Department Press Briefing – August 15, 2024
August 15, 2024
11:48 p.m. EDT
MR PATEL: Good morning, everybody.
QUESTION: Good morning.
MR PATEL: We’re still before noon. I think I can get away with saying that, right? I don’t have anything off the top, so Shaun, do you want to kick us off?
QUESTION: Sure. Actually, maybe before we get to the Middle East, can we talk about Sudan?
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: The Secretary – I saw that you put out a readout last night. The Secretary spoke with General Burhan. First, I mean, can you say how it’s going in terms of the process of getting the Sudanese Armed Forces into the talks in Switzerland?
MR PATEL: So that is – that continues to be an ongoing effort, and we’re continuing to stress how vitally important it is for them to be there. Look, for any kind of negotiation – then when we’re talking about the ultimate goal here being a cessation of hostilities, a cessation of violence – you certainly need both military actors to be part of that conversation. We are continuing to engage with both parties separately.
The RSF delegation is in Switzerland and are ready for negotiations, but outside of that there is far too much additional work to be done, specifically in talking about some of the humanitarian issues and technical concerns, so that process has begun. And discussions as it relates to humanitarian actors, ensuring humanitarian access, achieving a ceasefire, that has proceeded with international partners and technical partners on what that roadmap will look like. And simultaneously, we’re continuing to press to make sure that both of these parties can participate in negotiations to get this process moving forward.
QUESTION: Sure. I know that’s the language you’ve been using, that both parties need to participate. I mean, did you see any headway with the Sudanese Armed Forces in the call with —
MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer beyond the Secretary’s call, beyond just saying that this is something that we are working around the clock. The Secretary obviously had the chance to speak with General Burhan yesterday. In Switzerland itself, Special Envoy Perriello, Special Envoy Hammer continue to be deeply engaged in representing the United States. Outside of that, I don’t want to get ahead of the process.
QUESTION: Sure. Just one more on Sudan.
MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Sudanese Army said today that it’s going to open the crossing with Chad. I don’t know if you have any reaction to that human right – humanitarian groups who’ve been pushing for that crossing.
MR PATEL: So I mean, this is something that the Secretary spoke to General Burhan about yesterday, and it’s certainly a welcome announcement. We’re aware that the – Sudan’s Sovereign Council has agreed to reopen the Adre border crossing with Chad for humanitarian deliveries for three months. We are going to continue to call on both the SAF and the RSF to facilitate unrestricted humanitarian access through all available channels. We think that’s vitally necessary, and we think that, specifically as it relates to that border crossing, restoring access from that point is an important step in providing humanitarian aid to the many impacted Sudanese people.
QUESTION: Sure. Let’s go to Gaza —
MR PATEL: Okay.
QUESTION: — then I’ll – I’ll turn to my colleagues as well. But I know that Admiral Kirby over at the White House spoke at length on this today. I wanted to ask – one of the things that he’s – he kept saying was that this is – the negotiations and the discussions in Doha right now are very much about implementation at this point, that the broader framework has been agreed. Could you explain that a little bit?
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: I mean, if I’m not mistaken, Hamas has actually said that we need to implement what the President proposed on May 31st. I know you’re not – you wouldn’t say you’re taking the Hamas position on this. But is there a sense that it needs to be implemented, that there isn’t, like, room for more negotiations on —
MR PATEL: So I would very much echo what Admiral Kirby said. And I spoke a little bit about this earlier in the week in response to, I think, a question Said had and a number of you as well. It is our view – and it continues to be the case – that the broader framework of what the President laid out at the end of May has generally been accepted. But of course, this is a negotiation with two parties, and this is a process, and you sort of see what the text of the agreement is, and there’s a back-and-forth, and there’s an exchange, and there is engagement.
And so we feel confident in saying that the contours of what the President outlined on May 31st has been accepted. And what we are focusing on now and what the talks are focusing on is working on the details of the implementation. There, of course, are still gaps when it comes to some of the details. There are gaps when it comes to execution. There are specific implementing measures that need to be agreed upon. But beyond that, I’m just not going to get into the specifics, Shaun.
QUESTION: I’ll defer to my colleagues.
