continuing to serve and
to fight in the Middle East and Southwest Asia indefinitely.
But President Trump's abrupt, premature, and ill-considered
withdrawal and utter lack of a strategy for the path forward in
Syria I think will prove to be both a tactical and strategic
blunder, and I think his abandonment of the Kurds will long
stand as a stain on America's reputation.
I am principally concerned, Ambassador Jeffrey, if I can,
initially in asking you about ISIS because one of my core
concerns is not only have we ceded territory and control to
Assad's forces, supported by Russia, to Iran and Iranian
irregulars, but we also may have breathed new life into ISIS.
I was struck that in your prepared testimony you said--and
I quote--U.S. strategic objectives and national security
interests in Syria remain the enduring defeat of ISIS, the
reduction and explusion of Iranian malign influence, and the
resolution of the Syrian civil war on terms favorable to the
United States. On all three of those vectors, I think this
decision makes us worse off.
Let me first ask about ISIS. Do we know how many hardened
ISIS fighters escaped detention?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We do not have hard numbers, but it was
very few so far but that could change. But for the moment, very
few.
Senator Coons. Is ``few'' dozens or hundreds?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I would say dozens at this point.
Senator Coons. There were press reports that put it in the
hundreds. Do we have any idea how those escaped ISIS fighters
will be tracked, accounted for, and recaptured?
Ambassador Jeffrey. At the moment, we do not.
Senator Coons. How many ISIS fighters do you believe are
still in detention in a detention facility that is managed
either by Kurdish fighters or otherwise?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Essentially the numbers we had before,
Senator, about 10,000.
Senator Coons. About 10,000. So how secure are those ISIS
fighters?
Ambassador Jeffrey. As long as the situation remains
relatively stable and we think we have returned it to something
like stability----
Senator Coons. Would you describe this as a stable
situation?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Since Thursday when we got a ceasefire,
yes.
Senator Coons. So what confidence do you have that those
10,000 ISIS fighters are secure and are being appropriately
monitored even as the SDF is in full retreat, the United States
is largely retreating, and a combination of Turkish, Russian,
and Syrian forces are flooding into an ill-defined area?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Once again, throughout the vast
majority of northeast Syria, SDF forces are in control of the
terrain and the detention centers that are located. Most of
them are below a 32-kilometer east-west highway.
With this new Russian agreement, there may be some
detention facilities in that area. And as they are calling for,
the Russians are claiming that they will work, facilitate
trying to get the YPG elements out. We will have to see how
that goes on. But for the moment, these detention facilities
are being maintained. We have commitments by the SDF, and we
have learned to have faith in their commitments.
Senator Coons. Should the SDF have faith in our
commitments?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We gave them a commitment that we would
do everything in our power to forestall any Turkish incursion
into northeast Syria. We did not succeed in that, obviously.
What we did succeed in doing is very quickly bringing it to a
halt by the negotiations we did and the ceasefire achieved on
the 17th of October.
Senator Coons. Would the press report today that Kurdish
civilians are pelting our departing troops with rocks and food
suggest that we have won over their enduring trust?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That was in Qamishli. The troops were
withdrawing, because this is our priority, from that area,
which is far to the west. Whether those were Kurdish children
or those were Arab children and whether the regime is also
there we would have to look into whose idea that was. That is
the only place I have ever seen stones and fruit thrown at our
soldiers anywhere in the northeast, and again, as that is an
area that the Assad regime has forces in, we need to look into
that in more detail.
Senator Coons. Well, Ambassador, there is fairly broad
reporting that American troops who served alongside our Kurdish
partners, that military leaders, that intelligence community
leaders, and that the leaders of the Syrian Democratic Forces,
the Kurds themselves, have all agreed that this was a tragic
mistake, that this was a betrayal of the trust that they put in
us.
I will close by asking what you see as the future of NATO's
role in Turkey and the United States-Turkish relationship. In a
previous exchange with another Senator, the way I heard you
characterize it was essentially our President got rolled by an
aggressive President Erdogan who said I have got my troops on
the border. I am ready to go. And after months of our asserting
they should not do it, they simply went ahead and did that.
This is supposed to be our NATO ally. What do you see as the
future of our alliance with Turkey?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We need to have some serious
conversations with Turkey over this.
But the President did not get rolled per se. As soon as the
Turks came in, the President enacted a very, very----
Senator Coons. He enacted a prompt and speedy withdrawal?
Ambassador Jeffrey. No, a prompt and speedy set of
sanctions against Turkey followed up by even stronger ones from
the U.S. Congress and pulled from the table various, if you
will, incentives for Turkey to behave better and set into
motion the diplomacy that led very quickly to a ceasefire.
Senator Coons. Well, given what I think is the unreliable,
undisciplined, and inappropriate actions by our President in
abandoning our Kurdish allies, I am grateful that the
majority--the chairman and the minority leader of this
committee have joined in introducing legislation, which I hope
to join. Whether it is that bill or other bills, I think we in
Congress need to demonstrate our ability to advance sanctions
legislation that may endure beyond the next tweet or phone
call.
Thank you, Ambassador.
Senator Rubio. Senator Portman?
Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman.
First, thank you for your service. Jim Jeffrey, you have
been a stalwart on foreign policy issues, including trying to
figure out the most complex and muddled part of the world. It
is not easy. It is a messy situation. No question about it.
I see it pretty simply, which is that we had a small number
of troops there, mostly special operators, who were keeping the
peace. And it was not perfect. It never is in that part of the
world. But we were avoiding some of the problems we have seen,
and that includes not just the Iranian-backed forces and the
Syrians coming in, but the Russians coming in. And that video
of the Russian journalist the day after walking through our
base haunts me.
And then, of course, what we have done with regard to the
Kurds. And I want to ask you a question about that in a moment.
But to me this is about the Kurds, but it is also about our
allies and our potential allies in the future and what impact
that will have.
And then, of course, finally the displacement of more
refugees. I mean, that area has already seen its share of
refugees. Has it not? And now there are many more.
And then I guess finally, ISIS. And you said that you think
only dozens of ISIS fighters have been released. I have heard
larger numbers. But the point is we have unfortunately found
ourselves in a situation where because of the unsettled nature
now of that buffer region, much of what the Kurds were doing to
restrain the ISIS fighters and family members and so on has now
been disrupted.
I guess I will not ask you to agree or disagree with me on
that assessment because I do not want to put you on the spot.
You have been an able reporter here on what you think is
happening. You avoided expressing your own personal views. But
those are mine.
On the issue of what does this do to us going forward, I
think about Iraq, and I think about the role that the KRG has
played in supporting our efforts there. Ever since 1991, we
have relied on the Kurds. Have we not? And what is this going
to do with regard to our relationship to the Kurds more broadly
particularly in Iraq and to those communities, those Arab and
Kurd communities, in that part of Iraq and in the parts of
Syria, northeastern Syria? What will our withdrawal and our
actions here do to affect our relationship with those forces?
And can we continue to work with them?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That may be a good analogy, Senator. As
you know, our partners for many years, the PUK and the KDP,
Kurdish parties in northern Iraq, decided to have an
independence referendum without properly consulting us or
getting our views. Well, they got our views. We thought this
was a big mistake in the fall of 2017.
When this happened, the Iraqi army moved into an area, a
mixed area, where the Kurdish regional government had extended
its sway after Saddam had fallen in the Kirkuk area and,
through some fairly significant fighting, took back the oil-
rich province of Kirkuk. That was a huge blow to the Kurds.
They felt that we had abandoned them. Our argument was we never
promised you a military guarantee for that area. Rather, we
tried to work out--and I was involved in that, as well as
people right here with me today--trying to do oil deals and
other things between the Kurds in the north and the central
government in Baghdad.
Again, we did not succeed in stopping a conflict from
occurring. We did succeed very quickly in bringing that
conflict to a halt and then bringing the two sides together. So
I would say that is an example of how not using military force
but using diplomacy and economic and energy tools we can keep a
relationship with the Kurds. I know Masoud Barzani very well.
