Department Press Briefing – April 22, 2024
April 22, 2024
2:40 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Okay. So let’s see if anyone has anything left for me. Olivia, go ahead. Hi.
QUESTION: I have some. As one point of clarification on Humeyra’s question, has the Israeli Government been officially apprised of the Secretary’s determinations on the Leahy Law?
MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic communications between our two governments.
QUESTION: Well, has official notification been offered to the Israeli Government?
MR MILLER: I think to answer that question I’d have to get – violate the answer I just gave you, which is I’m not going to speak to the private diplomatic conversations between our two countries. As the Secretary made quite clear when he was up here, we’ll have more to say about this matter soon, and unfortunately you’ll just have to wait until that time.
QUESTION: Would it be in conversation that such notification is given, or is there like a —
MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into the exact details.
QUESTION: All right. In the region – can I stay, or is —
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: On Iran, do you have reason to believe that we’ve seen the last of the direct kinetic exchanges between Iran and Israel? And by that I mean has this department had messages with both indicating that it stops here.
MR MILLER: I’m going to give you what you are probably going to find an unsatisfying answer, which is sometimes in diplomacy the less said the better, and I’m not going to comment about the reports from Friday, as we try to be consistent about in the United States Government. But, that said, one of our top priorities since the outset of this conflict is to prevent it from widening, prevent it from escalating, and prevent it from spreading any further. And so that’s been our focus since October 7th. It’s something that we’ve worked hard on, including the last few weeks, and we will continue to focus on trying to convince everyone in the region that escalation is not in their interest.
QUESTION: On that point, do you take the recent strikes on U.S. forces in the region as an indication that Tehran is again encouraging or at least no longer preventing its proxies from taking action against U.S. interests?
MR MILLER: So we certainly condemn the attack by an Iran-aligned militia group against U.S. forces in Syria. I will say we find it especially troubling that this militia group chose to resume its attacks against U.S. personnel just hours after Prime Minister Sudani of Iraq had completed a successful visit to Washington, so it seems clear that Iran has no respect for Iraqi sovereignty. We’ve seen these attacks, obviously, in the past. We have made quite clear to Iran, we’ve made quite clear to Iran’s proxy groups that we will defend our interests, we will defend our personnel, and that continues to be the case.
QUESTION: So you are linking it directly to Iran? (Inaudible.)
MR MILLER: These are proxy groups that are sponsored by Iran, absolutely.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR MILLER: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Okay. Okay. Just to clarify.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And then, sorry, one last one. Late last week, the CIA director acknowledged he’s been taking part in hostage talks and characterized them rather bleakly, saying it was like a big rock to push up a very steep hill right now. He signaled pessimism that the talks would restart, let alone result in a deal. Does that characterization track with the view from this building of the talks?
MR MILLER: It does, and the reason why I think you heard the director of the CIA make those comments, the reason the Secretary made the comments he did on Friday when he spoke to this at the meeting of the G7 foreign ministers, is what you have seen over the past few weeks is Hamas move the goalposts. There are demands that they have made. Israel has moved some way to meeting those demands, and Hamas has then changed their demands. And so it certainly does seem like Hamas is more interested in a full-scale regional war, that they were watching the events of the past few weeks and making the determination that they might get the full-scale regional war they were hoping for, and so have not agreed to a very significant proposal that was on the table.
And so we will continue to push for an agreement because we believe it’s in the interests of Israel, we believe it’s in the interests of the United States, we believe it’s in the interests of the broader region, but it takes two to make an agreement, and right now Hamas has signaled that they don’t want an agreement. And the ball is very much in their court, and if they really had the interests of the Palestinian people at heart, as they claim that they do, then they would accept this agreement, because this agreement would get an immediate ceasefire. It would get – it would allow more humanitarian assistance to flow in. It would dramatically alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. So we want to see that deal move forward and we’re going to continue to push for it.
QUESTION: And – sorry, that’s the state of play? Hamas either accepts this deal or nothing?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into the negotiation process – we’ve never – we have never done that – other than to say that, as you heard the Secretary say Friday, Israel moved significantly in agreeing to the last offer that was put onto the table, and Hamas in response has moved the goalposts. We think they ought to accept the deal.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On Saturday, Palestinian civil defense crews have uncovered a mass grave with 180 people, including women, men, and children, that – Israel had basically killed those people. That’s what they’re saying. Are you aware of the report and do you have any comment on it?
MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports and we are inquiring about it with the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: Will the U.S. press the Israelis to find out more about this issue?
MR MILLER: That’s exactly what we are doing.
