Department Press Briefing – April 17, 2024
April 17, 2024
1:11 p.m. EDT
MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. How’s everyone doing? Such a wonderful Wednesday. I don’t actually have anything off the top, Matt, so if you want to go ahead and kick us off.
QUESTION: Sure. In Capri, is the Secretary —
MR PATEL: Yeah. Do you wish you were there?
QUESTION: I do wish I was there, but I’m not.
MR PATEL: Yeah, same all of us. We can all pretend to be in Capri. We’re here at the Daily Press Briefing instead.
QUESTION: Does the Secretary, while he is there, plan to have any Mideast – other than the one group meeting with the G7 that’s about the Middle East, does he have any bilateral plans?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any additional meetings to preview or get ahead of, Matt. But a veteran like yourself, who I’m sure has been to many G7 meetings, knows that many important diplomatic conversations happen on the margins, and our G7 partners continue to be important allies and partners when it comes to a lot of our goals when it comes to the conflict in Gaza right now – namely, continuing to press for additional humanitarian aid, doing everything we can to continue to secure the release of hostages, and also, in light of the events over this past weekend, continuing to support Israel’s security and self-defense. So I suspect there will be additional conversations on those topics but I don’t have anything to preview or get ahead of.
QUESTION: Okay. And can you bring us up to speed on his – did he have any additional calls on the way?
MR PATEL: No other – no additional calls to read out, no.
QUESTION: There are not? Okay. And then lastly, what’s your latest understanding from the Israelis about what they intend or not intend to do?
MR PATEL: So look, Matt, again I don’t have any updates or anything to offer on that. Ultimately, this is a decision for Israel to make. It’s their own decision. But we continue to be engaged with Israeli officials and members of the Israeli Government. To everyone, though, we continue to emphasize the importance of avoiding further escalation, and we’re working with partners in the region and around the world to continue to create a unified diplomatic response to Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior over the course of this past weekend.
QUESTION: Okay. Then, sorry, I said that the last one was the last one, but this really is the last one. Is – you’ve seen that both David Cameron and Baerbock, the German and British foreign ministers, were in Israel ahead of the Capri meeting.
MR PATEL: Right.
QUESTION: The Secretary has no plans to follow suit?
MR PATEL: I have no travel updates to offer or preview at the moment.
Go ahead, Daphne.
QUESTION: David Cameron said it was clear Israel had made a decision to respond to the Iranian attack. Have you gotten a similar message?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the specifics on our diplomatic engagements with Israeli officials. What I can just say is that, again, these decisions are for Israel to make as a sovereign democratic country. We continue to be closely engaged with Israeli officials, but we also continue to stress the importance of further — escalation. The United States certainly isn’t interested in getting into an all-out conflict with the Iranian regime. But we’ll continue to work closely with partners and allies in the region, as you saw the Secretary do over the course of this past weekend and with the number of counterparts he spoke to about creating a unified diplomatic response to what we believe is Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior.
QUESTION: What contingency plans does the U.S. have to contain the aftermath of any attack should Israel choose to attack?
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals or speculate. What I can say, though, is that since October 7th, since the events of this past weekend, we have remained closely lashed up with partners and allies when it comes to events that unfold. This past weekend alone you all saw the call or readouts that went out, and Matt spoke to this a little bit on Monday. You saw the Secretary speak to his counterparts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt. He’s spoken to Israeli officials as well, and we’ll continue to have those high-level diplomatic engagements.
QUESTION: Okay. And I’m sorry, I’ve just got two more.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: The UN Security Council looks set to go on Friday on a Palestinian request for full UN membership. Diplomats tell us the resolution has the support of at least nine members. Does the U.S. plan to veto this?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our UN vote. Broadly, though, Daphne, you know that the United States remains committed to a two-state solution, and we believe that the only comprehensive and realistic path to that is through lasting peace and through direct negotiations between the parties. But broadly, we’ll continue to remain engaged with colleagues on the Security Council and on any resolution that may or may not come forward.
QUESTION: And then UNRWA has said that some of its staff members and other people detained by Israeli forces in Gaza were subjected to ill treatment, including severe beatings and being forced to strip naked. Have you been in touch with the Israeli Government on this? And what’s been their response if you have?
MR PATEL: So we are aware of this recent report that the UN put out highlighting some of these allegations of extensive human rights abuses. We’re deeply concerned by these reports and will continue to press and engage directly with our Israeli partners on the need for a full investigation into these allegations, and accountability for any perpetrators. But beyond that, I don’t have any specific conversations to read out. We of course are in touch with our Israeli partners all the time.