We have a good relationship with him today.
Senator Portman. I hope you are right. I do not mean to cut
you off, but I hope you are right. But I cannot imagine there
is not an impact here on the Kurds more broadly and to other
allies, as I have said, around the world and future allies who
we would want to turn to.
You have used the word ``incentives'' a lot today to talk
about what was on the table previously. I do not know if you
feel that you are able to talk about those discussions with
Turkey, but I had always hoped that part of the way we could
resolve the problems with regard to Turkey and the Kurds was
through commercial activity, specifically trade and their
interest in a trade agreement. And I had reason to believe,
based on some reporting in fact from folks at the State
Department, that that was a possibility.
What happened? Why did the Turks not take us up on our
offer to expand trade? We do quite a bit of trade with them in
steel already. I know there are new sanctions now in place
there and new tariffs. But why did those incentives not work,
and how could they possibly work better going forward? Is that
what you are referring to when you say ``incentives''?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely. In a nutshell, this was a
very attractive package. And the issue is not with the Kurds.
Some 15 to 20-plus percent of the Turkish population is
Kurdish, and in some elections, a high percentage of them
actually vote for President, formerly Prime Minister, Erdogan's
party. It is all about what the Turks see is a terrorist
organization, the PKK, and the offshoot of that in Syria, the
Syrian wing of that, if you will, the YPG, which became for
very good reasons that I agreed with at the time and agree with
today our ally against ISIS. They were the only people who
could fight effectively against ISIS at the time. And as part
of the deal with us, they agreed not to take any actions
against Turkey, and they have lived up to that agreement.
But they were still seen as a latent threat on Turkey's
border just like Israel sees Hezbollah as a latent threat on
its border, even though there has only been one incident--it
was very recent--since 2006 with Hezbollah on Israel's border.
So that is the point I made in my oral testimony that major
states in a region neighboring an area where we have forces
have their own vote in any conflict, and they will look to
their existential concerns. We think they made the wrong
assessment. We think that they could have eventually had a
better relationship with this wing of the PKK. In fact, they
had been in negotiations or discussions with them up until 2015
in Ankara. We wanted to see if they could get back to that
level. Thus, we did this joint patrolling with the Turks inside
Syria in these YPG areas with the YPG pulling back. They were
basically the silent third partner. We had a deal going.
In October, President Erdogan or the Turkish Government in
a sense decided we are not going to go with this anymore. We do
not care about the incentives. We want to go in and deal with
this problem.
We are looking into, of course, why they decided to do
that. We think it was a big mistake. And as I said earlier,
they are not more secure today. We are not more secure today.
Nobody is more secure today because of that action.
Senator Portman. And none of the incentives were
implemented.
Ambassador Jeffrey. The incentives now--they are in play.
We will have to see how our relations with Turkey continue on.
I think we have the fellow who has the enviable job--I have the
enviable of Syria. He has the enviable job of Turkey.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you for that, Ambassador.
To add to that, Senator, the Turkish Government, President
Erdogan is certainly interested in expanding the trade
relationship with the United States. They have made that very
clear. We have had talks with the Turks about enhancing,
building on the trade relationship targeting $100 billion a
year in annual trade. That is a very ambitious target. But
there were conversations in play about how it is that we might
approach that target. At the end of the day, as we would look
at it, Turkey, although it was very interested in this package,
also felt that what was going on in northeast Syria represented
a significant security threat and made a decision that was a
security decision rather than an economic, commercial decision.
But we do look forward to the opportunity to restore a
sufficient measure of balance to the U.S.-Turkey relationship
that we can go back to discussions about the mechanisms through
which we could expand and strengthen the trade and commercial
relationship.
Senator Portman. I would like to think that is on the table
to try to resolve this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall?
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for working hard to get us this hearing.
I appreciate your service, both of you.
I want to be up front. I had major concerns with our Syrian
deployment when it began under the prior administration, and I
opposed the decision to arm the Kurds and other groups in
Syria.
For one, this deployment and action was not authorized by
Congress. I voted for the 2001 authorization and never dreamed
it would be used to justify U.S. forces deployed in the middle
of a Syrian civil war 18 years later.
In addition, this deployment carried obvious risks of
entangling us in a situation where there would never be a good
way to get out. It was never in U.S. interests to invade en
masse and resolve the Syrian civil war.
The Turkish concerns with Kurdish militants using Syria to
launch terrorist attacks against them was not going to go away.
So the problem we face today was foreseeable.
What was not foreseeable was the strange and sudden way
this withdrawal was carried out. Our troops had to withdraw
very quickly, placing them at increased risks to enemy or
inadvertent friendly fire as they departed. Now the Russians
are broadcasting propaganda from our former bases.
The President had a year to work out the details of this
withdrawal but instead, his hasty order put our troops at risk
and strained both the relationship with our partners in the
region and our ally, Turkey. Instead of a well-executed end of
operations in Syria, we are now guessing what the President
will decide on any given day and what his actual motivations
are while crossing our fingers that he has been adequately
briefed by policy experts like yourself.
In this context, it is appropriate to remember that
President Erdogan attended the ribbon cutting for a Trump
Towers project in Istanbul in 2015. The Trump family reportedly
receives several million dollars per year in licensing fees for
these two buildings. But we do not know for sure because the
President refuses to reveal his financial information.
President Erdogan has threatened the President's financial
interest in Istanbul before. In 2016, when then candidate Trump
was calling for a ban on Muslim integration to America, the
``Wall Street Journal'' quoted President Erdogan as saying
``they put that brand on this building and it must be swiftly
taken down.''
Does it concern you that the President of the United States
has an active business interest in Turkey at the same time that
our Nation, including you, are engaged in very high stake,
tense diplomatic engagement and the President of Turkey has
already threatened that business interest at least once that we
know of?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I am comfortable with my role working
on Syria, Senator. I will just leave it at that.
Senator Udall. You do not want to answer the question.
Ambassador Jeffrey. No, but I note that we do have the
officer responsible for Turkish affairs here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Mr. Palmer, please.
Mr. Palmer. The issues that you raise, Senator, have never
been part of any conversation with Turkish officials of which I
have been a part.
Senator Udall. And has anyone ever discussed the Trump
organization's business interests in Turkey with either one of
you?
Mr. Palmer. Not with me, Senator, no.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Never.
Senator Udall. Ambassador Jeffrey, you have written in the
past that the United States and Turkey need each other, and I
believe we need to return to a dialog that addresses the rift
that occurred as both countries got pulled into conflict in
Syria. How do we repair that rift, and will sanctions against
Turkey in your opinion lead to a solution or continue to
increase that rift? And will sanctions on Turkey help or hurt
the U.S. effort to counter Russian and Chinese interests in the
Middle East and Europe as well as Iranian ones?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Having just spent--let me see--the
weekend before last night and day, again with the people here
with me, imposing a set of sanctions on Turkey, I am not
against sanctioning Turkey. We sanctioned Turkey because of its
actions against our better judgment in going into Syria 2 weeks
ago.
But we do believe that sanctions are a blunt instrument,
and the best way to use them is to effect changes in behavior.
It is my belief--and I was there in the negotiations with Vice
President Pence--that the potential additional sanctions to be
levied almost immediately and in particular the sanctions that
were being prepared in Congress were a major factor on the
achievement of a ceasefire by another name the day after the
entire Turkish leadership in press comments had said there
would be no ceasefire. Well, then there was a ceasefire. That
is a good example of what you can do with sanctions. But
sanctions, as they are being levied, also if behavior changes,
as we think we see today, have to be lifted. That is how I see
sanctions being used, Senator.
Senator Udall. Mr. Palmer, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Palmer. No, Senator. I agree absolutely with what
Ambassador Jeffrey said. Sanctions are an important tool in the
arsenal. The more flexible that they can be and the easier it
is to put them in place and then remove them, the better it is
as a tool for us to use in influencing behavior. The goal of
sanctions should be to affect the behavior of the target state.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio [presiding]. Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. Thank you for your testimony.