MR PATEL: Great. Jenny, Camilla, while I stick with the front row? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, Kirby called this a promising start. But why? Just because they resumed talking? Is – has there been more progress made —
MR PATEL: So as I said – look, I will let the White House offer any additional characterization to the admiral’s comments. But what I would echo is that this is – it is an important step, as we’ve said, that in the lead-up to this meeting there – we have already narrowed some gaps, and the focus now is on some of the more specific implementation and specific issues as it relates to the agreement. There of course is a lot of work that remains ahead. This is a complex situation and a complex agreement. But the work is so important, and we’re very pleased that these – this process has taken place again.
QUESTION: Do you have a sense of how quickly these negotiations could wrap up, or —
MR PATEL: I don’t want to put a timeline on it, Jenny. I don’t anticipate that coming out of the talks that there will be a deal today. We expect this process to continue, but I’m just going to avoid putting a timeline on it.
QUESTION: Then on Gaza —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — the health officials there say that this death toll has surpassed 40,000 people. I was wondering if the State Department has any comment on that.
MR PATEL: So I would echo what I have said a number of times this week, which is that any number above zero, when it comes to the number of civilians who have lost their lives over the course of this conflict, is saddening, is troubling, is heartbreaking. I think, as President Biden himself said earlier this month, the Palestinian people have endured sheer hell, and since October 7th too many men, women, children, civilians, who have had no role in – are just impacted by a crossfire of Hamas’s making. We’ve urged and will continue to urge the Israelis to conduct their military operation in a way to avoid civilian casualties. As I’ve said, there’s a moral and strategic imperative there.
But Jenny, since you asked the question, I want to highlight, though, that the fastest way to create improved conditions for all, including the Palestinian people, including Palestinian civilians, is for parties – the parties to accept and finalize this deal for an immediate ceasefire, hostages released, and increased humanitarian aid, and safe civilian return. And we really hope that, with the process that restarted today, that that is what is awaiting for us at the other side of the finish line.
Camilla.
QUESTION: Thanks. I know that you’ve spoken about this yesterday.
MR PATEL: Yep.
QUESTION: I guess I’m just following up to just check that this is still the case, that Qatar has said that they will make sure that Hamas participates in this round of talks. Obviously, we’ve seen a lot of statements coming from Hamas saying that they won’t participate. We know that they’re not meant to be in the room with U.S. and Israeli negotiators to begin with. So it doesn’t seem like there’s a whole lot of difference this time around anyway, but just wanted to ask — is that assurance still there from the Qataris about today’s —
MR PATEL: Talks are moving forward in Doha. That is – that process is happening, and there are representatives on the ground there from Israel, from the United States, from Qatar, and Egypt. And Qatar and Egypt are – as part of that process, are mediating with Hamas. And so you heard me say a number of times this week that our partners assured us that Hamas would be representative in one way, shape, or form, and they certainly would be part of the ongoing conversations, which is probably necessary when we’re talking about negotiations between two sides. And so we have no doubt that the current modality will be able to serve the purpose it’s designed to.
QUESTION: Okay. And I have a couple questions on another part of the world.
MR PATEL: Okay. I’ll come back to you.
Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Very quickly, on – just following up on my colleagues, on the talks, I mean, what is really perplexing is the fact that the President laid out the plan on May 31; you guys took it to the Security Council, UN Security Council; you got a resolution and so on. Why is there a need to have more talks? Why can’t you just find a mechanism to implement what you have already agreed to with the rest of the world? Explain that.
MR PATEL: Said, for anybody who’s actually probably been part of a negotiation process, it’s probably not perplexing at all. This is a process; it is a complicated process. And as I said to Shaun and as Admiral Kirby said just an hour ago at the White House, the focus now is working on the details of the implementation and details of execution and specific implementing measures.
There is no question as it relates to the contours that President Biden laid out at the end of May that was then quickly supported by the international community, including the UN Security Council and much of the Arab world. And it is one – the contours of the plan that was echoed last week in the trilateral statement by President Biden, the amir of Qatar, and the president of Egypt. So this is a process, and we’re going to let this process play out. I’m not going to get into the specifics beyond that.
