U.S. Department Press Briefing – July 2, 2024 July 2, 2024 1:28 p.m. EDT

 

Department Press Briefing – July 2, 2024

July 2, 2024

1:28 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for being just a little tardy. We wanted to make sure the President wrapped up before we got started here. I see Matt’s notebook but no Matt, so in that why don’t we start with Daphne? Why don’t you kick us off?

QUESTION: Thank you. If we could start with Ukraine.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Blinken was due to meet Yermak today. What was discussed in the meeting?

MR PATEL: So I expect a readout will be going shortly, but to just offer a little bit about what was discussed, the Secretary met with Ukrainian Presidential Administration Head Andriy Yermak earlier today. They spoke about a number of issues, including the upcoming Washington NATO summit and Allies’ intention to bring Ukraine closer to NATO membership and helping to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend against Russian aggression. The two also discussed energy security and ongoing G7 efforts to enhance the resiliency of Ukraine’s energy grid and energy systems. The Secretary also congratulated Mr. Yermak on his historic support at the Global Peace Summit as well as Ukraine’s tenacious and historic defense of its northern and eastern regions against recent Russian offensives. But as I said, I suspect we’ll have a formal readout going shortly.

QUESTION: Okay. And then Hungary’s Orbán today urged Zelenskyy in a visit to Kyiv to consider a ceasefire to accelerate an end to the war. This comes just before the NATO summit next week. Are you concerned that this shows a divide in NATO?

MR PATEL: So first let me just say I will leave it to our partners in Hungary to offer any context or clarity that they would like to Mr. Orbán’s comments. We and the NATO Alliance have been clear that there really is only one solution here, and that is the Russian Federation simply leaving Ukrainian territory. We have long felt that this is, again, just another example of Russia being the aggressor, infringing on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, throwing the UN Charter by the wayside.

QUESTION: Which is a different stance than what Orbán seems to be laying out there, so are you concerned that this shows division?

MR PATEL: So again, I will leave it to the respective countries to speak to their own policies, but we have been clear with partners and allies across the board that any country that has influence or has a role to play should play every effort in ensuring that Russia withdraws from Ukraine totally.

QUESTION: Okay. And then there is reporting that the U.S. invited the foreign ministers of Israel and several Arab countries to the NATO summit. Can you confirm that and who was invited?

MR PATEL: I expect that there will be additional guests from countries that are not members of the NATO Alliance, but I will – I’m not going to get ahead of the summit. We’ll – let us get to next week and I imagine across the interagency we’ll have more to say about next week’s activities.

QUESTION: Can you say if Israel is one of these?

MR PATEL: Again, I’m just not going to speak to specific participation yet. Like I said, I expect there will be attendants from other countries not fully in the NATO Alliance, but I don’t have a specific roster to announce today.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Matt, coming back to you.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but let the record show I was actually here.

MR PATEL: I know. I said —

QUESTION: And then – and then – and then we were told you were going to be late, so I went and made – to make a quick phone call.

MR PATEL: I was just waiting for our President to wrap up.

QUESTION: Yes. And then you – yes, and then you denigrated me by saying that I wasn’t here.

MR PATEL: All I said was – all I said was that your notebook was here and you were not.

QUESTION: Well, I —

MR PATEL: Hardly a denigration, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. I understand. So anyway, on the Middle East —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — and as it relates to, one, Gaza but, two, Lebanon. So one on Gaza. Is there any movement at all that you guys have seen on this ceasefire proposal? And then two, on Lebanon, where – where do things stand now if they are any different than they were yesterday? And if they’re not different than yesterday, then okay.

MR PATEL: On the second part, they are not different from yesterday, but let me just to the first part of your question echo what the Secretary said at the Bookings Institution yesterday that we continue to be in intense effort with our partners in Egypt, our partners in Qatar, to see ways that we can close the gap that Hamas created in not saying yes to a proposal that everyone, including the United Nations, including the Israelis, had said yes to. That is something that we are working around the clock literally as we speak.

And in the context of Israel’s northern border, as I said yesterday, restoring calm on the Blue Line continues to be a priority, and we believe that a ceasefire in Gaza could bring about a calm to the conflict in the north as well, creating conditions for the displaced in both Israel and Lebanon to return home. And that’s something we’re going to continue to work towards.

QUESTION: Okay. So as it relates to Lebanon, you don’t see anything over the last 24 hours that makes you more or less – I don’t know. Is there anything that you see that makes you more or less concerned about —

MR PATEL: Matt, I have seldom offered a specific analysis to events like that. I will just leave it broadly, again, that this is an immense priority for this administration. We want to see calm along the Blue Line. We believe that it needs to be a priority for not just Lebanon but also Israel, and this is something that we’re continuing to work through.

QUESTION: Could I just —

MR PATEL: Shaun.

QUESTION: — follow up? All right. I know he doesn’t work in the building, but Amos Hochstein is in Paris, if not mistaken. Can you say anything about his – why he’s there, what the U.S. is trying to do?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates as it relates to Mr. Hochstein’s travel. I’m sure my colleagues at the White House and the National Security Council would be happy to offer any information —

QUESTION: Would they?

MR PATEL: — and we’ll also check with the team – we’ll also check with the team to see if there is any context to offer from this building. I’m sure they would, Matt.