Ambassador Jeffrey, do you believe or do you agree with the
statement that the Syrian civil war has largely stalemated and
that in all likelihood Assad will continue to be in charge of
the Syrian Government?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It is stalemated, but because it is
stalemated at extraordinary human cost--and we heard the
statistics which were right. Half the population has fled him.
They are getting no money. It is basically a pile of rubble. I
think that it is open to question whether Assad personally is
going to lead that country indefinitely.
Senator Paul. You know, I would disagree. I think Assad is
there to stay barring something extraordinary happening. I
think Assad is there to stay. And I think that one of the
things that is going to happen from this that I do not know if
anybody could have necessarily predicted, but one of the
reasons why we have not been able to have a peace agreement is
sort of our position through the U.N. agreement is fair
elections which probably does not mean Assad wins a fair
election. So in a way, one of our goals has been regime change.
If you take the U.N. resolution to be fair in elections, which
are not going to happen, the thing is that now we have
disrupted things. As we have disrupted things, the Kurds now
are talking and actually fighting alongside of Assad.
I actually think that the Kurds have a much better chance--
we were never staying forever. It never really was our goal to
have a Kurdish area. I think there are parallels to the Kurdish
area within Iraq that could happen within Syria. But I do not
think we are going to be of any use to it if we still maintain
that regime change has to come before we get any talks.
That is why I think we are going to be largely bypassed,
and in some ways it might be a good thing actually that we are
largely bypassed and we have less of a role in Syria because
the Russians do have the ability to talk to Erdogan, and they
also have the ability to talk to Assad.
If Erdogan can be convinced that his border can be
controlled by a real government--that is the problem. There has
not been a real government and there has not been anybody able
to control the territory. As Assad, the Russians, and perhaps
the Kurds ally to control that territory, then it is really a
matter of now two people talking: Assad and Erdogan.
And so I actually think that the chance for peace actually
occurs and has a better chance now than it has ever had, but I
do not think we will be a part of it as long as we will not
have a discussion with Assad because I think Assad is going to
remain barring an assassination or some internal upheaval
within his government. I think he does remain.
And it is not because I want him to. I have about as much
use for Assad as I have got for Erdogan. To me they are both
authoritarians. But I do not see our role forward if we are
adamant that this U.N. resolution 2254 basically to Assad and
others means Assad has got to go before we can even engage
Assad.
Is it still our government's position and you as part of
our government that we do not talk to Assad and that Assad can
be part of no negotiations?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It is our position that we do not talk
to Assad. But Assad is part of the U.N. negotiations that we
support under 2254. And having been involved in one or two
regime change adventures in my career, this is very different.
This is not our idea to overthrow Assad. In fact, President
Trump has sent on to the NDAA a classified position to Congress
on 1 March of this year laying out our policies and it is
explicit that it is not to overthrow Assad.
The idea of free elections is a decision taken by the
entire international community because of the unique threat
this guy poses. Erdogan does not believe if Assad got on the
border he would protect the border. Erdogan thinks that he
would use the Kurds against him or at least the PKK Kurds.
Senator Paul. I am not saying it is easy. I am saying it is
an impossible opening. And I think until someone talks to
Assad, there is no opening. So the war goes on forever until
someone begins to talk to Assad or Assad is gone.
And I think that that is the realism of this. The realism
of this is we have to see the world as it is, not as we naively
paint in black and white and Jefferson is going to come riding
in on a horse. And I know you see the world that way. But I
think we have not yet gotten there in Syria to see the world in
a realistic way knowing full well that there are things we do
not like about the authoritarianism of most of the people over
there. And yet we deal with them on a daily basis. But really,
I think peace is prevented. I think Assad is staying and peace
is prevented until someone talks to him.
I think it is now going to happen without us. I agree that
there are disagreements between Assad and Erdogan, and they do
not right now trust him. But I think there is the possibility
because, see, the Russians are also going to be an influence in
this. And the Russians are actually becoming players. And we
have this hysteria, this political hysteria, that if anyone
talks to Putin, that somehow you are a supporter of his or
somehow you do not love your country. But yet, the Israelis
talk to the Russians. I mean, everybody else over there seems
to have a more realistic understanding of the world than we do
and particularly in our politically motivated world.
But my only advice is to keep an open mind with regard to
Assad and with regard to negotiation, and perhaps it is
something that happens without us getting in the way.
Thank you.
Senator Rubio. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We have such amazing respect for the work that you have
done throughout your career and particularly the job that you
have taken on most recently.
That is why I think some of the most stunning testimony
that we have heard here today came in answer to Senator
Menendez's early questioning when he asked whether you had been
consulted prior to this momentous decision being made. I do not
really know why we have someone with the title ``Special
Representative for Syrian Engagement and Special Envoy to the
Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS'' if they are not consulted
before the President takes the most significant single action
affecting U.S. interests in Syria and the future of ISIS during
his presidency. And I think it speaks to the utter chaos of
American foreign policy today that you were not consulted or
talked to about this decision prior to it being made.
I had a recently retired general who commanded or oversaw
American troops in Syria in my office last night. He was
distraught in part because he tells me that the word that our
soldiers are using as they are moving out of their positioning
is ``betrayal.'' They have been embedded with the Kurds, with
the STP, and they feel that they have been part of a betrayal
of the forces that they have been supporting and fighting
alongside.
One of their specific grievances is that we convinced the
Kurds to dismantle some of their defenses along the border with
Turkey in anticipation of the United States and Turkey being
able to work out some joint patrols. But in tearing down those
defenses, it left the Kurds much more susceptible to the
inevitable attack that came.
In retrospect, do you think that it was a good idea for the
United States to press the Kurds into dismantling these
defenses?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Of all the things that I have
experienced in this particular portfolio and particularly this
subsector of it with the Turks and the Kurds, the thing that I
am most disturbed about is the fact that after having agreed to
a way forward with us in August--Turkey--to do these joint
patrols and the dismantling of fortifications, then suddenly
inexplicably from my standpoint and many others', the Turkish
leadership decided that they would just march in and do it all
themselves.
The requirements of the August agreement were for the YPG
to dismantle fortifications in what we call the safe zone but
essentially the zone we are talking about. The truth is that
was the one thing they do not do a very good job of. Perhaps
they felt they could see what was coming. And this was a major
bone of contention between us, the Turks, and the SDF.
Senator Murphy. Listen, I certainly think that we can draw
issue with the Turks' decision to abrogate the agreement we
made with them, but it would have been an additional reason for
us not to sell them out by removing our forces given that we
had asked them to take this extraordinary measure, which they
took in anticipation of us remaining the bulwark between them
and the Turks.
A part of your testimony that I am having a little trouble
understanding is your belief that the President has not green-
lighted or did not green-light the actions by Turkey. On Sunday
night, the President sent out a press release in which he said
that he had just gotten off the phone with the President of
Turkey and that they would now be moving forward with their
long-planned operation into northern Syria. He took the one
action that was a precondition to the Turks mounting an
offensive, which was the removal of our forces.
And since then, he has defended Turkey's actions. He said,
quote, they have got to keep going at each other. It is
artificial to have these soldiers walking up and down between
the two countries. He said, like two kids in a lot, you have
got to let them fight. I mean, the world read that statement on
Sunday night. It has listened to the President defend the
decision of Turkey to enter Syria, listened to the President
talk as if it is a good thing that the two sides are now
fighting each other without the United States in the middle of
it.
How is the world not to read all of those actions as a
clear green light to Turkey to come in? The President is
defending the decision that he made.
Ambassador Jeffrey. A couple of points. First, the
President did say those things. He also said many other things,
including I will crush the economy because Erdogan has released
or actually we released the letter to President Erdogan. You
can see that the President took very tough language with
President Erdogan on this issue, advocated some kind of an
agreement or arrangement with the SDF leader, General Mazloum.
But in addition--and I think it is a very important point
here--this idea of betrayal and giving a green light--it is as
if our troops in northeast Syria were like our troops along the
Korean DMZ, to hold off a force from the north. They were not.