QUESTION: Right. I mean, just – logic tells me that everybody will be spared the heartache if they say okay, this is what we have, now let’s find a way to implement it. And instead of going back to square one, instead of having Mr. Netanyahu basically —
MR PATEL: Don’t think there is anybody going back to square one, Said. This is a process —
QUESTION: Well, I mean —
MR PATEL: And as I have said for what is probably now the fourth time that this is – there is broad agreement on the contours of what President Biden laid out at the end of May. What we are talking about now is some specific details, some specific implementing factors. There are, of course, still gaps and things that need to be bridged in that space. But when we’re talking about the overall framework, that has been generally accepted, and that continues to be the case.
QUESTION: Well, the point, Vedant – I mean, I know what you said yesterday about whatever is attributed to Mr. Netanyahu is basically allegation – alleged – you said alleged. In fact, it was the title of my article about what you said. But the Israelis, different Israeli sources, different Israeli media, and so on – they insist that Mr. Netanyahu wants to renegotiate the Philadelphi Crossing; Mr. Netanyahu wants to negotiate the Netzarim Crossing. He wants to insist on a system that it’s almost impossible to vet whoever goes to the north and so on. He’s saying basically it’s like an impossible situation to arrive at.
MR PATEL: Said —
QUESTION: Now, I know you said that it was alleged, but it seems that Mr. Netanyahu insists on these restrictions.
MR PATEL: Said, I know you all have a job to focus on these things, but I try not to spend a lot of time worrying about unnamed sources and documents that may or may not have veracity. What we’re focused on is playing a constructive role in the talks that began today. And beyond that I am just not going to get into the specifics of an ongoing process.
QUESTION: A couple more questions on the – on the West Bank. It’s – there’s been a settlement on a UNESCO site and so on. I wonder if you’re aware of the report, and if you have any comment on that.
MR PATEL: I’ve seen those reports, Said. And again, the – this administration has spoken out against Israeli actions that undermine territorial continuity for a future Palestinian state. Something like this would certainly be that. Every single one of these new settlements would impede Palestinian economic development and freedom of movement, and undermine the feasibility of a two-state solution.
Simultaneously, Said, what we have said a number of times continues to be the case, which is that the Israeli Government’s settlement program – we find that to be inconsistent with international law. And we certainly oppose the advancement of settlements in the West Bank, and this would certainly be an example of that.
QUESTION: If you indulge one more, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on what Jennifer mentioned —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — about crossing the 40,000 mark – I mean, this is more than 10-to-1 as far as the – and all lost life is precious, and so on. But now we have at least 10-to-1 Palestinians have died. When will enough be enough? Because I know you say one more, we don’t want to see it, but the fact of the matter is that you’ve been saying this since last December, and we have killing every single day. Every single day, no 24 hours goes by without killing at least 36, 40, 50 Palestinians – most of them children. So I mean, when will enough be enough?
MR PATEL: Said, what we are exactly focusing on is trying to have a resolution that would allow the fighting to stop. That’s why we have time and time again – and again, just a moment ago I said that the best thing for the parties to do to minimize impacts on all, including the Palestinian civilians, is to accept and finalize a ceasefire deal, one that is encompassing of the hostages being returned, an influx of humanitarian aid, and broader diplomacy to happen for the region to get out of this endless cycle of violence.
Tom, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on the settlement announcement —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — that Minister Smotrich made yesterday, do you think your opposition to it will stop the settlement being built?
MR PATEL: That is not really for me to speak to, Tom. These are obviously unilateral Israeli actions. And when it comes to the United States, not only have we had made our perspective and our point of view on this incredibly clear – how it is a detraction from Israel’s security, how it takes us away from a two-state solution – but we also continue to have tools in our toolbelt to hold to account individuals who we may think be contributing to greater insecurity in the West Bank.
QUESTION: But that —
MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that from here, though.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, that’s a separate point, but this is a government-announced settlement; this isn’t an outpost. So I mean, it’s the same question, really. If you oppose it, I don’t quite see why you can’t stop it.
MR PATEL: The – I’m sorry, I don’t really follow, Tom.
QUESTION: I mean, you’ve opposed hundreds of settlement announcements, and they are all then built. So what’s the point of repeatedly saying you oppose them?
