State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf had a spirited back-and-forth with Associated Press reporter Matt Lee Wednesday where she failed to get specific on the number of chemical weapons possessed by the Assad regime and how the U.S. would handle the situation if they felt the Syrian president was in "noncompliance."
Addressing how the U.S. would proceed if Syria did not comply with giving up an unspecified percentage of the amount of weapons the U.S. thought Assad may have, she did not give a straight answer to how the U.S. would establish whether Assad gave a full accounting of his weapons.
"I'm not going to put a value judgment on it," she said. "What I am going to say, policy-speaking, is that if they are determined to be in noncompliance because they don't submit a full accounting, we will determine our next steps under the framework agreement and how we think it's best to move forward."
Harf made it clear the U.S. did not know how many chemical weapons the Assad regime had, saying they were going along with the Russians, who are allied with Assad, on the amount.
"We have an assessment of how big we believe the stockpile is," Harf said. "We agreed with the Russians on the size of it ... Again, this is an assessment. We will keep refining it as we go forward."
Full exchange:
Q: Marie, I don't understand. Your -- the question -- the answer that you gave to James a few seconds ago, you said: I don't want to say what's going to be acceptable but unacceptable. But surely an --
HARF: He asked about percentages. Would 50 percent be unacceptable but 2 percent be acceptable? I'm not going to say what percentage won't be acceptable.
Q: Well, but surely --
HARF: If they don't submit a full accounting, that would mean they're in noncompliance.
Q: Yeah, but --
HARF: But what that --
Q: -- surely --
Q: How would you know whether it's a full accounting?
Q: -- but surely anything less than 100 percent would be unacceptable, right?
HARF: It would -- it would -- it would mean they were not in compliance, correct.
Q: So that would not be acceptable.
HARF: So -- well, I don't want to use the terms acceptable or unacceptable. We will look at what they --
Q: Well, why not, when it's the truth?
HARF: Because I'm going to use my words and not yours. What we're going to -- what we're --
Q: Well, but you were the ones -- sorry. Maybe I'm in some alternative universe.
HARF: Can I -- can I -- let me finish this and then we'll go on to the next question.
Q: You were the one -- you were the one who used the words acceptable and unacceptable, right?
HARF: He -- I was answering his question about percentages.
Q: I know, but you used the words.
MS. HARF: What we're saying is we're going to take a look at what the Syrian regime comes to us with. I'm not going to talk about if 1 percent is less bad than 50 percent off, right? I'm just not going to --
Q: No, but surely it doesn't matter because any --
HARF: Well, but I was answering his question.
Q: I know, but I'm trying to make sure that -- if they do not submit a full and complete accounting that would be unacceptable.
HARF: They would be in noncompliance.
Q: They would be in -- I mean, I don't -- there's no difference between noncompliance and unacceptable.
HARF: You can use whatever words you want. I'm going to use whatever words I want.
Q: Can I -- can I --
HARF: Wait, can I finish this, because I think this is important.
Q: Sorry.
HARF: It's ok. They would be in noncompliance. What I would say --
Q: Yeah, which is unacceptable.
HARF: -- is we will -- I don't --
Q: So noncompliance can somehow be acceptable to you? I don't get it.
HARF: I'm not going to put a value judgment on it, Matt. What I am going to say, policy-speaking, is that if they are determined to be in noncompliance because they don't submit a full accounting, we will determine our next steps under the framework agreement and how we think it's best to move forward.
Q: How will you know, do you have a hundred-percent accounting of what you think --
HARF: We have an assessment of how big we believe the stockpile is. We agreed with the Russians on the size of it. We have a listing of where we believe the sites are -- the various parts of the CW program, the precursor agents, the stockpiles, all of those issues. So again, this is an assessment. We will keep refining it as we go forward, but that's, again, why I think I would emphasize the importance of inspectors on the ground, to verify our assessment and to indeed verify what the Syrians tell us.