QUESTION: No, I don’t think they would.

QUESTION: Maybe other people have other questions on the Middle East. I have some things on other topics.

MR PATEL: Why don’t I – we see if there is —

QUESTION: Sure.

MR PATEL: — anything more on the Middle East region and then I’ll come back to you.

MR PATEL: Camilla has had her hand up, Said. I promise I will get to you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Sticking on Lebanon, the New York Times is reporting that Israel’s top generals want a ceasefire to start as soon as possible without Hamas having to be eliminated, that Hamas could still remain in power. They want to do this in order to – reportedly to get the hostages out, which is what some – is something that everybody wants. Do you have a comment on that at all? And obviously, this is no surprise given that we’ve seen IDF spokespeople come out and say Hamas cannot be defeated. And where is – is there anything that you can give us on that?

MR PATEL: So I am just not going to offer analysis on the back and forth in terms of the negotiations and the assessments that might be ongoing as it relates to the ceasefire proposal. What I can say is that when President Biden laid this out a number of weeks ago, we made clear that this three-phased approach that the UN Security Council endorsed, that Israel supported, is ultimately the best way to end the violence in Gaza and ultimately end the conflict. We believe that it is the best path to ensuring all the remaining hostages can be released. We think it’s the best path to ensuring that humanitarian aid is able to get into Gaza.

And so ultimately, Hamas has a choice here and they have the opportunity to alleviate some of the suffering of the Palestinian people. And so I would echo —

QUESTION: Okay, so that —

MR PATEL: — what I said yesterday, is that the time for haggling is over and that there is a proposal that’s on the table.

QUESTION: So that – that main goal of getting a ceasefire does not require immediate defeat of Hamas?

MR PATEL: We have been pretty clear also that we do not want to see Hamas in charge of Gaza anymore. The Secretary was clear about this at the Brookings Institution yesterday, and beyond that, it’s something that he laid out last fall when talking about certain principles that the United States views as nonstarters when we’re talking about the day after this conflict ends. And a key tenet of that, of course, is Gaza no longer being a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people, and Hamas no longer being the governing authority there either.

QUESTION: Okay. And just on Lebanon, just following up on that, there is absolutely no change in the security posture for the embassy there, meaning —

MR PATEL: I have no updates to offer. I will just use this opportunity to echo, because you all know how much I love Travel Advisory warnings, that the Travel Advisory warning for the entire country of Lebanon continues to be at a Level 3, at Reconsider Travel, and specifically the regions of the border bordering Israel as well as the borders in the north bordering Syria are at a Level 4 of Do Not Travel.

QUESTION: Okay. And then on the West Bank, the – Israel’s far-right finance minister, he agreed – this was end of last week, but he finally agreed to release funds for the Palestinian Authority. It was a tit-for-tat exchange for legalizing – or for Israel legalizing five Israeli settlements. Do you have a comment on this kind of tit-for-tat engagement? Is that something that the U.S. would tolerate moving forwards, if there’s anything that should be – belongs to the Palestinian Authority that should go to them? What’s your comment on them saying we’ll only do it if we legalize settlements?

MR PATEL: So first, on the issue of correspondent banking, our view is that ultimately these are – these are PA funds. These are funds that belong to the Palestinian Authority. And so we, of course, welcome reports that Israel will extend the correspondent banking relationship for four months and to release a portion of the PA’s clearance revenues. But our call is for Israel to extend correspondent banking for at least 12 months and to release the rest of the withheld clearance revenues as well. It’s important to remember that the viability of the Palestinian Authority is essential to stability in the West Bank, which in turn is essential to Israel’s own security interests as well. We have made these concerns clear to our partners in Israel at the highest level, and we’ll continue to engage with them on this issue.

Now, separately, it should come as no surprise to you that we view the expansion of settlements as – and outposts as inconsistent with international law, and again, we view these as something that only serves to weaken Israel’s security. Unilateral actions like settlement expansion and legalization of outposts, they are detrimental to a two-state solution. So we’ll continue to use the tools at our disposal to expose and promote accountability for those who threaten peace and stability in the region.

Go —

QUESTION: Just on this particular point —

MR PATEL: Sure, let me – I promise I’ll get to you, Said. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I mean, just on this reported Smotrich deal, and you’ve said that you obviously see outposts as inconsistent with international law, but I’m just – I’m very confused because the reason these outposts are created by settlers is to – one of the reasons is to draw in the Israeli military, because they then are a protection force for those settlers that are there. So you say they’re inconsistent with international law; they’re destabilizing. But you are, at the same time, arming the military force that goes to protect the people that do it. I mean, isn’t that a very confused policy?

MR PATEL: So we have a security relationship with the Government of Israel, Tom. That is no surprise to you or anybody in this room. Let’s also remember that Israel, when we talk about their security relationship and the threats that they facing, it is not simply just about the West Bank and Gaza. They have threats that they deal from other malign actors in the region – Hizballah in the north, Iran and other proxies that partake in destabilizing activities across the region.

Now when it comes to the provision of specific arms and articles, whether they are used in Gaza or the West Bank or used in other operations that our partners in Israel are conducting, there are clear protocols and policies in place, as well as our continued engagement to ensure that security assets are – when used, that their impact on civilians are minimized and that they are used in accordance to the way that the United States has provisioned them.