MR PATEL: It is important for us to make clear our perspective and our point of view, as well as to raise these sometimes tough and difficult conversations with our Israeli partners. And we’ll continue to do so.
QUESTION: But doesn’t it – I mean, doesn’t it just expose the weakness of your position in that you can say something, and say it’s your policy, but clearly it doesn’t have any effect on the ground?
MR PATEL: I would take issue with that characterization, Tom. These are not actions that the United States is party to, certainly not ones we are involved in. Ultimately Israel is a sovereign country that’s going to make its own decisions. That does not detract or change from the fact that when we see things, when we see policy decisions, when we see actions that we disagree with that we think are not just in the interests of the United States but also not in the interests of the region, we won’t hesitate to say so. It is not dissimilar from circumstances in other countries in which the United States is not party to those decisions, but when we see something we disagree with we certainly will make our voices heard, and that continues to be the case here.
I will also say that the bigger issue here, Tom, is that we want to see these kinds of things end, and that is why we’re so committed to getting to a two-state solution, because we think that is the only path forward for the region. And when we see things like this that are inconsistent with that, we won’t hesitate to say so.
QUESTION: Well, you want to see a two-state solution, but I mean, Smotrich himself said in announcing the settlement, “We will continue to fight the dangerous idea of a Palestinian state and establish facts on the ground… This is my life’s mission, and I will continue it as much as I can.” So that’s what you’re up against when you’re saying you oppose the building of these settlements. Clearly, this will go ahead, and it will not just go ahead but it will go ahead in occupied territory where you are arming the military force which will facilitate its establishment. So you’re saying you oppose it, but you’re arming the military force that facilitates its establishment.
MR PATEL: We have a security relationship with the IDF, Tom; I don’t dispute that. That, of course, continues to be the case.
QUESTION: And how is – so how is building a settlement about self-defense of Green Line, sovereign Israel?
MR PATEL: We don’t think it is, Tom. We do not think that the expansion of the settlement program is in Israel’s security interest. We think it detracts from a two-state solution and causes further instability and insecurity. I’ve said these things a number of times. The point that I am making is that these are not actions that the United States is party to.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?
MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: So again, we asked – I asked about Ben-Gvir and what he’s done on the Temple Mount. And to Tom’s question, you mentioned tools and the U.S. toolkit. The U.S. hasn’t used any tools in that toolkit. And I just want to understand, is that because these are U.S. Government officials? These are also U.S. Government officials that Netanyahu is —
MR PATEL: You mean Israeli officials?
QUESTION: Oh, sorry, Israeli Government officials that you wouldn’t use – are – is that because you can’t use U.S. sanctions —
MR PATEL: So Camilla, I would never – I would never preview actions from up here. That would be inappropriate not just in the context —
QUESTION: I only bring it up because you mentioned toolkit, so —
MR PATEL: Of course, not – of course, not in – not just in the context of Israel but in any country I wouldn’t – wouldn’t preview actions from up here. Look, when it comes to – there are – across the world when it comes to governments that we engage with, whether they be partners, allies, or countries that we have adversarial relationships with, there are colorful characters in any government. What the United States is focused on is the policy, and the policy decisions that they pursue and the United States pursue. And particularly one when it comes to attempting to subjugate or change the status quo at Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif, we would take issue with that. And expansions of a settlement program, we would take issue with that. We find both of these things to be a detraction of Israel’s security and fuel more insecurity and instability in the region.
QUESTION: But —
MR PATEL: And we’ll raise these – and continue to have these very tough conversations. In terms of what actions we can take, Camilla, I’m not going to preview or speculate from up here.
QUESTION: Okay. But it’s fair to say that there haven’t been any actions taken other than condemning it verbally?
MR PATEL: When it comes to officials within the government, sure, that can be a fair assessment to take. But you have seen us, particularly when it comes to actors in the West Bank we have found to be sowing division, sowing instability, sowing insecurity – we have taken action. And we’ve spoken about that a number of times from up here.