But broadly, though, we continue to call on all parties in the region, call on Israel, to do more to protect humanitarian aid workers, to improve deconfliction mechanisms, and to pursue full accountability for incidents of harm against aid workers.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Jenny.
QUESTION: Do you have any updates on those deconfliction mechanisms, this coordination response? Is that fully stood up (inaudible)?
MR PATEL: That is something our partners in the IDF can speak to. I don’t have any updates.
QUESTION: And then do you have any updates on any of their other commitments and whether the U.S. has made any assessments on whether that’s sufficient to change U.S. policy?
MR PATEL: So look, Jenny. Let me just first state broadly that we are encouraged by reports of increased assistance flowing into northern Gaza, bakeries reopening there, and other steps that we’re seeing of positive collaboration between partners and Israeli authorities that demonstrate the executions of some commitments that our partners in Israel have outlined. But – and I want to stress this – certainly we continue to believe that there is still a need for sustained, significant, multisectoral humanitarian assistance. We think it’s crucial, and more must be done. And as military operations continue, Israel needs to take all feasible steps to minimize civilian harm.
So we’ll continue to press these things, but some metrics that you asked for – we have seen openings of northern crossings and seeing the maximization of routes from Jordan. We have also seen Erez reopened on April 14th, which allowed a number of trucks entering daily. We expect some further enhancements there as well. But again, I want to stress that while these are positive steps in the right direction, more absolutely needs to be done. There is – the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and that is why we are continuing to pursue an approach when it comes to humanitarian aid that includes bolstering and supporting and continuing to push for additional land convoy movements.
You saw earlier in March us conduct a number of air drop operations. You’ve seen the Jordanians and others do similar things. And in the State of the Union, the President spoke about the maritime corridor as well. These are all things that we think need to be pursued aggressively given the dire situation, and we’ll continue to do that.
QUESTION: And any updates on Rafah?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on any conversations or anything.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Vedant, just a follow-up on your statement earlier about the – your efforts to have a unified response – diplomatic response to Iran’s attack between you and your partners and allies.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this designed to negate the need for Israel to respond militarily, or regardless of that?
MR PATEL: So Israel is going to make its own decisions and its own determinations as a sovereign country. Irregardless of what transpires in that department, we continue to believe that it is important to hold the Iranian regime accountable for what we think is reckless, malign, and destabilizing behavior. You saw National Security Advisor Sullivan speak a little bit to this yesterday, and so we’ll continue to work directly through our systems, multilaterally through forums like the G7 that Matt was alluding to, the UN, and others on ways that we will hold the Iranian regime accountable.
Go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On Thursday, April 11th, the State Department Spokesman Mr. Miller said the Biden administration fully supports the rights of the Israeli people. And for our audience, could you explain a disconnect between the Biden administration’s words and behavior, how on one hand that you can say you fully support the rights of the Israeli people, and on the other hand not fully support the rights of the Israeli people to defend themselves as they see fit? And I have a follow-up.
MR PATEL: Do you have a specific example of how we are not encouraging them to defend themselves?
QUESTION: Also specifically about not allowing them – or the issue of a counterattack against Iran. And not allowing them to easily go into Rafah to take care of Hamas, delaying this. Israel could have been into Rafah a long time ago. So the audience is really concerned about the disconnect about – that they see the Biden administration preventing Israel —
MR PATEL: Well, Doc —
QUESTION: — from going into Rafah with these operations and —
MR PATEL: — I’m going to interrupt you a little bit. I think you are in a – frankly, in a misleading way conflating two very different issues. One, in the context of Israel defending itself against attacks from Iran, we believe that they have every right to do that, and they should. And you saw the United States echo, underscore that commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense this past weekend. And that is a commitment we believe is unwavering and it is ironclad, and we will continue to feel and believe strongly in Israel’s ability to defend itself, in its ability to feel secure in its region.
But separate from that, in this conversation of Rafah, it is important again that we underline when we’re talking about Rafah, we are talking about more than a million people seeking refuge. We are talking about a region that is – continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and it continues to be an access point of safe departure for foreign nationals.
So yes, we believe very strongly that any military operation in Rafah or in the Rafah region should require significant serious planning that addresses these three major areas of concern. That continues to be something we feel strongly about.
QUESTION: Along that, our audience (inaudible) are concerned about the pressure on Israel to accept the two-state solution that you were talking about. And so what is your response to our audience that really believes that is a way of hurting Israel when many Israeli people do not support a two-state solution, the idea of sharing their land with terrorists – specifically with Gaza, with Hamas – that Hamas blew their opportunity to really have a peaceful area there and so forth?