That does not detract from our longstanding view that such kind of settlement activities is inconsistent with international law, and, ultimately, when we’re talking about a more peaceful, more stable region, it’s a detraction from that as well.

QUESTION: But I don’t ask – I mean, I just asked not because these are sort of one-off incidents, but this is systemic. Outposts – and now they’re being legalized by the finance minister as part of this apparent deal. Outposts are there – one of the reasons that they exist is very specific. It draws in the military to Palestinian-owned land, and in many cases is a privately owned – it’s privately owned Palestinian land that is taken by settlers. So it’s more than just inconsistent with international law. It would be seen by any objective observer as a theft of land. And the point I’m making is that you’re arming the military force that goes in to protect the people that do that.

MR PATEL: So when it comes to the oversight of the security assets that we provide to any country, including Israel, there are, of course, accountability measures and protocols in place to ensure that such assets are used responsibly. And you have seen us —

QUESTION: But they’re not – those protocols are not obviously in place for this particular – these particular actions. Because it’s been going on for years and years. And now you have the Israeli Government actually as part of a deal not to withhold correspondent banking, which is (inaudible).

MR PATEL: Tom, I stood behind this podium —

QUESTION: But I’ve been saying this has been going on for years. This is not – these are not individual incidents. This is something that —

MR PATEL: Tom, I stood behind this podium a number of months ago to talk about how this administration used the Leahy law to look into the use of American security assets in particular units that may or may not have been operating in the West Bank. So I don’t want to get into a back-and-forth on this specific provision of arms, because that’s a level of technical detail that we’re just not in a place to get to.

What I can say and reiterate again is that our security relationship with Israel is robust. It is far greater than just the West Bank and Gaza that there are real, legitimate threats that Israel faces in the region. But when it comes to the provision of American security articles, there are accountability measures in place that the United States continues to have at its disposal to ensure that those articles are being used responsibly and for its intent. But simultaneously, that is – it is also true that is our view that settlement activity and outposts are inconsistent with international law.

QUESTION: Well, the point I’m making is you say that’s your policy, but it’s actually not your policy. It’s something you’re saying, but what you’re actually doing is militarizing the force that allows those outposts to exist.

MR PATEL: It absolutely is our policy, Tom, and we have taken a number of steps —

QUESTION: So – and they’re now being legalized. So these – many of these are on land —

MR PATEL: It absolutely is our policy. And over the course of this administration, especially in the past few months, we have taken a number of steps to hold those accountable who we believe to be perpetuating violence and destabilizing actions in the West Bank.

QUESTION: So – but wait, Vedant —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — since you mentioned it, how is that Leahy review of the one unit?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you, Matt.

QUESTION: So in other words, there hasn’t been anything done?

MR PATEL: That’s not true. That’s not true at all.

QUESTION: That’s not true?

MR PATEL: When I stood behind this podium and talked about it —

QUESTION: They haven’t been given a clean bill of health or given – given – I don’t know – a red notice or whatever they call —

MR PATEL: That particular unit – that particular unit, those – it continues to be under review. But on that same day —

QUESTION: Okay. And for how long has it been under review now?

MR PATEL: Matt, please don’t interrupt me.

QUESTION: Hold – Vedant, come on. How —

MR PATEL: When – that same day, I also talked about a number of other units in which – consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with Israel – we worked to identify issues and remediate and rectify those problems, so the security relationship with those particular units could persist.

QUESTION: How long —

MR PATEL: The point that I’m making is that we have levers at our disposal.

QUESTION: Okay. How long has it been since that’s been under review now for that one unit?

MR PATEL: It would have been a number of weeks. And I don’t have any updates for you.

QUESTION: A number of weeks? Well, that could be like 52; that could be 100 —

MR PATEL: It is not 52. I believe we last talked about this in April.

QUESTION: No, I know. But it’s more than a month.

MR PATEL: Sure. I don’t have any updates for you.

QUESTION: Definitely more than a month.

MR PATEL: The point that I’m making, Matt, is that —

QUESTION: Okay. So where’s the accountability then?

MR PATEL: — we have a number of tools at our disposal, and you have seen this administration utilize them when it comes to the Government of Israel.

QUESTION: Okay. What – so what have you utilized? What tool have you utilized so far, other than the 2,000-pound bombs, the suspension? What else?

MR PATEL: We just were talking about how we used Leahy vetting. But beyond that, there continue to be other processes —

QUESTION: But you didn’t use – you haven’t used Leahy vetting. You haven’t suspended anything.

MR PATEL: Because consistent with Leahy vetting is identifying a path to remediation and rectifying that problem.

QUESTION: Okay. So what other accountability measures have you used, other than the one small —

MR PATEL: The point that I —

QUESTION: — shipment of weapons that has been held up?

MR PATEL: Matt, what I said was that there —

QUESTION: What else has there been?

MR PATEL: — levers at our disposal, and we have spent a number of times —

QUESTION: What – okay. What are they?

MR PATEL: — talking about them. The CHIRG process is an example.

QUESTION: The what?

MR PATEL: The Leahy process. The CHIRG.

QUESTION: Yes. Okay.

MR PATEL: Don’t act – we’ve talked about the CHIRG process —

QUESTION: Yes. No, no, no. Yes. Okay.

MR PATEL: — a number of times here.

QUESTION: And the Leahy process.

MR PATEL: The Leahy process.

QUESTION: And the Leahy process has resulted in what —

MR PATEL: Matt —

QUESTION: — so far?

MR PATEL: The point of the Leahy process and consistent with our memorandum —

QUESTION: And the CHIRG process —

MR PATEL: — of understanding.

QUESTION: — what has been the result of that so far?

MR PATEL: Consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with Israel, we had worked to rectify and remediate those problems. I was – the point to Tom’s question was – I was answering was that we have tools at our disposal for the responsible use of their security assets. That does not detract from our long-held belief that settlements and outpost activity are inconsistent with international law.

QUESTION: I think, Vedant, the problem is – is that what he is raising and what a lot of other people are raising is – that, yes, you do have these levers. But you’re not using them.

MR PATEL: A lot – we are also not going to speak to active and ongoing deliberative processes from up here.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Before I go to Gaza, I just want to follow up on the West Bank, to Tom’s question on the settlement. Is there any evidence – do you have any evidence that the Israelis listen to what you say, your expression of displeasure over the settlements and so on, let alone heed your warnings and so on, on this (inaudible)? Has there been a shred of evidence over the past so many months – now, you’ve spoken against the settlements and the spread of settlements. Do you have any evidence that they actually said, okay, now we better stop —

MR PATEL: I —

QUESTION: — because the United States is getting angry?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations, Said. But over the course of this conflict when we have raised things with our partners in Israel, they have heeded our feedback. And I’m not going to parse it more specifically than that.

QUESTION: No, but this is actually – I mean, there is – that’s a physical thing that you can point to. Has there been any sort of tearing down of settlements, backing off plans to increase housing by so many folds and so on? Has there been any evidence —

MR PATEL: Said, I’m just —

QUESTION: — as a result of your warning time and time again and telling them that this is in violation of international law?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to our diplomatic conversations more specifically, but it – it’s our hope that Israel is also interested in preserving and maintaining its own security in the region. And that’s why we have been so clear that such kind of activities are not just inconsistent with international law but a detraction from Israel’s security as well.

QUESTION: On Gaza, I wanted to ask a couple questions. Now, the Israelis ordered new Khan Younis evacuations. And we heard the Secretary of State say yesterday that there is no sign that Israel is really lowering the intensity of its attacks on Gaza, and we also hear of looming starvation in Gaza. I mean, this is really a very horrific situation. Are you guys sort of reconciled to this is the order of the day; things will go on like this indefinitely? I mean, do you have any kind of vision of how this thing is going to end, when will it end? What is the United States —

MR PATEL: So —

QUESTION: — of America doing about it?

MR PATEL: Said, let me say a couple things, because I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. I know you were out yesterday. But first, as it relates to the activities in Khan Younis, our viewpoint continues to be that any kind of forced displacement or forced relocation of Palestinians, of course, would be inconsistent with what the United States wants for the region and inconsistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out. That being said, it is – of course, Israel and the IDF has a right to defend itself from terrorism in accordance with international law. And as it is conducting these operations, it is fully appropriate them – for them to warn and encourage evacuation of civilians from potential areas where they may or may not be conducting operations.

But specifically, in Khan Younis, we have seen Hamas moving back into areas previously cleared by the Israeli military, and just yesterday we understand that Hamas fired 20 rockets at Israel from the east Khan Younis region yesterday. Of course, how these operations are conducted matters, and Israel needs to take every feasible precaution to protect civilians in their operation.

But more importantly Said, to your point about when will this end and where – when will this conflict end, let’s not forget – and I think too often in this room we tend to find ourselves forgetting – that just a number of weeks ago the President laid out the tenets of a ceasefire proposal that would bring the hostages home, that would allow for an influx of humanitarian aid, that would put us on a path to diplomacy for the region, to get us to a region that is more integrated, more secure, and more stable.

And at every turn, what we have seen happen is Hamas has moved the goalposts. It has changed the parameters. It has come back asking for different things, even though it had previously approved various iterations of this proposal before. Let’s not forget that this is a proposal that Israel had accepted, that the United Nations had accepted, that partners in the Arab world had accepted, and that, of course, as I said, it’s something that the United States was pushing for as well. So if there’s an interest in seeing this conflict end, if there’s an interest in bringing about some sort of relief for the Palestinian people, the solution is quite simple: Hamas can stop haggling and they could accept the ceasefire proposal that has been on the table.

QUESTION: But they – I mean, can you tell us that – with certainty that they – that Israel accepts this deal?

MR PATEL: Israel itself has said —

QUESTION: I mean, have we – have we heard the prime minister of Israel say —

MR PATEL: Said, Said, Israel itself said that it accepted the proposal that the President laid out.

QUESTION: Did the prime minister say that himself?

MR PATEL: They did, the —

QUESTION: He said that I accept this proposal as submitted and approved at the Security Council, at the United Nations?

MR PATEL: Said, I am happy to help you look at Google after this and look up who in the Israeli Government did or did not say things as it relates to the proposal.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you one last question.

MR PATEL: But I just want to be very clear that this is a proposal that Israel itself has said that they supported.