QUESTION: And just – I mean, I would just remark that the reason that these actions are being taken by settlers in the West Bank is because they do get a green light from said government officials to be able to behave like that. But again, that’s – that – to me that seems linked and that’s why these questions are being asked, but I’ll leave it at that.
MR PATEL: Great. Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple questions. Can you discuss anything about Ksenia Karelina’s sentencing in Russia for exercising her First Amendment right in – on U.S. soil? And any involvement from the U.S. embassy? Are you willing to impose any measures?
MR PATEL: So Alex, there is probably a limit to what I can say here given privacy concerns. We are – continue to be aware of reports of an American citizen, a dual national American citizen that had a sentencing today in Russia. For privacy reasons, I’m not really in a place to get further. But I just want to be incredibly clear about something: Donating to a nonprofit organization, donating to an NGO, supporting the Ukrainian cause, and supporting the Ukrainian people as they defend themselves against Russia aggression, especially doing so on American soil, is not a crime. We strongly condemn the Kremlin’s escalating domestic repression.
And outside of that, as it relates to this particular case, we continue to raise this directly with the Russian Government and continue to seek consular access. Alex, you and many others here – we’ve talked about this a great deal: Russia has a track record of, when it comes to dual nationals, not recognizing their American citizen status and frankly being uncooperative when it comes to things like meeting their obligations under consular conventions. But we’ll continue to remain deeply focused and engaged on this.
QUESTION: Given the definition you just described, so you consider her arrest as wrongful?
MR PATEL: I have not – we have not made any formal determination, Alex. That’s obviously a separate, deliberative process. What I can say is just what I have seen in public reporting on whatever merits exist in that, that contributing money to a nonprofit organization, contributing money to efforts that support the Ukrainian cause in our eyes and from our point of view is certainly not a crime.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Ukraine, we heard from the White House this morning – they said that you have seen some Russian units being pulled out, redirected. You have not seen any escalatory from Russia. Once again, Ukraine proved to be right and your escalatory-fear policy proved to be exaggeration. In that case given this latest episode, are you willing to allow Ukraine to take this further step and strike deep inside Russia, which would allow Putin to actually remove not some of his units but all of them?
MR PATEL: So Alex, let me say two things and then I am going to move on because I want to get to as many people because I have a hard out today. First, we have seen some Russia – Russian troop movement out of Ukraine to deal with the incursion that you and others have asked about, but I’m not going to do a military analysis from up here. Separately, there has been no change to United States policy when we come to – when it comes to cross-border attacks. What we are focused on is making sure that our Ukrainian partners have what they need to defend themselves from Russian aggression.
Nike, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Sudan?
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: Can you give us an update on U.S. humanitarian assistance to Sudan?
MR PATEL: I don’t have a monetary update for you, Nike, but I’m happy to check with the team to see if there is a figure we can provide. What I can say is that this is something that we’re deeply engaged on. Obviously, the Secretary spoke about it with General Burhan yesterday and would welcome the news as it relates to this border crossing with Chad. Beyond that, we are continuing to call on the SAF and RSF to facilitate unrestricted humanitarian access through any and all available channels. Let’s not forget that Sudan currently is one of the most dire humanitarian situations in the world right now, and we’re taking every possible effort to address that.
One of the key reasons that these talks are ongoing right now is to make sure that we, along with international partners and other technical partners, have a roadmap and a plan when it comes to ensuring humanitarian access.
QUESTION: With neither side showed up on day one’s talk, can you please help us understand what are the sticking points?
MR PATEL: So again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of the negotiations. But to clarify, we are currently engaged with both sides, and we continue to stress the importance of having the SAF come to Switzerland and participate in the negotiations jointly. That’s obviously – it’s obvious that that would be necessary when we’re talking about a cessation of hostilities or a cessation of violence. The RSF is in Switzerland and they stand ready to negotiate. But we’re continuing to engage with both sides, and I’m going to let this process play out.
QUESTION: If I may ask global health emergency impact.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Does the State Department has any plan to update its travel advisories and to providing timely information?
MR PATEL: So I spoke a little bit about this earlier in the week. U.S. embassies in the region have issued alerts to U.S. citizens amplifying the CDC’s Level Two Travel Health Notice for mpox. For further information on that, I would defer to the CDC. At this point, we’re not seeing any major issues of flight cancellations and we certainly don’t expect that at this time, but this is an issue that we are deeply engaged on.