MR PATEL: Well, I hope you’re not – I really sincerely hope you’re not making the claim that all Palestinian people are terrorists —
QUESTION: Oh, no.
MR PATEL: — because that certainly is not the case. And quite respectfully, I’m less interested in what your audience is interested in and more what we think is good policy and what we think is beneficial to peace and security in the region, and that, we have long felt continues to be a two-state solution. That has been our dire belief prior to the events of October 7th, and it will continue to be so. We think that that is the only credible path forward that assures equal measures of peace and security for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: Well, along with that, what do you say to those people that feel pressured to accept that?
MR PATEL: I’m going to move around. You’ve gotten three questions already. Will, you’ve your hand up. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry, (inaudible). Do you have any update on the investigation into what Israel actually hit in Damascus on April 1st?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on the status of that facility or anything like that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So you support a two-state solution. But it seems you’re also oppose Palestine’s membership at the UN? Do you think this is contradictory?
MR PATEL: I don’t think these things are contradictory at all. Again, as it relates to the United Nations, I’m not going to preview our vote. And as I said, we’re continuing to engage with our partners on the Security Council. We remain unwaveringly committed to a two-state solution and continue to feel that the only path forward is a comprehensive lasting peace, is going to be through direct negotiations between the parties. And that continues to be what we think is the best path forward.
QUESTION: And when you say a two-state solution, is it like a – is it a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital? What is your understanding of the two-state solution?
MR PATEL: So I don’t have a change in definition of how we have been talking about a two-state solution. We’ve been talking about this as a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and of course, the state of Israel, with the boundaries bounded by 1967, I believe mutually agreed upon land swaps as well, with the status of Jerusalem being a final-status negotiation issue.
QUESTION: Just one more on Türkiye.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any readout of —
MR PATEL: On Türkiye, you just said?
QUESTION: On Türkiye, yeah.
MR PATEL: Yeah. Okay.
QUESTION: Any readout of Under Secretary John Bass’ travel to Türkiye?
MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t, but I’m happy to check and see if we’ve got any additional information there. I know, just to say broadly, Türkiye has been an important partner of ours in a number of key lines of efforts acting Under Secretary Bass – as you all know, used to be ambassador to Türkiye. So he has a lot of deep and close relationships there. I have no doubt that he’s engaging on some important issues, whether it relates to peace and stability in the Middle East but also continuing to engage with our partners in Türkiye on issues relating to NATO and Ukraine.
Go ahead in the back. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions. I have one on Haiti and one on —
MR PATEL: Can we stay in the region and I can try to come back to you?
QUESTION: Yeah, I have one for – I have one for the West Bank as well.
MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: I keep asking this question and trying to rephrase it in regards to the Palestinian Authority. Within the jurisdiction of Area A, does the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian law enforcement have the right to arrest settlers that are attacking Palestinian homes or Palestinians?
MR PATEL: That’ll be – that’s a question I would better refer you to the PA and officials within COGAT. I don’t want to get into the specifics of jurisdiction and that level of detail from up here.
Go ahead, Jacob.
QUESTION: Earlier today, Israel’s COGAT published footage of what it said are contents of 700 trucks worth of humanitarian aid that is sitting on the Gaza side of Kerem Shalom crossing waiting to be delivered. COGAT said it has scaled up its capabilities over the past several weeks, but that the UN has failed to deliver its job in delivering aid. Ambassador Satterfield said last week that the biggest obstacle at this point is UN international agencies bringing more trucks into Gaza in order to distribute the aid. So where does this stand? The U.S. regularly does urge Israel to boost its aid efforts, but are you willing to call on the UN also to improve its capabilities to deliver this aid that’s piling up on the Gaza side of the border.
MR PATEL: Look, broadly, the distribution of aid within Gaza continues to be something that we’re working closely on with partners in the UN and partners in other additional humanitarian organizations. That’s something we’re going to continue to work with them closely on because it’s a priority. I don’t have any updates to offer on immediate steps that have been taken publicly, but we think that that’s an important thing that needs to be addressed, and we’ll work closely continuing with the UN.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: So related to that —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — Biden has ordered this pier and it’s going to be set up in the next couple of weeks. Is the State Department confident that you’re going to find the aid groups willing to unload that gear and that – those aid supplies and distribute it?
MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the process here, but look, when it comes to the distribution of aid within Gaza, we have found partners who have been willing to engage, willing to play a role in the disseminating of that aid, particularly – as Jacob was speaking to – making sure that that aid gets from places like warehouses to its end points within Gaza, and have no doubt that we will continue to be able to find partners to cooperate with when it comes to the maritime corridor. But I don’t want to get ahead of this process.
Michel.
QUESTION: Yeah, do you have any comments on the escalation of fighting between Hizballah and Israel? And do you expect this conflict to be broadened?
MR PATEL: We would hope and encourage not, Michel. At every corner, we have stressed our strong desire and importance of making sure that this conflict isn’t widened. We’ve made that clear to our partners in Israel and to other regional interlocutors, and we’ll continue to do so.
Go ahead, Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: On the region or anything —
QUESTION: If we can switch to —
MR PATEL: Let me stay on the region before I move away.
Sam, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks. Euro-Med Monitor, human rights monitor, reports that Israel is using drones to lure residents and then shoot them. They explain the sounds of women screaming and babies crying were heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday. When some of the residents went out to investigate and tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli – quadcopter drones. The sounds they heard were in fact records played by the Israeli drones with the intent of forcing the camp residents out into the streets where they could be easily targeted by snipers and other weaponry.
MR PATEL: I have not – I have not seen that report, Sam, so I’m not going to comment on it. But broadly – not relating to this particular circumstance at all – because, again, I haven’t seen the report and I’m not sure if it’s accurate or verifiable – at every conversation that we have with our partners in Israel, we continue to stress the moral and strategic imperative that they have to work on deconfliction mechanisms and to ensure that civilian harm is minimized in every which-way possible. And we’ll continue to stress that every way we can.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Will you look at this report?
MR PATEL: I’m sure we’ll look at this report, Sam. I don’t have any comment for it – on it right now.
QUESTION: Do you recognize —
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: — the Geneva Conventions as applying in this instance?
MR PATEL: I’ve answered your question, Sam.
QUESTION: No, you haven’t.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: You’ve evaded it, and your colleague deceitfully responded to it. Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions?
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: It’s a simple question.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions as applying to Gaza?
MR PATEL: When you interrupt me that’s not – it’s not a matter of —
QUESTION: I’m not interrupting you. I’m asking for a simple —
MR PATEL: I’m not going to take additional questions.
QUESTION: — simple answer to a simple question.
MR PATEL: Go ahead. You got two questions. I’m —
QUESTION: No, it’s totally – no, I didn’t get two questions.
MR PATEL: You did. You —
QUESTION: No.
MR PATEL: You asked a question about your report —
QUESTION: I asked a question and you didn’t (inaudible) —
MR PATEL: — and you asked a follow-up. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’re not – you’re refusing to answer it.
MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.
QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Gaza or not?
MR PATEL: Go —
QUESTION: Apply to everywhere on the planet except for the Palestinians; isn’t that right?
MR PATEL: We continue —
QUESTION: Isn’t that U.S. policy?
MR PATEL: — to stress everywhere – at everywhere that international humanitarian law —
QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?
MR PATEL: — needs to be abided by and respected.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?
MR PATEL: You are now interrupting your colleague. Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, I’m interrupting you – I’m not interrupting you.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I’m insisting on an answer to a critical question.
MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.
QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the sanctions —
QUESTION: Oh, so you’re deceiving the American public?
QUESTION: — against Iran. I’d like to ask about the sanctions against Iran.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just broadly speaking, what impact do you think they’ll have? And then I’m just curious – given all of Iran’s bad actions in the past, I was almost surprised that there was room left for any new sanctions. Why is there room left for more sanctions?
MR PATEL: So it’s important to take a step back and talk about our sanctions and export controls on Iran in a little bit of a wider context going back to the onset of this administration. It’s important to remember that we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran. Rather, we continue to increase pressure, and our extensive sanctions on Iran remain in place, and we continue to enforce them. And over the last three years, we have actually sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities connected to the full range of Iran’s problematic and dangerous behavior, touching the areas of UAV and missile proliferation, terrorism, terrorist financing, and other forms of illicit trade and human rights abuses.
But this is something that we are also going to continue to work closely with our allies and partners, including at the G7, on ways that we can continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime. We believe that our sanctions are effective. They are a way to continue to isolate countries and to exert pressure on them as it relates to their behavior.
QUESTION: And the impact on the new sanctions?
MR PATEL: Look, I’m not going to preview any additional actions from here, but we continue to believe that should there even additionally be new sanctions that, that continues to be a lever at our disposal to continue to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions.