That is not where they were. There were two outposts, each of
12 people, along that whole area of 140 kilometers. And we had
told the Turks--I was involved in telling them that--that is
simply to observe whether the Kurds are shooting across the
border at you or you are shooting across the border at them.
That was not a security perimeter of any sort.
The forces that we eventually did move were way west of any
of this fighting, and they were moved--again, DOD can explain
why, but looking at it on the map, it was clear that pretty
soon they would have been cutoff as the Turks came down to the
main east-west highway. And that is my understanding of why the
decision was made.
But I repeat from having followed obsessively Turkish,
including the intelligence I cannot get into here, views on
this. Of all of the things I saw--and they are all over the
map, Senator--I never once saw any Turk in any way in a
position of responsibility saying, gee, what are we going to do
about those U.S. military forces. They knew that they did not
have an order to defend the Kurds--well, the----
Senator Murphy. You do not think that our forces were a
deterrent?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely not. And I will cite Ash
Carter Sunday on--I think that was with Stephanopolous when he
was asked that specifically, and he said we never--this was the
last administration. We never told the Kurds that we would
defend them militarily against Turkey, and that means we did
not tell Turkey. This was followed up in Face the Nation by
General Tony Thomas, who said essentially the same thing to
Margaret Brennan.
Senator Murphy. I think our soldiers on the ground were led
to believe something fundamentally different. And so query as
to how our soldiers who are carrying out the mission felt that
they were betraying the Kurds if ultimately part of the reason
for being there was not to protect them against the very nation
on their border that was seeking to destroy them.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to the witnesses.
The hasty Trump retreat produced vivid pictures of U.S.
troops being pelted by stones and rotting vegetables as they
walked away from their Kurdish battlefield allies. And the
consequences of the Trump retreat are at least the following:
one, empowering Turkey, Iran, Russia, and the regime of Bashar
al-Assad. Turkey is a very complicated ally that is now sliding
toward adversary. Iran is an adversary. Assad is a pariah, and
Russia is an adversary.
The second consequence is likely to leave, based on all of
the military testimony that I am hearing on the Armed Services
side, the other committee on which I sit, to a renewed threat
of ISIS posing a threat to the United States and other nations.
And we have already seen prisoners escape. The numbers are in
some dispute, but in the chaos that is to follow, the worry is
that it would be more.
We have abandoned a United States ally who fought valiantly
with us. And it is more than abandoning them. When the
President goes out of his way to say the Kurds are no angels,
why trash them on the way out the door? Why trash them? And if
you have to do this because Turkey is coming across the border,
then you could just say that. We do not want to face off
against the Turks. But why trash the Kurds and sort of name-
call them and make them sound like they are not the partner
that the United States has been the most successful working
with in the battle against ISIS?
It has paved the way for ethnic cleansing against the
Kurds. Already the reports are that 176,000 Kurds--half of them
are children, more than 80,000 of whom are children--have been
displaced just in 2 weeks in the Turkish incursion across the
border.
And then finally, a consequence of sending a very bizarre
message about what U.S. priorities are, we are pulling troops
from the region. We are going to put troops around oilfields.
We want to protect oilfields from ISIS, but we are not
interested in protecting Kurds from Turkey. We are pulling out
of the region, but we will put a couple thousand more troops in
Saudi Arabia to protect their oil assets. Why? Well, the
President says, well, because they will pay for us to do it.
Okay. So are U.S. troops mercenaries now? Is that what kids
like my son who are in the Marines are? They are just
mercenaries and will just go to whoever pays for them to be
there?
The question that is raised by all of these consequences
from the Trump retreat is what would anybody think about
partnering with us if there is a tough battle ahead against a
non-state terrorist force or someone else and we go and ask. If
ISIS resurges and we go back and ask the Kurds to help us
again, I think I know what the answer is going to be.
Ambassador Jeffrey, you have been blunt and I appreciate
it. I was astounded as well, but I appreciate your candor in
your response to Senator Menendez's question about whether you,
who have been specifically tasked by this administration with
the responsibility of helping manage this admittedly very
difficult situation and certainly manage the Global Coalition
Against ISIS--if you were not consulted with--if you were not
consulted with about this withdrawal, that just speaks volumes
about its chaotic and ad hoc nature.
One of the achievements that you, I think, get some credit
for in the last few months is you convinced Britain and France
in July to increase their presence in the region to try to help
us deal with the ISIS threat. My understanding is it was not
just you who were not consulted with by the administration
before this, but Britain and France who just 3 months ago had
agreed to some increase in their troop levels in the region and
try to protect against ISIS and work hand in hand with the
Kurds. My understanding is they were not consulted with either.
Do you have any reason to doubt what I am saying to you?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Thank you for giving me a chance to try
again with Senator Menendez's question. I was telling the truth
when I was not consulted. As charge in Iraq in 2005, then
President Bush took decisions concerning Iraq where I was not
consulted. Then again in the same city, Baghdad, when I was
Ambassador under President Obama, including the withdrawal of
U.S. forces, he took decisions without consulting me.
I will say that in my current job, I feel that my views
through Secretary Pompeo have been brought repeatedly and
frequently and I think in many cases effectively to----
Senator Kaine. I mean, just kind of professionally are you
indifferent to not being consulted about the matter that is in
your lifelong expertise, to which you have devoted your entire
public service career? You have come out of retirement to do a
very difficult job, and a decision is made and you have
sacrificed to come out of retirement. And you are not even
asked what you think, and that does not cause you any concern
whatsoever?
Ambassador Jeffrey. A, had it been the first time, it might
have, but as I said, it has happened repeatedly in senior
positions. But again, you have to----
Senator Kaine. Well, I would hope that no matter how long
you serve that you would retain enough of a moral compass to
have a sense of outrage about things that are outrageous.
Look, I will just conclude and say this. If the
administration had come to us with this as the plan 4 months
ago, here is what we think the solution is, we want to empower
Russia, Turkey, Assad, Iran, we want to run the risk of ISIS
reconstituting, we want to walk away from the Kurds, we want to
make other allies wonder about whether we will be loyal to
them, we want to send a mixed message about whether oil is more
important than people, if they had come to this committee and
said this is what we want to do, what do you think, the entire
committee would have laughed them out of the room. That is
where we have arrived at by an ad hoc decision without
consulting with the committee.
I mind not being consulted with. Whether you mind it or
not, whether you are so used to it that it seems like it
happens, I mind not being consulted with. I mind not having an
administration come and propose some plan for Syria and let us
ask questions and maybe make suggestions. But we are finding
out by tweet as well, and that really, really bothers me.
Mr. Chair, I return it to you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony.
You know, this is a discussion and debate that I think
sometimes gives way to caricature, gives way to two different
extremes in polls, that there are some in the political world
who seem to advocate that we should stay in Syria forever and
attempt to remake that country as a democratic utopia in our
image. There are others who seem to advocate that we should
immediately and precipitously withdraw.
I tend to think the American people agree with neither of
those polls, that neither of them are right or accurate and
make sense, and that the touchstone of our foreign policy
should be the vital national security interests of the United
States.
I think it is worth pausing to recognize that the defeat of
ISIS, taking away their so-called caliphate, is an
extraordinary national security victory for the United States
and something for which the Trump administration and the brave
men and women in our armed services deserve enormous credit for
winning that victory.
I also agree with the President's ultimate objective of
bringing our soldiers home. I think the American people have a
limited time and patience for our sons and daughters being in
harm's way.
That being said, I think the way this decision was executed
was precipitous and risked very serious negative consequences.
The two that are most problematic in terms of how this decision
was executed is, number one, I am concerned there is a
substantial possibility of ISIS returning. There are right now
some 15,000 ISIS fighters who remain in Iraq and Syria, and
pulling out without an effective counterterrorism strategy,
presence, and platform to combat those fighters risks those
fighters ultimately attacking United States citizens and
endangering our national security.
Secondly, I think the way we announced the withdrawal
risked abandoning the Kurds to military onslaught and
potentially even the threat of a genocide. I think the Kurds
have a long history of standing with America against our
enemies, of risking their lives to stand with America against
our enemies, and were the United States to sit back while
Turkey attempted to slaughter the Kurds, I think that would be
nothing short of disgraceful.
So given that, Ambassador Jeffrey, I want to ask initially
do we know right now, since this announcement was made, how
many ISIS fighters have been released or are at jeopardy of
being released.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Again, a relatively small number
appeared to have escaped of actual detainees as opposed to
people that we worry about who are internally displaced
persons, mainly adult females that were married to ISIS
fighters. So the number is relatively small. We are always
worried----
Senator Cruz. Can you quantify relatively small?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I would say in the dozens at this
point. I mean, there are various accounts out there, but there
is a lot of propaganda both from the Turkish side and from the
other side.
Senator Cruz. Dozens of ISIS fighters?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Dozens of ISIS fighters. I can think of
one incident where five supposedly fled, and there have been a
couple of other rumors that we are looking into. The problem is
that under these circumstances, we do not have the same eyes on
that we normally did.
But I want to be clear. All ISIS detainees are in jeopardy
if things go south in northeast Syria of somehow escaping or
overwhelming their guards. That is one of the key priorities--
--
Senator Cruz. How many ISIS are we talking about?
Ambassador Jeffrey. About 10,000.
Senator Cruz. About 10,000.
Let me ask you about the Kurds. Do we know how many Kurds
have been killed since Turkey began the onslaught?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I think there have been hundreds of
casualties, but we do not have direct numbers because
communications are not all that great between the people in the
field and----
Senator Cruz. By casualties, do you mean injuries or deaths
or----
Ambassador Jeffrey. I would put it as killed and wounded.
Senator Cruz. Killed and wounded.
Let me ask what happens--as I understand it, the ceasefire
expires in 9 minutes under the terms of it. What happens in 9
minutes?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It expired 2 hours ago. What happens
under the agreement is, first of all, we cannot call it a
ceasefire for Turkish sensitivities vis-a-vis the other
partner, which is not a state but a sub-state organization and
in their eyes a terrorist one. So we call it a pause. And at
the end of that pause, if both sides, the Turks and the YPG
agree that everything that was agreed has been accomplished,
then the pause goes into a halt of Turkish forces. And then we
then lift our sanctions that we levied when the Turks went in 2
weeks ago. So that is our plan.
Senator Cruz. So, Ambassador, when this decision was
announced, I was traveling in Asia and was in Japan and Taiwan
and India and Hong Kong. And repeatedly, traveling amongst our
allies, I faced the question. I faced the question in Taiwan. I
faced the question in India that if America will not stand with
the Kurds, that if we will not keep our word to the Kurds, why
should we, other friends and allies, trust that America will
stand with us. How should we answer those friends and allies?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I have heard that too, Senator, and
everybody around me has.
I would put it this way, and it gets back to the
consultations. I was consulted by President Trump on what to do
after this happened, and I was one of the people who put
together the plan, supported fully by President Trump, to
impose these very harsh sanctions on Turkey immediately;
secondly, when you talk about a green light, to green-light the
action by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to
impose even stronger sanctions.
Senator Cruz. Let me ask a final question just because my
time has expired. What confidence can we have that America will
not abandon the Kurds who have stood with us repeatedly at
great peril to themselves?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We have used dramatic diplomatic,
political, and economic tools, which are normally the right
tools short of war, to reverse this decision, and at this
point, as we look at the ceasefire, I think we have done a
pretty good job in bringing this attack to a halt.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Senator Rubio [presiding]. Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Palmer, I want to raise the question of nuclear
weapons with you in the context of Turkey. We now know from
public statements according to the President that there are 50
nuclear weapons in Turkey at the Incirlik Air Base that are
American. They are part of the NATO defense.
On September 4th, President Erdogan said that he cannot
accept Turkey's lack of nuclear weapons. So my question to you,
given this profound ambition which he stated, did Vice
President Pence raise that issue with Erdogan in his
conversations with him just last Thursday?
Mr. Palmer. I have no information to that effect, Senator,
in terms of the specifics of the Vice President's conversations
with President Erdogan. We have, of course, seen President
Erdogan's statements with respect to nuclear weapons.
I would underscore that Turkey is a party to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has a comprehensive safeguards
agreement in force with the IAEA. It has accepted an obligation
never to acquire nuclear weapons and to apply the IAEA
safeguards to all peaceful nuclear activities.
Senator Markey. Given his conduct over the last 2 weeks, I
think that we should consider that all of those documents are
no longer relevant in terms of how he will be operating.
Have any top level U.S. officials had conversations with
Turkish Government officials since he made that statement about
his ambition now to procure nuclear weapons?
Mr. Palmer. I know of no such conversations at the highest
levels, Senator, but I would underscore that neither have we
seen activity that would be consistent with those aspirations.
This is a political position.
Senator Markey. So you are an expert in this region. Do you
think that the United States negotiating with Saudi Arabia on a
nuclear program for Saudi Arabia could have any impact upon
Turkish ambitions to also be able to obtain the nuclear
materials which are needed for a nuclear weapon, given the fact
that the Saudi prince said that they may develop nuclear
weapons? Do you think that that is a factor in what is going on
at this particular time in Turkey?
Mr. Palmer. I do not want to try and read into the
motivation of the President of Turkey, but certainly Turkish
authorities pay considerable and very close attention to
developments in their region, yes.
Senator Markey. I would think so, and I think that would
give us an additional reason why we have to be very careful
about any enrichment capacity which we would allow the Saudis
to be able to possess on their own territory because that
would, without question, trigger in Erdogan a demand that he be
given equal privilege to do so.
And from my perspective, I think that he is already
emboldened dramatically--Erdogan--in this direction. He
capitulated to Turkey only weeks after Erdogan had made his
nuclear goal public. And we just walked away from the defense
of the border in Syria. He failed to apply mandatory sanctions
for Turkey's purchase of a Russian air defense system. He
openly undercut our other nonproliferation sanctions stating
publicly that as President he wants his own Treasury Secretary
to let North Korea sanction evaders off the hook.
So all of this is pointing in a very bad and dangerous
direction. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are in a deadly escalation
from my perspective, and I think the President is setting the
stage for a very bad, even bigger problem coming down the line
in a very short period of time.
And if I may just turn to the 50 nuclear weapons that we
now have stored inside of Turkey, I think it is pretty clear
that if we were making a NATO deployment decision today, that
we probably would not be putting 50 of our weapons in Turkey.
Have there been conversations with the State Department,
Department of Energy about a removal of those weapons from
Turkey?
Mr. Palmer. Respectfully, Senator, I am not in a position
to talk about nuclear force posture at this time.
Senator Markey. You are not able to do so.
Mr. Palmer. I am not able to do so. That is probably a
question that would be most appropriately directed to the
Department of Defense.
Senator Markey. Okay. I appreciate that.
Ambassador Jeffrey, I thank you for your service. And I
think in each instance where you are not consulted but asked
after the fact how do you handle the situation that has been
created throughout your career without having consulted you,
that you come in and do a very good job after the fact. I just
wish that with each administration that they had listened to
your advice at the beginning because you should always try to
start out where you are going to be forced to wind up anyway.
And that is why we have career diplomats, just to explain to
administrations the messes that they are creating. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. I would like to echo what Senator Markey
said about my admiration for you. We have to play the ball as
it lies in golf and foreign policy.
So, Ambassador Jeffrey, do you believe that the threat of
congressional sanctions have helped the negotiations with
Turkey?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I saw the effect on the Turkish
negotiating team. The sanctions legislation that you had co-
authored landed on the table.
Senator Graham. Well, I just want to echo to Turkey, in
case you are watching this, I would like a good relationship
with your country, but we cannot have it this way.
So can we turn this around, Ambassador Jeffrey?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We believe we are on a path to turning
it around.