I will also just note since you asked, Nike, that to support the effort as it relates to mpox, the United States is donating 50,000 doses of the FDA-approved JYNNEOS vaccine to the DRC, and we’re also working with other countries, the WHO, and other international partners to look at the vaccine delivery situation and see what other lines of efforts we can support.
Go ahead, in the green. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Canadian doctor Ben Thomson, who volunteered in Gaza earlier this year, posted a video on X in which he tells the story of a doctor in Gaza who was forced to strip naked and standing for two days by Israeli force, urinating and defecating where he stood. He was only allowed to treat his patients while naked. Do you have any comment on that?
MR PATEL: So I have not seen that video. But if those reports are accurate, certainly that would be deeply troubling and just outright offensive. And the – if true, the IDF should look into these allegations and hold to account any perpetrators. But again, I don’t have more information on that beyond what you said.
QUESTION: Two days ago, Israel killed pharmacist Doctor Joumana, her mother, and her three-days-old twin in a strike. No other unit were struck in that strike, which makes it a very precise and targeted strike. Since you are in daily contact with the Israelis, can you ask them or do you have any opinion why would they target the – would they target and kill a grandmother, a mom, and a three-day-old twin?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific information on this, and I’ll let the IDF speak to their own operations.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: One more, please.
MR PATEL: I’ve got to work the room because I have a hard out.
QUESTION: One last one. One more.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, on the sanctions announcement this morning, given the timing and the talks of potential chatter within the region, is there any sort of message or sort of underlying response to the timing of sanctions on Hizballah and the Houthis as of now in conjunction with Treasury?
MR PATEL: So I would – certainly these actions that we’re taking are rooted specifically in the malign and destabilizing behavior that we have seen both the Houthi and the Hizballah networks partake in. I would not necessarily equate it to any other thing that is happening in the region. Since the onset of the increased Houthi activity in the Red Sea that we have seen, the United States and the President have made clear that we will take appropriate actions to hold these networks accountable, and this is us in conjunction with the Treasury Department doing that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: The Doha negotiations are being held without Hamas, and Geneva negotiations are being held without an important party from the – without the army. Has the United States lost its role or being an effective mediator in the crisis of the Middle East?
MR PATEL: So I think I spoke to both of these. First, in the context of Switzerland, we’re continuing to stress the importance of the SAF joining the talks. The RSF is in Switzerland and they stand ready to join the negotiations. What we are focused on at this moment is the humanitarian and technical part of the equation, which we are continuing to move forward in close coordination with international partners, humanitarian actors, and others.
In the context of the Middle East, as I said, the talks have started today, and Egypt and Qatar are playing a role in mediating with Hamas, as they have – had indicated to us this week that they would do.
Go ahead, in the back. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. It seems based on recent report and what the President himself laid out, there is a connection between the Iranian attack on Israel and the talks in Doha. President says that Iran could hold off on Israel attack if Gaza deal reached. How these connections have been built up? Based on what? Based on common sense, intelligence, or let’s say the indirect talks that you are having with the Islamic Republic?
MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate at all. Again, you’ve said – me and Admiral Kirby have said this numerous times this week. I’m not going to speculate on a potential Iranian response. What we are focused on is two things: one, taking every possible effort to send a clear message to Iran through partner countries and other channels that a response, a retaliation, would not be in anybody’s interest, and taking every possible step to de-escalate; simultaneously, we’re incredibly focused on getting these talks across the finish line.
In the pink, go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. President Lula gave an interview just today, and he has two proposals for Venezuela. So he’s laying out the possibility of a new election, but he also is asking for a coalition government, and he was very strong in his demand for Maduro to give answers. He said that Maduro owes Brazil and the world an explanation. Any reaction to these possibilities as today they’re meeting in Colombia?
MR PATEL: So I don’t have a reaction on any policy proposal, but on the second part of your question, we certainly would agree. Since the onset and conclusion of this election, you have seen the United States clearly and consistently, repeatedly call for a accurate publication of the vote tallies because from our perspective – and it’s echoed in the recently released UN panel of experts interim report – that that CNE fell short of basic transparency and integrity measures, and it didn’t follow national, legal, and regulatory provisions.