QUESTION: So Vedant, it’s just not true that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran. I went through this with Matt the other day. Shortly after this administration came into office, you did lift restrictions on – sanctions on Iranian diplomats travel inside – when they go to the UN.
MR PATEL: I think your colleague was speaking about sanctions in the context of designating entities and individuals connected to the Iranian regime, not necessarily parameters that exist around diplomats in the United States.
QUESTION: And that —
MR PATEL: I take your point, Matt. But I think —
QUESTION: And then —
MR PATEL: I think that —
QUESTION: Well, so – but it’s not then true to say that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran, because you have.
MR PATEL: I —
QUESTION: And then secondly, you have also – you also allowed several UN sanctions to expire. Now, you guys can put as many sanctions as you want in place against Iran, but they don’t have any impact outside of the U.S. jurisdiction; it doesn’t – there’s no requirement for other countries to follow suit, even when they involve secondary sanctions. So the arms embargo and the missile sanctions from the UN were allowed – they were allowed to expire, correct?
MR PATEL: That is – that is – are you talking about the ones in – from August 2020?
QUESTION: That were in the JCPOA.
MR PATEL: Yeah, correct.
QUESTION: They – right. So they expired.
MR PATEL: That is correct.
QUESTION: So those sanctions, the international sanctions, the UN sanctions, the one that the entire world, everyone in the world is supposed to follow, were in fact lifted. They expired. Correct?
MR PATEL: Well, I think there’s a difference between lifting and expiring, but sure, Matt. There is; there’s a technical difference.
QUESTION: What?
MR PATEL: There is a technical difference between sanctions expiring or sunsetting versus actively making the policy decision to lift certain sanctions.
QUESTION: The point is that you could have made an active policy decision on snapback, which would have kept those sanctions in place.
MR PATEL: And that is a – that’s a mechanism, the snapback mechanism hasn’t expired, Matt. And it remains in place and it’s an available option.
QUESTION: But it hasn’t been used. And in fact, those two things —
MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview actions from here.
QUESTION: Those two things expired. In other words, you allowed them to be lifted, to expire. So it’s a bit disingenuous to say expiring isn’t the same as lifting.
MR PATEL: I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. I don’t think – as I said, snapback is a mechanism that —
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PATEL: — continues to remain in place. And again, I think your colleague was referring to sanctions and restrictions in the context of – in the economic sense, not travel restrictions we may have on diplomats, which —
QUESTION: That’s fine, but the way you answered his question —
MR PATEL: — Matt touched on a little bit yesterday.
QUESTION: — is we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran, and that’s not true.
MR PATEL: Well, we can agree to disagree.
Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant – shift into a different region, if I may.
MR PATEL: Sure. Anything else in the region before we totally shift away?
QUESTION: Yeah, in the region.
MR PATEL: Are you sure on the region?
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MR PATEL: You positive?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Yeah, my question is – sorry – so my question is that there was any – was there any conversation between U.S. diplomats and Chinese diplomats or Russian diplomats about the conflicts between Iran and Israel?
MR PATEL: Well, you saw the Secretary had a phone conversation with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on the tail end of last week in which – Matt spoke a little bit about this last week as well – in which we continued to stress with them through their means of communicating with the Iranian regime that no one was interested in seeing this conflict escalate. And we’ll continue to have those conversations with appropriate interlocutors.
QUESTION: How about Russia?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any conversations to read out.
QUESTION: A follow-up, sorry. So there are reports – Wall Street Journal reported that the Iranian regime has evacuated their bases in Syria. So is there an indication that Israeli Government might attack some targets outside Iran?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment on what our partners in Israel may or may not do.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So Benjamin Netanyahu testified to the U.S. Congress in 2002 – this is before we invaded Iraq – and he said, quote, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam Hussein is seeking, and is working, and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons.” He then went on to say he was hiding nuclear facilities underground. We now know this was a lie, one that many U.S. servicemembers and innocent Iraqis paid the price for. Netanyahu in that same congressional hearing goes on to say, “Obviously, we would like to see…regime change – at least, I would…in Iran…The question now is…what is the best to proceed. not a question of whether like to see regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.”
So my two questions for you are, one, how can we trust somebody who goaded our country into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? And two, given this weekend’s events, why are we confident he won’t do the same thing with Iran given he’s been calling for us to enact regime change in that country for 20 years?
MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but – so let me just say a couple things. First, as it relates to Prime Minister Netanyahu, this is somebody who the President has a close working relationship with. It’s something – someone that the Secretary has a close working relationship with. But broadly, beyond any immediate official or individual in the Israeli Government, our partnership, our relationship with Israel, our commitment to its self-defense and our commitment to its security, transcends any government in Israel. It transcends any government in the United States, and it’s a relationship that has pursued and persisted over the course of the – of various political parties and presidents.
Number two, as it relates to the Iranian regime, let me just be clear and unequivocal about this: We condemn in the strongest terms its reckless and irresponsible attacks from over the course of this past weekend.
QUESTION: Okay, but you – one individual, Netanyahu, is the head of the entire Israeli Government. And when – you might condemn those, but there’s a difference between condemning those actions and the U.S. getting roped into a war with Iran.
MR PATEL: The United States is not interested in entering an all-out conflict with Iran. We’ve been incredibly clear about that.
Go —
QUESTION: Even if they strike Israel?
MR PATEL: We have been very clear about our commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense. We’ve also been clear that we will not be participating in any offensive operation, but our commitment to its security and self-defense has – is ironclad.
QUESTION: If I may ask on Georgia?
MR PATEL: On Jordan?
QUESTION: Georgia?
MR PATEL: Georgia? Okay, I’m going to – people are – Michel, do you have anything on the region before we move away?
QUESTION: Any role that Russia is playing between Iran and Israel?
MR PATEL: That’s a question for the Russian Federation. I’m not —
QUESTION: But are you aware of that?
MR PATEL: I’m not – none that I can speak of or that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: Region?
MR PATEL: Go ahead. You already got a bunch of questions. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Ukraine, if I may.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Russian missiles hit a hospital in Chernihiv this morning. They killed more than – actually 15, almost, and more than 60 were injured. What does it tell you about the state of play on the ground? And how under stress do you think the Ukrainian military is?
MR PATEL: This is, Alex, another example of a horrific Russian missile attack, this time on downtown Chernihiv in northern Ukraine, which is only about a two-hour drive from the capital, Kyiv. Approximately 16 people were killed, more than 600 injured, including children, and missiles destroyed residential buildings, a hospital. The images from these attacks are horrifying, but it also, Alex, beyond – to take a step back from the immediate, it underscores the need of passing the national security supplemental. Our support for our Ukrainian partners we believe can continue to make a difference in this conflict. It can save lives, but the House of Representatives needs to act now.
QUESTION: Thank you. Staying to – in Russia.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: There are reports that Russians are – they have started moving their forces/troublemakers, if you want, out of Azerbaijan and to be deployed in Ukraine. What do you know? And what do you think about its implications in both the South Caucasus and —
MR PATEL: Well, Alex, as you know, we were not party to the negotiated trilateral arrangement that ended the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 and established Russian troops in that region. Frankly, we’ve not seen anything to indicate that Russia’s military was contributing to a more peaceful and stable South Caucasus region, and the events in Nagorno-Karabakh over the course of this past fall are pretty indicative of that point, and it’s another highlight or example of how Russia is not a trustworthy ally or partner.
But beyond that, we strongly support efforts by Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a durable and dignified peace, and we stand ready to continue to help facilitate this process.
Ben, go ahead. I’m going to work the room, Alex.
QUESTION: Please come back to me later on.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. If I could follow up on a question that was asked yesterday about China supporting Russia’s industrial base.
MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.
QUESTION: Matt said the U.S. is very concerned, that this would be on the G7 agenda, but I was wondering if you could provide any more detail, particularly what the U.S. is doing in response to Chinese support for Russia’s industrial base.
MR PATEL: Sure, Ben. So let me say a couple things on that. We believe that the PRC is supporting Russia’s war effort, and it’s doing so by helping ramp up its defense production. Specifically, the PRC is providing Russia with significant quantities of machine tools, microelectronics, optics, UAVs and cruise missile technology, and nitrocellulose, which Russia uses to make propellants for weapons. Together, we think that these materials are filling critical gaps in Russia’s defense production cycle, helping revitalize Russia’s defense industrial base, which had otherwise suffered significant setbacks due to sanctions and export controls from the United States, from our partners and allies.
This kind of support is actively enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine, and it poses a significant threat to European security. We’ve raised these concerns with the PRC through diplomatic channels, including through recent conversations at the leaders level, and we’ve been briefing our allies and partners on our concerns over the past few weeks. And we issued an executive order targeting third-country banks that facilitate support to the Russian defense industrial base, we’ve sanctioned relevant firms in the PRC, and are prepared to take further steps as necessary.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. A few humanist questions – international, yes.