QUESTION: Okay. One more question on UNRWA. The final report shows that Israel has failed in submitting any evidence on the participation of UNRWA staff in the attack on October 7th, and it seems that the secretary-general has accepted the finding by Ms. Catherine Colonna around the report. If – will that be acceptable to you, that the secretary-general has accepted that, and would you have any further comment on this?
MR MILLER: So a few things. Number one, we have just received the report and are reviewing itself, and so I don’t want to make any assessments until we’ve been able to complete that review of the report which we just received this morning. Certainly, we welcome the fact that the secretary-general has accepted the recommendations. We have long made clear that there needs to be reforms at UNRWA, and we would welcome the UN making the reforms that former Foreign Minister Colonna made in her report. I would also say that we understand there is another investigation the UN is still conducting, so that one has been completed; there’s another one that’s ongoing. But certainly, we have always made clear that we think the role that UNRWA plays is indispensable in providing and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian assistance not just in Gaza but in the broader region. We continue to support the work that they do.
QUESTION: Okay. Was the U.S. a bit too precipitous in cutting off funds to UNRWA before all the facts were found?
MR MILLER: So Said, I think people forget sometimes the timeline and the facts on which we made that decision to suspend funding and confuse what it is we actually did. So the U.S. did not make that determination based on the Government of Israel presenting us evidence. We made that determination when UNRWA came to us and said they were aware of these allegations, they had investigated them, they had found them to be credible. And, again, this is with respect to the 12 UNRWA employees who are alleged to have participated in the October 7th attacks, not any of the broader allegations that have been leveled at UNRWA. UNRWA itself had done an initial investigation, had found those allegations to be credible enough that they had fired all or most of those employees. So, no, I think we acted appropriately given the facts that were presented to us by UNRWA – not by Israel, but by UNRWA – and so we welcome the conclusion of this first investigation. We’ll look to see what the other one produces.
Nadia, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: I’ll come – I’ll come – go ahead in back.
QUESTION: I just want to follow up what the Secretary said. He said that the State Department does not practice double standard when it comes to Ukraine and Gaza in terms of human rights violation. I mean, I want to put aside whether it is targeting civilians, whether it’s mass graves have been discovered, whatever. I just want to ask you specifically on the statement that the Secretary made, and he said Russia is committing war crimes when it cuts off water, electricity, and fuel on a civilian population. Israel did exactly the same. How can you say that Russia is committing a war crime and Israelis are not?
MR MILLER: So —
QUESTION: What’s the technical differences —
MR MILLER: So I would say that we have engaged with the Government of Israel to get more humanitarian assistance, and we have seen them take steps to allow more humanitarian assistance in. That is fundamentally the difference. And we have seen over the past few days Israel repairing water pipes to ensure that water can get in. And of course they were letting water flow in through Rafah and through Kerem Shalom along with food and other medicine and other humanitarian assistance.
Now, that said, it has also been our assessment that that has not been sufficient and that they needed to allow more in, which is why you’ve seen us engage at the highest levels of the government, including President Biden himself, making quite clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that they needed to do more and that our policy would be that the policy determinations we make will depend on the decisions that Israel makes. So there is a difference in the situation in how Russia has behaved and how Israel has behaved, and we have engaged with Israel to see them allow more humanitarian assistance in. It’s not something you can say about Russia, which has continued to intentionally target civilians. As the Secretary made clear, one of the big differences in this conflict is that you have in Gaza a terrorist organization that’s embedding itself inside a civilian population. Ukraine – Ukrainian military doesn’t do that. It’s not – and so that makes the entire nature of the conflict different. But it doesn’t change the standard that we expect Israel to hold itself to.
QUESTION: Right. But legally that’s – even you cannot target civilians even if you have a terrorist organization embedded in hospitals and schools.
MR MILLER: Of course not.
QUESTION: Legally speaking —
MR MILLER: That’s what I mean. That’s what I mean —
QUESTION: That’s – yeah – a war crime.
MR MILLER: — about it doesn’t change the standard that Israel should be held to. Absolutely.
QUESTION: Right. And just one last thing also about what he said. He said, like, there is a difference between dictatorship and democracy in terms of investigation. Israel is – does its own investigation. I’m just wondering – because Israel is not just – the democracy in Israel is not analogous to Western Europe or to United States, because it’s still an occupying force, and that’s the difference – fundamental difference between Israel and the rest of the democracies, because it has an army that’s occupying people by force in the West Bank and Gaza as well even if they withdraw the troops. So my question to you is – is this – how do you judge them if most of this investigation, basically the results have no accountability for most of the soldiers, because even if it’s a democracy, we have not – Israel does not have a track record of investigation – investigating itself and give us a credible record that we can go by and we say yes, they are right because they are capable of doing that.