The – one of the key conclusions of this report is that there is no precedent for such an announcement of an election outcome without the publication of these kinds of details and these tallies, and so that’s what we are continuing to press for. And the United States is in coordination with international partners, including Brazil, of course, to support an inclusive Venezuelan-led process to re-establish democratic norms.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. So Mexico made sure yesterday to make clear that they wanted the tribunal – the TSJ, which is what Maduro is asking – to try to take over the investigation within the country and instead of the CNE, which is what the rest of the region is proposing. Is it – is a valid actor, the TSJ, which is a tribunal that is appointed by Maduro? Will that be a route?
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speculate on that. What we’re focused on is supporting an inclusive Venezuelan process to re-establish democratic norms.
Ksenija, and then we’ve got to wrap. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. So the State Department has told the Kosovo Government that any unilateral and uncoordinated action to open Mitrovica Bridge to vehicle traffic, quote, “increases the potential for violence and puts at risk the local population” and the lives of American soldiers and under – other members of the NATO mission in Kosovo. Prime Minister Kurti, however, is not backing down. He said that the bridge opening is not up for discussion.
Peter Stano, the EU spokesperson – the spokesperson of Borrell – said that the European Union, the entire Quint, all friends of Kosovo, the United States, key European countries, the European Union went to Prime Minister Kurti, told him, quote, “Don’t do it, don’t take unilateral actions, don’t open the bridge, but it seems he’s determined to do so,” end of quote. Today President Osmani called the EU remarks racist and sided with Kurti, saying that she also opposes dialogue in Brussels about the bridge and that the bridge must be opened. Osmani comments came shortly after she was briefed about the security assessment of putting American soldiers who are serving in the KFOR at risk.
So my question: What will the United States do to protect the lives of American soldiers in Kosovo from unilateral actions by the Kosovo Government? And what kind of consequences, if any, you will be imposing in case they put the lives not only of American soldiers but also everyone involved at risk?
MR PATEL: So I’ve not seen those comments or remarks, so I’m going to have to check with the team. But let me just say that we certainly won’t hesitate to do whatever is needed to hold – to make sure that U.S. personnel and our people are protected. But beyond that, I’m going to have to check back with the team.
John, go ahead because I saw you had your hand up, and then we’ll wrap.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.
QUESTION: Vedant, don’t wrap, man. One week you do not give me a chance. You don’t see me in the room?
MR PATEL: Please don’t interrupt your colleagues. Go ahead, John.
QUESTION: No, Mr. Vedant, I have been a journalist 25 years. Don’t tell me how to treat my colleagues. You need to treat the journalists with respect. This is my fourth press briefing with you. You have ignored me.
MR PATEL: Jalil, not everybody gets a question.
QUESTION: No, you don’t —
MR PATEL: John, please go ahead.
QUESTION: It’s about who you don’t treat with respect. Otherwise I’m going to be insulting, which is what I’m doing to you right now.
MR PATEL: I am happy to – I’m happy to end the briefing if you’re not going to let —
QUESTION: You should be ashamed of this attitude. If you treat a journalist like this, this is a shameful attitude.
MR PATEL: Go ahead, John.
QUESTION: You and Matt are disgracing this podium in my opinion.
MR PATEL: Go ahead, John.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. Government see the Doha negotiation as an opportunity to avoid broader regional conflict?
MR PATEL: So when we have talked about the reasons for why we want to get this deal across the finish line, certainly the potential for the room for diplomacy that it could create to get this region out of this constant endless cycle of violence that we’re seeing would certainly be a key pillar of that. What we’re talking about, though, immediately is opportunities to make sure that the remaining hostages can be released, including American citizens; a greater influx of humanitarian aid; but yes, also in making sure that we can get to a future that is conducive to a two-state solution, get to a future where we can make sure that Gaza is no longer a springboard for terrorism on the Israeli people – all of those things are certainly part of the goal when it comes to this deal.
All right, thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 12:23 p.m.)
Tags
No comments:
Post a Comment