MR PATEL: Let’s keep it to less than a few. We’ve got a couple other people who have their hands up.
QUESTION: I will stop – I’ll stop whenever you tell me to.
MR PATEL: Great.
QUESTION: My first question is about these two gentlemen. One of them is very dear to America, and he has my last name as well. His name is Dr. Shakil Afridi. I feel like because of lack of diplomatic courage the Pakistani ambassador has in Washington D.C., the guy has spent 15 years over there. Pakistani lady in the U.S., Aafia Siddiqui, has spent 25 years. I had a father who spent nine and a half years on a fake case. I just personally have sympathies with these prisoners who have spent – and internationally – so, like, keep the – U.S. policy aside, just from humanitarian point of view, why can’t these two people be exchanged?
MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer on this. This seems like an internal judicial matter as it relates to Pakistan’s justice system, so would defer to them to speak to that.
QUESTION: But the U.S. justice system – the U.S. justice system can get that Shakil Afridi guy here. He has spent 15 years – life imprisonment is (inaudible) years in Pakistan, so the guy has spent his life in —
MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have anything for you on that.
QUESTION: Okay. One more question, sir. A girl from Utah, Crystal Bayat, even tweeted this today. I have raised this issue here a gazillion times. You have half of the population of country of Afghanistan, where girls since the U.S. withdrawal are without education. Why did you not just leave them in front of the vultures to be eaten? Today a girl was sold for $3,500 to a 60-year-old man. If the U.S. has taken – at least I know these steps cannot be stopped at the moment, but for future of girls, for the ones that are going to come in future, what has the U.S. done —
MR PATEL: So if —
QUESTION: What has the U.S. done in these last three years since its withdrawal?
MR PATEL: Equal rights for Afghan women and girls continues to be a key tenet of our Afghanistan policy, and we continue to reiterate regularly, through relevant channels, with the Taliban that their self-stated goal of legitimacy can only be achieved – and will likely be impossible to achieve if half of their population is being left out of participating in its society, participating in its economy. It continues to be a key factor of our approach to Afghanistan policy, and it’s something that we’ll continue to work towards.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just last one about journalism.
MR PATEL: No, I’m going to work the room. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just journalism. You’ll like this one (inaudible). You’ll like this one.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’ll like this one. Journalists becoming – today —
MR PATEL: Okay. If you ask a question, though, you do this, like, wind-up thing –
QUESTION: Yes. Today Time Magazine has – today Time Magazine has a journalist, Palestinian journalist, as 100 more influential people. No country in the world protects and talk about journalists like the U.S. We have a Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif, got killed, and we still don’t know who killed him. It’s been two years now. Can the U.S. – can you personally take some interest in the case, or at least let us finally know who killed the guy?
MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly that we believe strongly that journalism is integral to our society and journalists do important work, and especially in active conflict zones they – every step possible needs to be taken for them to be protected. But I don’t have much else on that circumstance that you laid out.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
Daphne, you had your hand up. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. So we’ve seen on social media that the U.S. embassy received a letter from Chad’s government requesting troop withdrawal. Can you confirm this?
MR PATEL: The U.S. embassy in Chad? I’m happy to check on that. I’ve not seen that since I came out, but we’re happy to check with the team and see if there’s anything to offer on that.
QUESTION: Okay. And, sorry —
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Really quick, yea. Vote counting is set to begin tomorrow in the Solomon Islands for parliamentary election, the first since the prime minister struck a security pact with China in 2022. Do you have any indication yet on how these elections have been conducted?
MR PATEL: I don’t have an assessment to offer yet, and I think we will let the process play out before we have any assessment to offer.
Goyal, go ahead. I’ll come to you, then I’ll come to you, and then we will wrap. Go ahead, Goyal.
QUESTION: Yes, sir. Two questions, please, different two questions. One, as far as the United Nations are concerned, does the U.S. or the Secretary have faith and trust in the UN? Because recently, Mr. Elon Musk said that there is no meaning of having UN without India’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
MR PATEL: So the President has spoken about this before in his remarks to the UN General Assembly. The Secretary has alluded to this as well. We certainly support reforms to the UN institution, including the Security Council, to make it reflective of the 21st century world that we live in. I don’t have any specifics to offer on what those steps are, but certainly we recognize that there is need for reform. But I will leave it at that for now. Go ahead.
QUESTION: And second, sir – please, I’m sorry.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: As far as this UN-IMF and World Bank meetings are concerned in Washington, D.C., how does the U.S. diplomacy’s affecting around the globe with the other countries? Because poor people are getting more poorer and also their aids they get from the World Bank and IMF not reaching the needy people around the globe, and because it goes to the corrupt politicians or the military people. How can you – you think it can be worked for those needy around the globe?
MR PATEL: There are a number of countries that are engaging directly with the IMF as it relates to the economies within their own systems. In those instances, we believe it’s appropriate to be engaging with the IMF. I don’t have any specifics to offer beyond that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Go ahead. Let me come to you. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday Haiti’s Government named the members of the transitional council set to take power at some point.
MR PATEL: Uh-huh, yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on this? And do you think that they can restore security in Haiti?
MR PATEL: Well, we welcome the announcement of the establishment of the transitional presidential council, and we commend stakeholders in Haiti for moving toward democratic governance through free and fair elections. A lot of work lies ahead, specifically, naming an interim prime minister, but we are committed to work with members of this council, CARICOM, as well as other appropriate regional partners to improve the lives of all Haitians.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: The House has scheduled a vote on foreign aid for Saturday; that includes aid to Ukraine, which has been long delayed. You talk a little about the importance of that aid coming through for Ukraine. But tell us: How much damage has been done by the lengthy delay in Congress to the Ukrainian war effort? Because the Russians have made significant advances over the past several months.
MR PATEL: Well, Alex raised this issue and opened up this topic by talking about a missile attack from the Russians. So it certainly would not be hyperbole to say that every day matters, and the House, we believe, needs to act this week to support Ukraine and Israel as they respectively defend against Putin and the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime. And so this is something that we need Congress to provide urgently.
There is also, when we’re talking about the national security supplemental, talking about things like humanitarian assistance and efforts to strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific – these are all things that are of vital importance to the – our foreign policy and the national security interests of the American people.
You had a question on Georgia. Go ahead.
QUESTION: We witnessed a horrific violence in Georgia yesterday by the riot police against peaceful protests, journalists and opposition leaders. Today another protest is taking place against the Russia law, and there is an expectation that police will – and government will use force again. What message do you have for Georgia and Georgian people?
MR PATEL: You’re speaking about the protests around the draft law? Yeah. So we remain deeply concerned that this draft legislation, if enacted, could stigmatize civil society organizations working to improve the lives of Georgians citizens and media organizations operating within the – within Georgia to provide information to Georgian citizens. We think that civil society, journalism, media organizations, are cornerstones to any democratic society. And we urge the Georgian Government to heed warnings that this bill is not in line with the European Union’s norms and values, and it certainly would negatively impact Georgia’s progress on its EU path.
All right, thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Can I —
QUESTION: Just very quickly. Just very quickly.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) passed the first hearing today with 83 votes. And you’re – just repeated some – same thing that Matt told us previously, that you would hope that it will not go forward.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: So I understand there were meetings between the U.S. ambassador and Western ambassadors and the Russian prime minister. Is diplomacy – your efforts diplomatically – is dead here, or is it just another bump on the road?
MR PATEL: We never think diplomacy is dead, Alex. So again, we will continue to urge and reiterate the – with the Georgian Government our dire concerns of this kind of legislation, and heed the warnings that this kind of legislative – this kind of legislation, sorry, is not in line with the EU’s norms and values, which would certainly negatively impact Georgia’s stated goal to eventually become party to the European Union.
QUESTION: But they also pushed an amendment of tax law today, a separate process, that will allow them to transfer the frozen – their assets from abroad. Clearly, they’re preparing for hedging – they’re trying to avoid sanctions, potential sanctions, here. Aren’t you too late to use the —
MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this other piece of legislation, Alex, but I’m happy to check for you.
Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I just want to go back to something that was raised a little bit earlier. Can you ask – can you find out from L or from whomever if the United States believes that the Geneva Conventions apply universally – in other words, to everywhere on the planet as – and also the same question on the Vienna Conventions? And obviously, the question before was about whether Geneva Conventions apply in Gaza, but then specifically it would be whether the Vienna Convention applies in Syria. Or are there – or do you – does the administration think that there are certain exemptions to these conventions? That’s —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: I don’t expect you to have an answer, but maybe you could —
MR PATEL: Well, Matt, let me just – let me close out by saying that I will echo again what I – when I – when responding to your colleague that it is our sincere belief that international humanitarian law needs to be abided by everywhere. And that continues to be the policy we’ll pursue.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Alright, thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)
# # #
60 ↑
No comments:
Post a Comment