QUESTION: All right.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Let me ask you one last question on wounded Palestinians telling the BBC – more wounded Palestinians telling the BBC that they had been held as human shields and so on. Are you aware of these reports, and do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: Sorry, could you be a little bit more specific about what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: Well, there were – there were reports by the BBC that more Palestinians – I mean, we saw this, I guess, 10 days ago and so on, when the Israelis strapped a wounded Palestinian on the front of a jeep. Now it seems that this is basically – was used time and time and time again. I was wondering if you are aware of these reports, and if you have any comment on this practice.

MR PATEL: So on those specific reports, Said, we have seen those disturbing reports and the video. The Israeli military and the IDF itself said that it was investigating the incident and that what was portrayed in those videos did not reflect its values and was a clear violation of its orders and procedures. I will let them speak to that, but we call again Israel to swiftly investigate and ensure accountability for any abuses and violations, and we’ll continue to make clear to the Government of Israel that there are, of course, expectations to behave consistent with the law of armed conflict.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a couple of questions, if you don’t mind.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: First, is the U.S. coordinating with Germany in its efforts to find a diplomatic solution for the war between Israel and Hizballah? And are you aware of a visit that a German intelligence official made to Beirut and met with Hizballah officials?

MR PATEL: So I would just – I would let the Government of Germany speak to their own efforts in the region. What I can say is that Germany is one of our closest partners in a number of areas – not just when it comes to the Middle East, but also Ukraine as well – and I have no doubt that they are eager to play a positive and contributive role in addressing this conflict, and not just finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Gaza but also ensuring that there is calm along the Blue Line as well. But I will let them speak to their own efforts.

QUESTION: On Syria and Türkiye, do you have any comments on the clashes between Turks and Syrians inside Türkiye and in northern Syria that killed seven people yesterday?

MR PATEL: We have urged our partners in the Government of Türkiye to coordinate with both Iraqi and Kurdistan Region of Iraq authorities on any cross-border military operations to protect civilians from harm. We certainly recognize the ongoing threat posed by the PKK, but we also urge the Turkish Government to respect Iraqi sovereignty and to coordinate these kinds of military operations.

QUESTION: But the clashes weren’t about the PKK, because Syrians in Türkiye got attacked by Turks, and they demonstrated yesterday in northern Syria and attacked Turkish troops who are based in northern Syria.

MR PATEL: I’m happy to look a little bit more specifically into this incident, Michel, but I will just say unequivocally that in any kind of activity or operation that efforts need to be made to protect civilians from harm.

QUESTION: And do you – do you support a meeting or a reconciliation between Syria and Türkiye, especially that officials from the two countries will meet soon in Iraq?

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports, Michel, and our position has been clear. We will not normalize relations with the Assad regime absent authentic progress toward a political solution to the underlying conflict. We’ve been clear with regional partners, including Türkiye, that engaging with the Syrian regime – that credible steps to improve the humanitarian condition, human rights, and the security situation for all Syrians needs to be at the focus for these kinds of engagements, and we’ve also stressed with regional partners that the Syrian regime needs to cooperate in the political process that is laid out in UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

QUESTION: My last question on Iran.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Iran is expediting its nuclear program, and they are more open now about declaring that they need the nuclear bomb, based on the last round of missiles with Israel. What’s your comment on that?

MR PATEL: So since the onset of this administration, the – President Biden and Secretary Blinken have been clear that Iran will not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon. And so that continues to be our goal and focus. I don’t have any updates to offer beyond that.

Shaun.

QUESTION: Sure, switch topics to —

MR PATEL: Can I just see if there’s anything else on the region before I come back to Shaun?

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Diyar.

QUESTION: Just coming back to the cross-border operation —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — with Türkiye, is that something that you’re concerned about, this operation? Because Türkiye has set up the checkpoints in the Kurdistan region and they are taking IDs from the civilians, people there. And this is a big concern for the people living in that region. Is this something concerning you?

MR PATEL: Look, in any region of the world, when we see civilians placed in risk, it is of course something of concern to us. That’s why we’re – and making sure to engage closely with our partners in Türkiye to make clear that when such kind of strikes are being undertaken, that they need to be coordinated with authorities in the Kurdistan region as well as Iraq. However, there are, as I said, legitimate concerns from the PKK, and we understand those. But we continue to call for greater coordination to ensure that civilians are protected from harm.

Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: Venezuela.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Maduro yesterday said that – in his terms – that negotiations are resuming Wednesday – tomorrow – with the United States. To begin with, can you confirm that there’s dialogue that’s going to take place with Venezuela? Obviously, from his perspective, he’s looking for sanctions relief ahead of the elections. Can you say if that’s something in the cards?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to get into the specifics of our diplomatic engagements beyond just saying that in the context of Venezuela – you’ve heard us say this before – we of course welcome dialogue in good faith and we support the Venezuelan people’s desire for competitive and inclusive elections on July 28th, and we are clear-eyed that democratic change will not be easy and certainly requires a serious commitment. We’re going to continue to work with the international community and democratic actors in Venezuela to support the aspirations of the Venezuelan people.

I will also just add that in our viewpoint, it continues to be the case that the full implementation of the Barbados Agreement offers the best path to restore the democracy that Venezuelans deserve, improve economic and humanitarian conditions, as well as address the migration crisis as well.

QUESTION: So you’re saying “welcome dialogue in good faith.” I mean, can you say that – if that’s – is that what you expect to happen with Venezuela?

MR PATEL: That’s like – that’s what our – would be the intent, but I am certainly not going to get ahead of the process.

QUESTION: And, I mean, is this – I mean, in terms of what the Venezuelans – the Venezuelan authorities can expect from this, I mean, is sanctions relief actually in the cards? Is this something that – we’re a month ahead of the election. Is this something that could be in the cards in the coming month?

MR PATEL: Well, I am certainly not going to try and get into the head of Mr. Maduro. I try to stay out of the minds of other world officials. But look, the – you heard me say this, that the full implementation of the Barbados Agreement we think is the best path to restore democracy that Venezuelans deserve. It’s also the best path to improve economic and humanitarian conditions and address the migration crisis, so this is something that we’ll continue to focus on. We will engage in dialogue with a broad range of Venezuelan actors.

QUESTION: And just finally – I mean, you – when you said that there – the broad range, but how does this relate to the democratic opposition in Venezuela? I mean, is there – are they going to be part of this conversation with Maduro?

MR PATEL: So we continue – engaging with the democratic actors in Venezuela continues to be a part of our engagement as well, and as you know, we engage with a broad dialogue and a broad range of voices in Venezuela, and that is going to continue to be the case. We’ll maintain regular and ongoing engagement with the representatives of the democratic opposition and our diplomatic partners as well.

QUESTION: Could I just – two separate topics, if you don’t mind.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Staying in the region, in Cuba, did you see the CSS – CSIS report on espionage allegedly by China being wrapped up in Cuba? The Cuban Government isn’t very happy about this. Do you have anything to say about whether this is something that the United States is also seeing, if it’s seeing a greater risk of espionage?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to comment on or confirm or get into the specifics of that report, but what I can say is that we remain confident that the United States is going to be able to meet our security commitments at home and in the region. We talked about this a little bit a year ago. PRC activities in Cuba have been going on for decades, and the PRC – we know that the PRC is going to keep trying to enhance its presence in Cuba and the United States is going to keep working to disrupt it. And this is a space that we are closely monitoring, and we’ll take appropriate steps to counter it when necessary.

QUESTION: To disrupt it? That – by what means?

MR PATEL: Again, I’m not going to get specific on that from here, but we – this is something we’re continuing to monitor and we’ll take steps to counter it should we need to.

QUESTION: And just briefly —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, this might be an obvious question to U.S. Government officials, but what is the risk of Chinese operations there? I mean, the United States obviously has espionage – has surveillance operations around the world. Is there a specific threat that you see from a Chinese presence in Cuba?

MR PATEL: Obviously we certainly would not want a country like the PRC conducting such an operations in such a region that is – has proximity to the United States. I’m not going to speak to it more specifically than that. And this is something, like I said, that we’ll continue to monitor and work to disrupt as well.

QUESTION: If you don’t mind —

QUESTION: Just —

QUESTION: Oh, do you want to follow on —

QUESTION: I just had one quick question on that.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there any – can you share with us that the actions that the U.S. Government has taken to date have been effective in disrupting any of that Chinese activity in Cuba?

MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t speak to something like that from up here given security and intelligence concerns, but what I can say is —

QUESTION: But the report out shows expanding spying facilities there in Cuba, so it’s just – it raises questions about how effective you guys have been.

MR PATEL: So what I can say and what I said at the onset of Shaun’s question is that we continue to be confident in our ability to meet our security commitments and responsibilities both here at home and in the region. This is a space that we’re continuing to monitor and watch, and we will take appropriate steps to counter it. The PRC has long been trying to enhance their presence in Cuba and we are continuing to work to disrupt it, but I’m not going to speak more specifically to the issue than that.

Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Thank you. The Global Times is a China Communist Party-affiliated media outlet. It was designated by the U.S. Government four years ago as a foreign mission. Now recently, this outlet has been attacking a well-respected China scholar for research on China trying to distort the UN Resolution 2758 to embed its “one China” policy. I was wondering if the State Department is aware of this action of what the Global Times is doing, and if so, what are you doing?

MR PATEL: So Guita, combating transnational repression is a priority component of U.S. efforts to counter rising authoritarianism and defend human rights around the world. Our viewpoint is that any academic, any scholar, any journalist, any person – they certainly need to be – any kind of harassment towards them is unacceptable. Everyone has a right to express their point of view. In the United States, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are legally enshrined in our Constitution.

Go ahead, Jackson.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. The German newspaper Bild reported Israel could invade Lebanon this month. Will Israel forewarn the U.S. of such action? Do renewed Travel Warnings for Americans to avoid Lebanon have anything to do with the impending Israeli operation in Lebanon?

MR PATEL: So on Travel Warnings, we regularly update and assess those based on situations on the ground. We have a responsibility to inform American citizens, and we’ll continue to do so as circumstances on the ground change. I spoke a little bit this to Camilla’s question. The Travel Warning for Lebanon as a whole continues to be a Level 3, with Level 4 specifically for southern Lebanon and the border near Syria as well. We also have a close working relationship with our partners in Israel, and we continue to be in touch with them about our expectation for calm along the Blue Line as well.