MR MILLER: So a few things. First, just broadly speaking, Israel is a democracy and Israel does have checks and balances inside its system that are very different than when you look at Russia. Israel does have a track record of conducting investigations into its military and at times imposing accountability measures. We have seen them do that. They have made those accountability measures in public in the past. It doesn’t mean that those are always at the level that we would want from the United States Government. It doesn’t mean it’s always at the level that other interested parties would want, but they do have a track record, including in this conflict, of opening investigations. They don’t always publicize them, but they have made us aware of investigations that they are conducting. And we will look to see that those investigations are fair, and that if accountability is merited, that accountability is what is imposed. And so they have a long track record going back of investigating soldiers and others who take actions that are inconsistent with humanitarian law or inconsistent with the Israeli military code of conduct. But that said, we also make our own assessments. And we will make our own assessments based on the facts, based on the law, and we will call it like we see it.
But I do think it is a bit of a false equivalency. It’s not to say – and by that, I mean – I’m not trying to criticize you; it’s not to say that Israel should be immune from criticism. They absolutely shouldn’t. But it is a very different system than Russia and other countries that have no —
QUESTION: I was comparing to democracies.
MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah, I know. That’s what I’m saying. I’m not quibbling with your question at all – with other countries that have no means of mechanism, or that don’t have a free press that demands accountability, or don’t have freedom of speech and open debate – you see protests in Israel. You see the free press digging into things that they’re doing. And you of course see their own internal accountability mechanisms. But as I said, we will continue to monitor and make our own assessments.
Humeyra.
QUESTION: Just a couple of small follow-ups here and there. When you were answering about UNRWA, you said United States has taken into account what UNRWA told United States. But have you seen any evidence, either from UN itself or Israel, with regards to those allegations?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the – first of all, with respect to the UN report that came out today, we’ve seen the report. People are reviewing it. With respect to the broader allegations about the 12, I don’t know if the Israeli Government has provided them to us. It wasn’t necessarily – we didn’t necessarily need it when you have UNRWA coming and presenting the findings.
UNRWA, obviously, when they say they have investigated themself and found them to be credible, it’s not necessarily in their interest to do that. When you have an organization that’s come and told us that on the front end, I don’t know that we need corroborating evidence from the Government of Israel; UNRWA itself has said that they’ve found it. But that said, it may be that we’ve interacted with them on that. I’m just not aware.
QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, just to be perfectly clear, there are two separate investigations right now, one focusing on the 12 people whose result hasn’t come out yet, and there is the —
MR MILLER: That’s my understanding. The United Nations should speak to that, but that’s my understanding from all this.
QUESTION: Yeah. So then there’s the Colonna report, whose result has come out.
MR MILLER: Right.
QUESTION: Have you seen any evidence from UN, UNRWA, Israel, anyone, regarding these allegations on both of those?
MR MILLER: So with —
QUESTION: Just evidence.
MR MILLER: So with respect to the Colonna report, I’m not going to speak to that until we’ve had a chance to review it. Presumably the report will contain evidentiary questions in it, but I said I haven’t read it yet myself. I know people here are reviewing it.
With respect to the other matter, the 12 individuals, UNRWA presented evidence to us when they came and briefed us on the first set of allegations. They told us what they had found in the course of their initial investigation. So that very much is information that we found to be credible based on UNRWA’s own assessment of it.
QUESTION: And going back to this upcoming punitive action under Leahy Law, it is out there being reported as a sanction, which is usually used for action by U.S. Treasury OFAC. It is our understanding is that’s not entirely the case. Can you clarify? Can you make the distinction?
MR MILLER: So I will just say not with respect to our determinations as they relate to Israel. But broadly speaking, the Leahy Law does not contain sanctions authority. That’s not how the law works. What the law does is require the United States to make assessments whenever we are providing security assistance to a foreign military, to make assessments about whether those militaries have committed violations of human rights.
If we find – once we’ve found when a country has committed a violation of human rights, the next question goes to has there been proper accountability? And if there has been proper accountability, then U.S.-funded assessment can continue because that government has done the right thing in response to a human rights violation. If there has not been proper accountability, then we suspend our assessment. But it is a suspension of assistance that can be remediated. There are certain steps that a government can go through to remediate that suspension of assistance. But no, it is not a sanction in the classic sense that Treasury imposes sanctions or even that the State Department, in some areas, imposes sanctions.
QUESTION: Right. So as a result of that action, that particular military unit would not be able to receive any U.S. assistance, would not be able to join any U.S. training; the punitive action would be along those lines?
MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: Yes. Do you – are you guys looking into any allegations regarding the same units in their conduct post-October 7th?
MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to those assessments. We’ve always made clear that we have a number of different ongoing assessments based on incidents that have been submitted to us that we have seen ourselves, and those processes are ongoing. But I’m not going to speak to which units or which processes, how we’re looking at that – at those various assessments.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR MILLER: Colleen.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that for one second? And then I want to transition to China unless others.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But with regard to the U.S. military assistance to specific units potentially being prohibited, is there a way for the U.S. to actually track if that military assistance that we’re giving to Israel is prevented from going to a unit? Or is the onus really on the partner government – in this case, Israel – to make sure that that happens?
MR MILLER: So every government to whom we provide security assistance, we sign agreements related to that provision of assistance, and one of the things that our partner countries agree to is that if we do find a Leahy Law violation, that they will not transfer U.S. weapons, U.S. security assistance to those units, and we do assess that on an ongoing basis. But it is our partner countries that have committed to abide by the law – U.S. law and our assessment of U.S. law, and we expect all of our partner countries to comply with that.
QUESTION: Okay. Can I turn —
QUESTION: China? Okay. With the Secretary going to China later this week, obviously we know that the Middle East will be something that’s discussed. I wonder if you could just give us a sort of analysis, status update, in terms of what this building thinks on how effective China has been in trying to drum down tensions, pushing Iran to de-escalate things in the region. Do you think they have done that effectively? Do you want to see them do more? Can you just bring us up to speed on that?
MR MILLER: So this has been something that has been the focus of the State Department since the immediate days after October 7th. It was I think five or six days after October 7th that the Secretary, while we were in the region, called the foreign minister of China – Wang Yi – and made clear to him that we believe it is in China’s interest to prevent the conflict from escalating and prevent the conflict from spreading. And you’ve seen him have subsequent conversations with China about that when the Houthis began launching attacks on ships. The Secretary had a conversation with Wang Yi about this the week before last when it was clear that there was the potential for escalation in the region.
So I will let China speak to any actions that it has taken. I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to do so. But we will continue to press the case to China that it’s not just in the interests of the region, it’s not just in the interests of the United States, it’s not just in the interests of the individual countries that are involved, but it’s in the interests of China and the broader world that there not be a further widening of the conflict. And because of that, it is in China’s interest to use the relationships and whatever influence it has with any country in the region to press that message.
QUESTION: And then one more question about the China trip. A senior administration official said on Friday that another thing that the Secretary will be discussing would be China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base. That’s also something that came up. It was happening at a smaller scale, but it also came up last year when the Secretary was there in July. And I just wonder: what makes this building think that China would be more apt to listen now if all they’ve done is expand how much support they have given to Russia’s defense industrial base in the last nine months or so?
MR MILLER: So a few things with respect to that. Number one, it is not just the United States that has this concern. And if you’ve seen the conversations the Secretary has had over the past several weeks, first he traveled to Brussels and met with NATO foreign ministers, where he talked about what we have seen industry in China doing with rebuilding the – Russia’s defense industrial base and allowing themselves to rearm and re-equip on the battlefield and use that expanded industrial base to kill Ukrainians. And then last week at a meeting with G7 foreign ministers, where he made the same points and briefed them quite extensively on what we have found – more extensively than we have made public about what we have seen and what we have found and what we have seen Chinese companies doing.
And what he heard in both of those meetings is that the concern is not just the United States, that the concern is shared by our allies and partners, and that there is a consensus belief that China cannot on one hand say it’s committed to European security and on the other hand continue to fuel the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War. So that is the first point, that it is not just the United States making this point to China, that I believe allies and partners of the United States are – will be making this point as well to China, and some probably already have made this point to China.
And then the second thing is that we will be there to have very direct, very clear conversations with them about these concerns and lay them out in detail. And I will say in the previous trip it was a different situation where we had seen – we had not seen China transferring direct arms to Russia, which is something you may recall from the outset of this conflict we were very worried about, and we saw China say that they wouldn’t do it, and we have not assessed that they have transferred direct arms.
But at the same time we made clear to them that we would be watching what Chinese private companies did, and we wanted China to take action to stop the transfer of goods that could be used for Russia’s industrial base and that we were prepared to take our own action – we have taken our own action; we’ve imposed more than a hundred sanctions and export controls targeting Chinese companies that have provided such equipment to Russia, and we of course won’t hesitate to do more if appropriate. So we will go ahead and deliver these messages not just about what we did last year but how the changing environment – the changing environment we have seen and the views of our allies and partners as well.
And with that, I’ll apologize, because I recognize that was an extremely long-winded answer.
QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to follow up specifically on that point because, I mean, it also comes on the heels of President Biden raising this directly with President Xi in a phone call, right? So I mean, has any of that diplomatic pressure already shown signs that it will move the needle? And if not, are there measures that the U.S. is willing to consider in order to moderate China’s behavior on this front specifically?
MR MILLER: We do think that there is more that China can do, and we have always made clear that we are willing and able to take our own actions if appropriate, and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.
QUESTION: Follow-up on China?
QUESTION: India?
QUESTION: On China?
MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap in a few. Sorry not to get to everybody’s, but we’ve been out for an hour now.
QUESTION: Yeah, two questions. North Korea launched a large number of cruise and ballistic missiles last weekend, and North Korea declared that all missiles can be equipped with nuclear weapons. As you know, China and Russia continue to ignore North Korea’s missile provocations. How will the U.S. resolve on this?
MR MILLER: So – sorry, were you —
QUESTION: Go ahead.
MR MILLER: Yeah, so first of all, we do condemn the DPRK’s recent ballistic missile launch. This launch, like all of its other ballistic missile launches in recent years, is in violation of multiple United States – or sorry, United Nations Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to regional and international peace and security, and this obviously will be something that will be on the agenda when the Secretary travels to Beijing.
QUESTION: On the —
QUESTION: Can I stay on Israel?
QUESTION: One more quick —
MR MILLER: One more.
QUESTION: — on defense cost sharing between the United States and South Korea, is there any possibility of holding negotiations on this?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Israel?
MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: I have two questions on China. First of all, will Secretary Blinken follow up the conversation between President Biden and President Xi on TikTok, and how will he proceed this topic since China – Chinese Government already said they oppose the – any divestment?
MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into the – to topics that will be brought up in these conversations other than to say, broadly, we are going to talk about progress on areas where the two presidents – President Biden and President Xi – agreed to work together at their summit last year: on artificial intelligence, on people-to-people exchanges, on counter-narcotics trafficking. We will be raising areas where we have concern. We’ll be talking about a number of international issues – spoke already to the Middle East and, of course, to the war in Russia. And we will be – the Secretary will be looking, as he did in his last trip last June, to make clear that it is important that the United States and China manage differences between the two countries to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict. But I don’t want to preview a specific conversation.
QUESTION: Except this week, the Senate will vote for two bills related to China. One is the aid to Taiwan; the second one is on TikTok. Do you feel these bills may give Secretary Blinken more leverage when he goes to China to start his negotiation?
MR MILLER: No, I don’t see them as connected.
All right, go ahead, and then – last question for the day. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Regarding the evacuation of displaced Palestinians from Rafah before the starting of IDF military operation, will they be transferred to a buffer zone between the Egyptians and Palestinian borders, and what the role of the Palestinian Authority will play in this issue?
MR MILLER: So I will just speak on behalf of the United States and say that we don’t want to see Palestinians evacuated from Rafah unless it is to return to their homes. And we have made that quite clear to the Government of Israel, that we don’t think there’s any effective way to evacuate 1.4 million Palestinians. There’s no way to conduct an operation in Rafah that would not lead to inordinate civilian harm and would severely hamper the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and that’s the point that we continue to make to them.
QUESTION: There is no plan to transfer them —
MR MILLER: I will let the Government of Israel speak to their plans and interests, but that is the point that the United States has made clear to them.
QUESTION: Excuse me, under the bombing, they will force to leave for that – there is guarantee if they left they will return, go home – go back home?
MR MILLER: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the —
QUESTION: Under – if starting the operation, military operation, under this threat —
MR MILLER: Oh —
QUESTION: — they will force to – to don’t stay?
MR MILLER: So I – yeah, I understand. So I don’t believe a Rafah operation has begun. That said, Israel has been carrying out airstrikes in Rafah, as it has throughout the Gaza Strip, since in the days just after October 7th. But it has not launched the full-scale ground offensive that we have heard them say that they are going to launch and that we have made clear that we think is – would be a mistake.
That said, two things with respect to that – not really with respect to this – well, one with respect to a potential operation, which is, as I just said, we don’t think that there is a way to effectively evacuate all of the people who have sought refuge there, sometimes people who have been displaced more than once. But separate and apart from that, we do want to see people able to leave Rafah to go home to their homes if their homes still exist and to their neighborhoods, and to – to begin rebuilding their homes. That’s a question entirely separate from the military operation. We want to see that happen because we want to see the Palestinian people in Gaza be able to restart their lives and rebuild their lives and ultimately bring this conflict to a close.
QUESTION: Israel follow-up?
MR MILLER: And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone. Sorry, we’ve been going for more than an hour, so I’ll wrap.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.)
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment