State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf appeared to take some credit on behalf of John Kerry for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons receiving the Nobel Peace Prize Friday.
Kerry's apparently off-the-cuff remarks in September about Syria potentially avoiding a U.S. strike by turning over its chemical weapons to the international community turned out to be the impetus to an eventual solution, and the White House claimed it was all part of a larger plan. Russia, a strong ally of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, brokered the deal under which Syria would allow its entire stockpile to be destroyed or removed by next year.
"It was an off-the-cuff remark based on conversations we've been having internally," Harf said. "So I think that -- you know, then other folks picked up the ball and ran with it, and we had an obligation to see where it would go, and we are where we are today."
Assad was widely suspected of using chemical weapons on his own people in late August, sparking international outrage and drawing criticism of whether President Obama's red line had any meaning as he tried to make the case for a military strike.
Harf said the situation now with Syria was unimaginable a month ago.
"We've said that, what, three or four weeks ago no one could have even imagined that we would be at this place today where the Syrian regime finally admitted they had chemical weapons, where they acceded to the CWC, where the OPCW and the U.N. have folks on the ground in Syria starting to destroy some of the stockpile, absolutely," she said.
Full transcript:
Q: Marie, does Secretary Kerry -- I know you read the statement, but in terms of the OPCW getting this award, certainly there's -- the Nobel Peace Prize -- certainly there's a lot more attention on them because of this mission in Syria --
HARF: Absolutely.
Q: -- and it all kind of came about after the secretary kind of proposed this -- proposed this idea in the first place. So I'm wondering if he feels any particular pride or anything in -- or responsibility in terms of them getting the award?
HARF: No, not at all. I think you saw his statement this morning. I mean, look, he put on the table an idea. It's one we've been talking about and thinking about internally. But after that, we -- there was a lot of hard work required from, quite frankly, a lot of different parties, and where we are today is that the Syrian regime is operating under, has responsibilities under both the U.N. Security Council resolution and an OPCW resolution, which also passed with unanimous consent. They're going to be the ones overseeing the implementation on the ground.
So the way we get from A to B, from the secretary putting on the table an idea and B being the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program is there's a lot of implementation that still has to happen. This is going to be very dangerous. It's going to be very difficult. It's going to take some time. We're doing it as quickly as possible. But that's -- the work the OPCW is doing is really unprecedented in any destruction effort, and it is what's responsible for them getting this award today. They're taking steps they've never had to take before because the situation is so dire. And the member states of the Executive Council unanimously consenting to the resolution and then the OPCW technical experts on the ground -- they're doing the hard work out there on the front lines right now as we speak.
Q: It's true, but a lot of events have happened as a result of these kind of off-the-cuff remarks of the secretary's, wouldn't you say?
HARF: Absolutely. Well, absolutely. We've said that, what, three or four weeks ago no one could have even imagined that we would be at this place today where the Syrian regime finally admitted they had chemical weapons, where they acceded to the CWC, where the OPCW and the U.N. have folks on the ground in Syria starting to destroy some of the stockpile, absolutely. And there have been a lot of people involved in this, and there will be a lot of people involved in it going forward.
Q: Marie, could I just ask --
Q: Marie, do you agree with Elise's characterization that the comments were off-the-cuff?
HARF: No, I think we've talked about this sort of ad nauseam.
Q: I know.
HARF: What we've said is he was responding to a question with something we'd been sort of talking about internally, right, an idea about getting Syria to admit to and then destroy their chemical weapons, and put it on the table as a challenge, right?
I mean, he said at the time, also, look, they can hand them all over within one week. It was an off-the-cuff remark based on conversations we've been having internally. So I think that -- you know, then other folks picked up the ball and ran with it, and we had an obligation to see where it would go, and we are where we are today.