QUESTION: And is there any consideration of plans for the U.S. and NATO to enforce a no-fly zone in parts of Ukraine?

MR PATEL: I have nothing to update on that right now.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead, and then I’ll come to you, Kylie.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple of topics. I want to circle back to your conversation – your answers to Daphne’s question about Yermak meeting. There was a caveat that there is still a readout coming up. But I was wondering if the Secretary came out of that meeting with better sense of Ukraine’s current urgent needs. We have heard renewed calls for long-range weapons and, of course, lifting all the restrictions that Ukraine thinks that only help – are helping Russia to save its air bases.

MR PATEL: So Alex – and let me just say that the United States and Secretary Blinken, of course, we are unequivocally paying close attention to what are Ukraine’s needs. In addition to, of course, Mr. Yermak, we remain in touch with a number of officials in the Ukrainian Government as well as they continue to defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity against Russia.

The Secretary of Defense talked a little bit about it this morning in his bilateral engagements. The United States is continuing to work on an additional security assistance package. I expect we’ll have more to say on that forthcoming. But we are acutely aware about what Ukraine’s needs are, and we’re continuing to work hand in hand with them to ensure that they have what they need for their defense.

QUESTION: Thank you. And on Orban question, please help us understand what the department is thinking about on the world stage currently. Today it looks like when you have – Orban is out there trying to say make Ukraine – make Europe great again. And then you have Russia, a terrorist state, leading UN Security Council.

MR PATEL: So let me just say that if you’re talking about Prime Minister Orban’s specific visit to Ukraine, I will let his office speak specifically about his travels. But this, in our point of view, is an example of our European allies increasing their support for Ukraine because there is a collective recognition that Ukraine’s fight to defend its people and its independence is part of a larger fight for democracy and international stability. And what we are seeing in Ukraine is not just a threat to Ukraine; it is a broader threat to European security. So this is something that Secretary Blinken has recently emphasized, and so we’ll continue to engage with partners in the region as well.

Kylie.

QUESTION: On Russia’s —

MR PATEL: I’m going to —

QUESTION: Russia’s UN Security Council chairmanship – any comment on it?

MR PATEL: Not really. We wish them the best of luck.

Kylie.

QUESTION: I have one more question —

MR PATEL: Kylie.

QUESTION: Come back to me next.

MR PATEL: I’ll try.

QUESTION: This is on a different topic —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — that we discussed briefly yesterday, the Doha conference.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Were the case of the two Americans who were detained in Afghanistan raised during that conference by Tom West?

MR PATEL: They were. So during these meetings, Special Rep West pressed for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. citizens unjustly detained in Afghanistan, noting that these detentions impede progress in the Taliban’s own desire for international recognition. U.S. officials continue to press for their release continuously and at every opportunity.

QUESTION: And did you – did the department walk away feeling like there was any forward movement on those efforts, or it was just raised?

MR PATEL: It was just raised. I have no updates to offer from up here.

QUESTION: And what’s the latest, if any, contact with those two Americans that you can share?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates in terms of contact or any kind of consular access. That obviously would be a little unique given the Taliban.

QUESTION: You just said (inaudible) was raised. Was it raised directly with the Taliban?

MR PATEL: It was. So part of this —

QUESTION: Like a private – a private meeting?

MR PATEL: Correct. So to widen the aperture a little bit, Special Representative Tom West and Special Envoy Amiri met directly with Taliban representatives during the Doha 3 meetings.

Taka, go ahead.

QUESTION: President Xi is visiting Kyrgyzstan now. He will meet President Putin of Russia again tomorrow. So what are your expectation for the meeting? If China does not stop supporting Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, what will happen?

MR PATEL: So no country should offer Putin a platform to promote his war of aggression against Ukraine. It cannot be business as usual with Russia, and no country should turn a blind eye to the clear violations of international law that Russia has committed. And we strongly support efforts that have been undertaken by us and our partners in the G7 in addressing what we are seeing as a reconstitution of Russia’s defense industrial base. We believe that the PRC’s reconstitution is deeply problematic and we’re going to continue to monitor this and take appropriate actions independently as well as through multilateral institutions as well.

And you heard me talk about this a little bit before, but this kind of reconstitution, again, is not just a threat to Ukraine; it’s a threat to European security as well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) one more.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: A mayor of a small town in the Philippines is accused of being a Chinese asset or Chinese agent – I mean agent. So for instance, NBI reports that fingerprints of the mayor and the Chinese national is identical. Do you have any comment on this news story? Are you concerned that may increase tension in the South China Sea?

MR PATEL: I don’t. I would defer to authorities in the Philippines to speak to anything about that.

QUESTION: Do you mind if I follow up briefly on that?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: China and the Philippines had talks today, I believe it was, and there were some statements saying they were going to de-escalate tensions. How significant is this from the U.S. perspective? How important do you see it?

MR PATEL: Look, we, of course, would welcome any efforts to de-escalate tensions in the South China Sea. It’s something that’s, of course, a priority for us. But specifically in this context, I think when it comes to the PRC, actions speak louder than words, specifically for our partners in the Philippines, when we’re talking about the Second Thomas Shoal and some of the destabilizing actions that the PRC has taken in that region. We would welcome steps to de-escalate, but actions speak louder than words, and clearly, especially in the South China Sea, especially in the context of the Second Thomas Shoal you have seen PRC actions be inconsistent with a stated goal, perhaps, of de-escalation.

Go ahead, in the back. Yeah, you in the green tie.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you. So yeah, so Taiwan just said that China’s coast guard has boarded and detained a Taiwanese fishing boat and calls for its release. Do you have a reaction?

MR PATEL: I have not seen that report, so I am happy to check with the team and see if we have some more updates on what happened.

QUESTION: And so U.S. and Chinese officials have been holding talks about cracking down on fentanyl sourced from China. Blinken highlighted this at the Brookings Institute yesterday. President Biden said this during the debate that fentanyl is coming from Asian countries and they’re cracking down hard on it. But the bipartisan House Select Committee on the CCP released a report in April that said that the CCP is subsidizing the manufacturing and export of fentanyl precursors through tax incentives. Have you raised this concern with those officials?

MR PATEL: When we’re talking about fentanyl precursors, that continues to be something that we continue to raise in every engagement that we have with officials in the PRC. Progress and the specific efforts in the working group that we have seen in recent weeks and months on fentanyl is something – it’s a product of President Biden and Secretary Blinken’s engagement at the historic Woodside Summit in November. I will also just note that we have since that summit seen the PRC take some appropriate actions, including designating certain companies and enforcing some actions within their own justice system. That is, of course, a welcome step. But this is something that we’re going to continue to work at with the PRC through these working groups and through other channels as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Vedant, two quick ones from me. On tomorrow’s meeting in Astana between Xi and Putin, you said that no country should offer Putin a platform. Does it apply to Türkiye as well? Erdogan is also planning to meet with Putin tomorrow.

MR PATEL: In any – any country – this is something that we stress with all of our partners. We continue to ask all of our partners that they need – they should support efforts to realize an enduring and just peace for Ukraine, and for those that have influence or a relationship with Russia, to urge them to withdraw troops from Ukraine’s sovereign territory.

QUESTION: Thank you. And finally on Armenia-Azerbaijan, you guys have invited both countries to the NATO summit. I understand the preparation is still going on. To the extent that you can talk about it, is there any plan to bring them together while they are here?

MR PATEL: Again, Alex, let me just say broadly in the context of the issue in the South Caucasus, this is a priority for us, a priority for the Secretary and other officials across this department. I have no doubt that it’s something we’ll continue to work towards. Specific meetings and engagements on the margins of the summit – I just don’t want to speak to the schedule yet.

All right. Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Wait, hold on.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. I had to run out again.

MR PATEL: Everything okay?

QUESTION: Yes, everything is fine —

MR PATEL: Great.

QUESTION: — but I just had to – but anyway, I’m not sure if this was raised when I think it was Shaun asked about this report about China and Cuba.

MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Your response to it, as far as I could tell while I was on the phone and watching it on TV, was that, yeah, you’re concerned about this kind of activity, given the proximity of it to the U.S. Is that essentially correct?

MR PATEL: Well, Shaun posed the question of what concerns could we have. I certainly – I wasn’t going to get into specific intelligence concerns or areas. We wouldn’t speak to that.

QUESTION: No, I know. But you – but because there is this Chinese activity going on in Cuba, that that was an issue, right?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you say that or not?

MR PATEL: That was the premise of the question, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. So if that is a concern and a legitimate concern for the United States, why is it not a legitimate concern for China to be concerned about what you guys are doing with Taiwan? Taiwan is, what, a hundred miles off the coast of China, and Cuba is 96, 97 miles off the coast of Florida.

MR PATEL: Matt, we have never at any point have – any country is allowed to have any feelings that they would like to have. And when it comes to activities that the U.S. may or may not be participating in, certainly we wouldn’t speak to those from up here. The context – the question was asked about this specific report speaking about —

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: — PRC efforts in Cuba, to which I simply addressed that, one, we have seen efforts by the PRC to expand their operation in Cuba for some time now. We continue to have lines of effort in play to disrupt it. This is a space that we’ll continue to monitor and take appropriate action as necessary.

QUESTION: Look, I’m not suggesting that your concerns are wrong about Cuba. I’m just wondering why they – why the Chinese can’t have the same concerns about your activity in Taiwan, which includes, as far as I can tell, a lot more than what this report entails about China cooperating —

MR PATEL: Matt, that’s certainly not something that I would speak to from this podium. But I also think that comparing us as a country to the PRC as a country, it’s a little bit apples and oranges.

QUESTION: I’m not trying to. I’m not —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: No, that’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m just trying to say that if you have concerns, legitimate concerns, about Chinese presence or activity in Cuba, why is it incompatible for the Chinese to have concerns about U.S. activity in Taiwan?

MR PATEL: That’s just not something that I would – it’s just not something that I would speak to from up here.

QUESTION: Really?

MR PATEL: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s – because that’s not foreign policy? That’s not —

MR PATEL: Matt, I just don’t have anything to offer when it comes to —

QUESTION: Fair enough.

MR PATEL: — that topic from up here.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)

# # #

Tags

Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan China Cuba Iran Iraq Israel Lebanon Office of the Spokesperson Palestinian Territories Russia Syria Turkey Ukraine Venezuela