Senator Graham. I hope so and I think so. Turning it around
would include a resolution between Turkey and the Kurds that is
sustainable. Do you agree with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Over the longer term, that would be a
necessary--and again, it is not with the Kurds. It is with this
element of the Kurdish population.
Senator Graham. The YPG.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Right.
Senator Graham. So the way I envisioned this is that
Turkey's legitimate security concerns about YPG armed elements
have to be addressed. We have to have a demilitarized zone. Do
you agree with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. We think that the way we addressed it
in August was actually a very good way----
Senator Graham. What happened here in August, we had a
plan. We get it. The YPG heavily armed forces along the Turkish
border is a non-starter for Turkey. I get that. I have gotten
that for years. But I also told our friends in Turkey that the
YPG, along with others, were there to help us with ISIS. We
cannot abandon these people, and we are not going to allow
ethnic cleansing in the name of a buffer zone. Do you think
agree with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. So the goal is to have an international
force that we all trust--does that make sense--to police this
safe zone.
Ambassador Jeffrey. In theory, yes. The problem is finding
an international force that we can all trust.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, to the international community,
get off your ass and help us. We have been doing a lot. You
have been doing a lot with us, but help us. You know, I do not
like what President Trump did, but it has been frustrating for
months to try to get hundreds of troops, not thousands to take
a little pressure off us and end this fight between Turkey and
the YPG.
So, number two, do you agree to put this back together we
have to continue the operations against ISIS with the Kurds?
Ambassador Jeffrey. With the SDF, absolutely.
Senator Graham. If we do not continue to partner on the
ground in Syria with the SDF forces, ISIS is for sure coming
back.
Ambassador Jeffrey. I would say it will be easier if we are
on the ground. One way or the other, we have to partner with
them.
Senator Graham. Okay. Highly unlikely that without ground
components--put it this way. Ground components working with SDF
has worked in the past. Do you agree with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. It would be a high risk to abandon that
strategy?
Ambassador Jeffrey. If that is your only goal, it is better
to have some American or other----
Senator Graham. We need to control the area. Do you agree
with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I do.
Senator Graham. Do you agree that we should not allow the
southern oilfields in Syria to be taken over by the Iranians?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I agree that it is very important to
have a presence, be that American or allied in that area to
ensure stability and security as a prerequisite for our other
goals in Syria.
Senator Graham. Do you agree it is important strategically
for the United States to maintain the al-Tanf base so that Iran
cannot flow weapons into Lebanon through Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. For many reasons----
Senator Graham. That is important for Israel. Right?
Ambassador Jeffrey. It is important for all of our partners
and allies, including Israel.
Senator Graham. Let us go over it from the top. What we
need to turn this around is to have a buffer zone between
Turkey and the Kurds policed by people we all trust. Right?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That would be one solution that I would
support.
Senator Graham. We want to continue a successful
partnership to make sure that ISIS does not come back. We have
had a successful partnership with the SDF regarding ISIS thus
far. Do you agree with that?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. So how do you turn this around? You make
adjustments. So I am asking the administration to adjust. I
understand what you are trying to accomplish to reduce our
footprint, but I do believe you are on the right path. We are
going to continue to support your efforts.
What Senator Cruz said is important. If we leave the Kurds
behind, in their mind and the eyes of the world, good luck
having anybody help us in future to fight ISIS. This is the
most important decision the President will make anytime soon. I
stand ready to help him. I think we are on the right track, but
I will not legitimize a solution that is not real. We are
playing with people's lives. So we have to have a real
solution.
Thank you both for what you have done.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Mr. Ambassador, what forces did we rely
for liberating Raqqa?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That was SDF forces with, again,
advice, assist, and accompany by U.S. special forces and some
other----
Senator Merkley. The Kurds did the heavy fighting there in
a very difficult assault. They lost a lot of people. And their
vision for why they were fighting--was it because they hoped to
have an autonomous area in this northern Syrian triangle that
might essentially give them some sense of ability to govern
themselves?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Their main motive I believe was to
destroy ISIS because they had almost been destroyed by ISIS
themselves back in 2014. I have talked to many of their
political cadre who have ideas of an autonomous area in
northeast Syria, but that is part of the political process that
we are working on on another channel.
Senator Merkley. There was, to be fair, a widely circulated
vision of Rojava, or however it is pronounced--it is difficult
I think for English speakers--which would be that self-governed
autonomous area with a whole philosophy of democratic control.
I mean, they were fighting for a vision of the future.
I know you just had a discussion with Senator Graham about
reversing this decision. Right now, that whole triangle that is
northeast of the Euphrates River what would on a map very
recently have been yellow for Kurdish control is now
essentially occupied by Syrian governmental forces, Russians,
and Turks. And Iraqis are fleeing into--not Iraqis--excuse me,
but the Kurds who were in that triangle are fleeing to the
east. The vision of Rojava of an autonomous zone of self-
government--it is crushed. Is that not a fair thing to say?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I think it is too early to judge what
the political outcome of what is happening in northeast or
frankly anyplace else, what is happening in the northwest in
Idlib----
Senator Merkley. It is possible to observe many pictures
that have been coming over of the advancing Russians, Syrian
Government forces, and Turkish forces. So the facts on the
ground have changed dramatically. I do not see how this
decision gets reversed, how you restore, if you will, the
Kurdish triangle northeast of the Euphrates River.
Do you think that that is a real potential outcome or that
is just a conversation to say maybe somehow everything is not
lost in terms of what was?
Ambassador Jeffrey. One, I think that the Kurdish
population is an important population in Syria and that it does
have a future. Two, you are right----
Senator Merkley. As an autonomously self-governed area?
Ambassador Jeffrey. That is one possibility. That is the
possibility we see next door in Iraq.
But, two, I want to emphasize that this vision, which is
the vision of our partners, was never the American vision.
Again, I cite General Tony Thomas who said that in his
discussions with them in the last administration--and that has
been consistent in both administrations by everybody--we did
not get involved in what their political future would be other
than we were trying to find through the U.N. resolution that
was relevant here, 2254, a political solution where they would
have a role like all other Syrian citizens. We did not have a
special----
Senator Merkley. Let us move on because I think there was a
lot of implicit support for supporting the Kurds and the vision
that were carrying. So I think you overstate your case on that.
Now, you said that you were not consulted by the President
in terms of the impacts of a precipitous withdrawal, not on
ISIS prisoners, not on the impact on Kurdish civilians, not on
the impact of Kurdish fighters, not on the impact of the Syrian
Government coming into the space, not on the impact of Russian
influence, not on the impact on other allies. You were not
consulted, but you said you felt you were well represented
through Pompeo. Are you saying in the 2 or 3 days before Trump
made this decision or in the week before that, that you fully
briefed Pompeo on all these implications of a precipitous
withdrawal?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Sir, we briefed the Secretary and
through the Secretary on the implications of that after the
December 2018 decision. In fact, that led to a partial reversal
of that withdrawal decision with the President's commitment to
a residual force in northeast Syria that he took in February.
So, yes, there was an iteration----
Senator Merkley. So that was December, but we are not in
December. We are talking about that week before the President
made this decision. Whether the President did not turn to you,
did he turn to Pompeo and Pompeo turned to you and said you are
the expert, how do things stand now? Were you indirectly
briefing the President in that week preceding this decision on
October 6th to green-light the Turkish invasion?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Again, beginning when the President
took his first decision in the spring of 2018 to order a
withdrawal, which was reversed, one of the most active
discussions inside this administration which I was involved
in----
Senator Merkley. I am going to be out of time. I am asking
you about that week before, did the President turn to Pompeo,
got fully briefed, you fully briefed Pompeo? You were
indirectly represented at that time, not what you did months
before. The President, we probably collectively understand,
would have forgotten whatever he was told months before about
this kind of situation. So was Pompeo as caught off guard as
you were is may be another way to put it?
Ambassador Jeffrey. You would have to ask him, Senator.
Senator Merkley. But he did not call you up during that
period and say the President is on the verge of making this
decision. I would like to get an update and make sure I
represent the impacts.
Ambassador Jeffrey. No, but in innumerable discussions with
the President, I know that Secretary Pompeo had deployed all of
these concerns about the future of the de-ISIS campaign,
detainees, and all of that. This was, again, something that was
discussed all of the time within this administration at the
highest levels.
Senator Merkley. If we had more time--and I am out of
time--the thing I would find interesting is if you had been
called--so I will state the question, but I am afraid I will
have to defer to the committee for their--if you had been
called and said the President is considering this, he wants you
to come brief him, he wants to get our troops out of Syria, do
you feel you could have laid out a plan that did not result in
this advancement of the interests of Iran and Syria and Russia
and ISIS that would have gotten our troops out of Syria?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I would have tried.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Again, I want to thank you both for being here, the
Ambassador in particular. You have gotten a lot of the
questions. I think you have done an admirable job of outlining
your thoughts on it and the way forward.
I do want to say you have expressed a level of--I do not
even want to call it optimism, but hope that some of this is
still salvageable. And I am puzzled by that only because the--I
mean, the situation to understand it at its best, the Turks are
pushing down into Syria with the goal of driving the Kurds out.
And whether they are going to wait 5 days or X number of days,
they expect them out of there. They have now cut a deal with
the Russians who have basically said we are going to help you
move the Kurds out of this area, and then we are going to
jointly patrol the area with you. So the Kurds have been pushed
into areas that they have now had to invite the Assad regime to
come up and they are aligned with them. So you basically have
almost a Turkish with the Russians and now the Kurds with the
Assad and the Russians obviously in between.
And you say we are going to continue to cooperate with the
SDF forces on these issues. How? Where are we plugging in on
this? And with who? Our troops--we have moved a thousand across
the border to Iraq. The Iraqis are saying you cannot really
stay here. You are not allowed to stay here. I am trying to
understand. You are saying we are going to plug in and work
with them on the anti-ISIS campaign. I just do not know where
we are going to plug in. Are we going to go join them down
there deployed with the Assad elements?
And the other question that I have is you answered Senator
Graham by saying that the ideal outcome would be a buffer zone
controlled by elements that we trust. Well, that buffer zone is
now patrolled by the Russians, which I do not think we should
trust, and by the Turks who we should not trust because they
have already broken a deal to jointly patrol the buffer zone.
They had a good deal that was in place. Everybody was
complying, and they said it was not enough for them. So we do
not have that. How do we reverse the buffer zone given the
facts on the ground now? And more importantly, where do we plug
in?
Ambassador Jeffrey. This is why one has to be hopeful in
this complex situation. But let me sketch out where we are
tonight.
One, we have American forces on the ground with the
leadership of the SDF. We have American diplomats on the ground
in the same room with these people continuing to do the job we
have been doing since 2014. And over much of the northeast, the
SDF, with our support, with our air cover, is still in
operation.
Two, the Turkish offensive has been halted since the 17th.
It has taken a swath of territory that is fairly small. The YPG
voluntarily withdrew from that area and is now out of that
area, but by and large, most of its forces are still intact. I
underline ``still intact.''
There is an agreement that I have been reading all
afternoon between the Turks and the Russians, and having done
two agreements, one of which did not work with the Turks, in
the last 2 months, I have a fairly good layman's acquaintance
with these kind of things. And it is full of holes. All I know
is it will stop the Turks from moving forward. Whether the
Russians will ever live up to their commitment, which is very
vague, to be feasible methods to get the YPG out of their
areas, I do not know. We did get the YPG out. They volunteered
to as a condition of stopping the offensive.
So right now, the situation is frozen. The YPG as a
military force down on the Euphrates against ISIS or even up in
the north is still largely intact. We are there. We are
reviewing our options on what we are going to do in terms of a
withdrawal right now.
Senator Rubio. I am confused by that answer. My
understanding from what has been reported in the press is that
we have withdrawn or are in the process of withdrawing all of
our military presence in that part of Syria. So you are saying
here today that as of this moment tonight, there are areas in
Syria controlled by the YPG in which U.S. diplomats and
military forces are embedded alongside them, and these are
areas that the Turks do not consider part of their agreement,
and that are not collocated with the Assad regime.
Ambassador Jeffrey. You have described at least half of
northeast Syria tonight, if not more.
Senator Rubio. And that is a situation that is sustainable
given the President's order that we remove the remaining
military elements?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Sustainable is something that I do not
think I would commit to at this point. It is our job to figure
out how to make it sustainable with military, economic, and
diplomatic----
Senator Rubio. The notion that there would be any elements
left behind of any military force, in combination with a U.S.
diplomatic presence, runs contrary to what we have been led to
believe is what is ongoing here from the administration, that
everybody is getting out. Right?
Ambassador Jeffrey. The order to the U.S. military was to
withdraw all ground forces from northeast Syria, not from al-
Tanf. And I am not sure what the decision is on air over that
area. But again, we are reviewing how we are going to continue
to maintain a relationship with the SDF, how we are going to
continue to maintain the fight against ISIS along the
Euphrates, and how we are going to contribute in some way to
the stability of that region that has just been torn asunder by
the Turks going in with the tools available to us. And we have
not completed that review yet, but it is ongoing.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for being here. I had a lot of
questions and you have answered many. I have a couple things. I
want to dive a little bit deeper.
A question to both of you. The future of our relationship
with Turkey, a longtime NATO ally, I believe is a serious
national security challenge right now. You read lots about it.
It has been called a troubled marriage. There are lots of
different problems with Turkey's relationship with not just the
U.S. but all of NATO. Bilateral relations between the U.S. and
Turkey have reached a low point in my opinion. Turkey's
purchase of the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system
really I think puts the advanced capabilities of the NATO
alliance at risk. Turkey's invasion in Syria and assault on our
partners in the region have greatly impacted our national
security interests.
What are the best tools or the best leverage for us, the
United States, to use to demonstrate our concern over Turkey's
actions and ensure that there is a change in their behavior?
Mr. Palmer. Thank you for that question, Senator.
And I agree with just about everything that you have said,
about how difficult and complex and challenged the U.S.-Turkey
relationship is. This is an important relationship for the
United States, but it is far from an easy relationship.
Just to zero in on one of the particular issues that you
highlighted, Turkey's decision to proceed with acquiring the S-
400 missile system from Russia. This is something that we
opposed consistently, firmly at the highest levels. Turkey
proceeded with that acquisition over our objections and paid a
price for that. In particular, they paid a price by being
removed from the F-35 program. That includes both the delivery
of the physical aircraft and participation in the industrial
program, which is being unwound. So there are immediate costs
and consequences for Turkey of that decision.
The additional issue of possible cuts of sanctions is under
review even as we speak. That is an ongoing deliberative
process.
There is a high level dialog that we have with Turkey about
the relationship that covers a waterfront of issues, and that
includes the relationship with Russia and Turkey's decision to
move ahead with the S-400. It includes Turkey's neighborhood,
Iran. It includes drilling off the coast of Cyprus, which is
something that Turkey has engaged in against the advice of the
United States, something that we feel contributes to further
instability in the region. It includes a range of issues where
the United States and Turkey do not see eye to eye. It also
includes the trajectory of Turkish democracy, which is of
concern to the United States, the media environment, rule of
law. We remind the Turks on a regular basis that NATO is an
alliance not just of interests but of values, and that in
particular includes democratic values.
So this is a difficult relationship but it is an important
one, and we are going to have to work through this problem set
and hopefully come out in a better place.
Ambassador Jeffrey. I have lived in Turkey for 9 years and
have worked with it for 40 years. I am personally furious at
this military move particularly after we had done an agreement
with them that was a good agreement that we were living up to
by and large in August.
But I will say this. Turkey is not Iran. It is not by its
nature, in the terms of its population and its public
philosophy, an expansionist country. It is also in many
respects a country with shared values. It currently has a
government that--Mr. Palmer can go into in far more detail than
I because I do not follow it that closely--is violating many of
those values. But it is still a democratic system in a way
that, for example, Iran is not, as we saw in the Istanbul
reelection recently. And it is a country that has done a great
deal in support of our objectives in NATO, including under
President and previously Prime Minister Erdogan, including
helping us react to the Georgia invasion in 2008. NATO radar
that protects all of NATO against Iranian missiles, very
critical. Actions in Afghanistan, and I could go on and on. So
it is a mixed bag. And a lot of it is right now with this
government we have some very serious problems but not as many
with the state as a whole.
Senator Barrasso. Let me ask you one other question. The
Syrian Democratic Forces have been securing about 10,000 ISIS
detainees across about 30 different detention facilities in
Syria with Turkey's invasion of northern Syria greatly
destabilizing the area where these facilities are located.
There have been press reports that the Turkey-backed forces,
the proxy forces are deliberately releasing ISIS detainees from
prisons in northeastern Syria. Can you talk a little bit about
it, the accuracy of what some of the press is reporting?
Ambassador Jeffrey. I have seen nothing to confirm that. It
would be highly unlikely. Why would Turkey do that? It has had
more ISIS attacks on its soil than any other country other than
obviously Iraq and Syria.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I am the longest serving member of the committee
on either side of the aisle at this point in time, and that has
given me the benefit of listening to my colleagues on many
issues over a period of time. And I must say that if what this
administration decided was decided by the Obama Administration,
the outrage would be deafening.
And you know, Ambassador Jeffrey, I have the greatest
respect for you. But one can try to put lipstick on a pig, but
it is still a pig. One can ultimately call capitulation a
victory, but it is still capitulation. And one can ultimately
have a retreat and say it is strategic, but it is still a
retreat. And that is I feel is exactly what has happened here.
You made a statement earlier about being a diplomat not a
military person, and I respect that. But in fact, it is
military force that has gotten both Russia and Turkey exactly
what they want. Turkey went ahead and through its actions and
by the agreement that I have been given, the Sochi agreement,
and the communique that was issued basically got everything
they want. They do not have to fire a single shot.
So here we are in August, as you have aptly said. We made
an agreement. We were living up to it. That agreement, as I
understand, for security purposes was working well. They
violated it after we told the Syrian Democratic Forces to stand
down from their defenses. So they got them to stand down on
their defenses.
Then we had an agreement, which was working perfectly well.
They violated that agreement by now coming in and going ahead
and using military force, military force that at the end of the
day--you know, I am concerned about the press reports that has
bombs landing near our troops even though they knew their
location, that has troop advancement against elements of where
our troops were.
So at the end of the day, Turkey gets a 20-mile wide swath
through a good part of what was ancestral homes of Kurds in
Syria, and they get the sanctions lifted from them, not that I
think the sanctions that were placed were the greatest ones
because at the end of the day, the stock market went up after
the sanctions were announced. So they got everything.
So I do not understand how, at the end of the day, this is
in any interests of the United States. I have never said that
we were there to defend the Kurds, but we were there to defeat
ISIS. And we are by far in a worse position.
Would it not be fair to say--in your testimony, which I
actually think your written testimony is more revealing than
even the questions we have had back and forth, you talk about
the U.S. strategic objective and national security interests in
Syria remain being the enduring defeat of ISIS, al Qaeda, and
their affiliates, the reduction and expulsion of Iranian malign
influence, and the resolution of the Syrian civil war on terms
favorable to the United States and our allies and in line with
U.N. Security Council resolution 2254.
Is it not fair to say that those strategic objectives and
national security interests have been made far more difficult
as a result of the decisions and where we are at today?
Ambassador Jeffrey. Once again, that is the reason why we
opposed Turkey coming in. We said if you come in, you are going
to, as I said, scramble the entire security system in the
northeast. That is going to have a big impact on----
Senator Menendez. But they did what they wanted. We
retreated. We retreated. We did. They did what they wanted, and
we retreated.
I think your statement tells it all on--I guess it is about
page 4 or 5 of your statement. You say Turkey launched this
operation despite our objections, undermining the de-ISIS
campaign, risking, endangering, and displacing civilians,
destroying critical civilian infrastructure and threatening the
security of the area. Turkey's military actions have
precipitated a humanitarian crisis and set conditions for
possible war crimes.
Well, all of that does not inure to helping our strategic
objectives as outlined in your testimony. I think that is a
fair statement.
Ambassador Jeffrey. Absolutely. There is no doubt that
Turkey's coming in has threatened all three of our objectives
in Syria.
Senator Menendez. So at the end of the day, I question
whether or not--we have been talking about Turkey--and you
know, Mr. Assistant Secretary, you said in response to
questions by Senator Markey that it is an important
relationship for the United States. My question is does Turkey
see the United States as an important relationship for it
because if it does, it just keeps spiting its nose and doing
everything contrary to what a good relationship with us would
mean.
One final set of questions. You are familiar, Mr.
Secretary, with the CAATSA legislation that passed the Senate
98 to 2 and signed into law by President Trump in August 2017?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, Senator.
Senator Menendez. And does CAATSA have a mandatory
provision sanctioning any significant transaction with the
Russian military?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, Senator, it does.
Senator Menendez. Did Turkey take the S-400 system for
delivery this summer?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. Is there any realistic scenario in which
the purchase of an S-400 is not a significant transaction under
the law?
Mr. Palmer. Senator, that issue is currently under review
as part of a deliberative process. I cannot get ahead of any
decision by the Secretary of State with respect to sanctions
under CAATSA.
Senator Menendez. I did not ask whether the Secretary of
State said he was going to sanction Turkey under CAATSA. I
asked whether or not the purchase worldwide of an S-400 is not
a significant transaction.
Mr. Palmer. Senator, that determination has not been made
as a matter of law.
Senator Menendez. Wow. What a message we are sending in the
world. That message undermines the actions of the Congress of
the United States, which in an overwhelming bipartisan vote,
sent to the President legislation to push back on Russia, 98 to
2. If you start opening that door, you will have undermined the
very essence of what the law has meant and you will be
undermining the congressional intent because I am one of the
authors of it. I understand what I meant and what others who
joined with me to ultimately pass it meant.
It is not a question of whether that is a significant
transaction. That is a significant transaction. If the purchase
the S-400 is not a significant military transaction from a
country purchasing it from Russia, then nothing is. Then
nothing is. And I simply cannot understand that answer.
And at some point, you are all going to have to come up
with an answer, including if it is the State Department's or
the administration's legal view that such a transaction is not
a significant transaction under the law, we need to hear it.
The Congress of the United States needs to hear it, but you
cannot hide under the guise that you are all--you have been
thinking about this for some time. This is not the first time
this question has been raised. You need to give us an answer,
and we need to force an answer if you fail to give it to us
because, at the end of the day, we need to send a global
message about what is a significant transaction. And if the
purchase of the S-400 is not a significant transaction, then I
do not know what Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee; Senator Reed, the ranking member; Senator
Risch; and myself, who all signed on to a public op-ed to try
to get Turkey to go in a different direction--we made it very
clear that all of our views on a bipartisan basis, that that is
a significant transaction and is sanctionable under CAATSA. So
if it is the administrations' view that it is different, we
need to know.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Senator.
The Secretary has made clear that he is committed to
implementing CAATSA. The CAATSA deliberations are multifaceted.
They are complex, conducted on a case-by-case basis. The
administration, of course, always considers the importance of
maintaining CAATSA's credibility as a deterrent to Russian arms
sales around the world. During the sanctions deliberations,
those deliberations are, as I have noted, ongoing.
Senator Menendez. And that is incredible. If you want to
maintain the credibility of CAATSA, then you have got to find
that the S-400 is a significant transaction. If you do not,
then you have neutered the law, and the Congress should act
appropriately therefore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Thank you to both of our witnesses for testifying today. We
sincerely appreciate your patience with us. It has been long
suffering, but we do appreciate it.
For the benefit of the members, the record will remain open
until Thursday evening for written questions for the record.
And if the witnesses would, as quickly as possible, respond to
those questions, they will be made part of the record.
With that, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]