U.S. Department Press Briefing – October 22, 2024 October 22, 2024 1:05 p.m. EDT

 Department Press Briefing – October 22, 2024

October 22, 2024

1:05 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Vedant.

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything off the top. So, Leon, would you like to kick us off?

QUESTION: Sure. Well, for a change let me start with North Korea, if I may.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday you said that you were not in a position to confirm reports or the accuracy of reports of North Korean troops in Russia, mobilizing potentially for the war in Ukraine. North Korea has denied it. Do you have any new information on that, a new assessment today to give us?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything new to offer on that, Leon. We are continuing to look into the reports that the DPRK has sent soldiers to fight alongside Russia. If it’s true that DPRK soldiers are joining Putin’s war against Ukraine, it certainly would mark a dangerous and highly concerning development.

As it relates to this, we are, of course, going to continue to consult with our allies and partners on the implications of such a dramatic move. Certainly, if true, it would be another reckless and dangerous action both on the side of Russia, but of course on the side of the DPRK as well. But I don’t – I’m not in a place to offer any formal assessment or confirmation from the United States today.

QUESTION: Can I —

QUESTION: Okay, but just to cover the – obviously, the South Koreans have been pretty specific on this, with numbers and a lot of information. I’m sure they’ve shared that information with you. Do you not have yet confidence in the South Korean intel?

MR PATEL: So, Leon, it’s not at all about confidence at all. Of course, we have a close and important partnership and relationship with our ROK partners. It is important, of course, that there – these are – there are deliberative processes as it relates to these kinds of things when we are speaking on behalf of the United States. And certainly, when I’m up here as a U.S. official speaking on these things, we want to make sure to have the most up-to-date and accurate assessment to offer you. And what I can say right now is, echoing what I said yesterday, is that we are continuing to look into those reports.

The most important thing, though, is that we are going to continue to consult with our allies and partners on the implications of such a dramatic move, but I don’t have any new, updated information to offer on that.

QUESTION: Can I follow up, please?

QUESTION: Vedant, may I?

MR PATEL: Nike, go ahead. I will get to you guys. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Follow on Leon’s questions.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So South Korea said it will consider providing Ukraine with weapons for defense and attack. Would you like to comment?

MR PATEL: So look, I would defer to the Republic of Korea to speak to its own issues regarding its security assistance to Ukraine. We, of course, welcome any country supporting our Ukrainian partners as they continue to defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

If you recall, Nike, since the onset of Russia’s aggression we have rallied a coalition of more than 50 countries to Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s brutal aggression, and we’ll continue to work with our allies and partners to strengthen Ukrainian defense, as well as build its institutions and support Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

The other thing that I want to note, Nike, since you’ve given me the opportunity, is that this is just another example of how Russia’s actions, Russia’s dangerous actions, are not just a threat to Ukrainian security or European security; they are, of course, a threat to global security. When you are seeing countries in the Indo-Pacific and Asia region also making a sovereign choice to support Ukraine in its defense, the takeaway from that, Nike, is that the whole world, not just Europe, not just NATO Allies, see the threat and the dangerousness and the recklessness from Russian action.

QUESTION: Yeah, South Korea.

MR PATEL: Janne?

QUESTION: Sorry. South Korea Government also said —

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Hold on.

QUESTION: — it will consider sending military intelligence personnel to Ukraine to help assess the battlefield tactics and also —

MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t have anything to offer on that. I would let the ROK speak to that. And of course, these are, ultimately, sovereign decisions for them.

Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Same topic, and North Korea’s military troops. The House Intelligence Committee chairman, Mike Turner, sent a letter to President Biden requesting a briefing on the North Korean military deployment. He also said that the United States and the NATO Allies should respond immediately as the situation is serious. What is the State Department’s response to this?

MR PATEL: So first of all, I certainly am not going to get into the weeds on congressional correspondence. What I can say is that on – in both chambers, both the House and Senate, we have an important and close working relationship. And we, of course, will continue to consult and engage with them appropriately.

And in the context of these reportings, as we’re – as Leon asked about reports of DPRK soldiers being sent to fight alongside Russian forces, we are continuing to look into that, continuing to assess what’s happening. And we’re, most importantly, going to continue to consult with allies and partners on the implications of such a dramatic move. And I have no doubt that when we say “consulting with allies and partners,” part of that, of course, means consulting with NATO Allies.

QUESTION: Secondly, the South Korean Government has summoned the Russian ambassador to South Korea and requested the immediate withdrawal of North Korean troops from Russia. It also announced that it would respond together with the international community. How does the United States agree to this, and what are the U.S.’s own countermeasures?

MR PATEL: So look, this is ultimately the – I will let the Republic of Korea speak to its own diplomatic engagements and the engagements that it might have with countries in which it has a bilateral relationship. But I think what we are seeing in practice and what we’re seeing as action is countries making it very clear that it can no longer be business as usual with the Russian Federation, and that we are seeing time and time again them taking reckless and destabilizing actions, them infringing on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, which, as I just said to Nike, is of course not just a threat to Ukrainian security and European security, but it is of course increasingly of concern to countries in other parts of the world as well, and in this example the Republic of Korea.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Just to press you a little bit more on —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — the last question. The British Government, your Eye Five ally, yesterday said that it’s “highly likely,” quote/unquote, that they are – that North Korea is sending troops for Russia to take part in Ukraine. Are you telling us that they know something that you might – don’t – you might not know?

MR PATEL: Alex, I am saying that there is a process in place, and there are – it is – the United States, we want to be incredibly intentional and deliberate about how we talk about things publicly, and when we’re able to be in a place to talk about things confidently and with a certain assertation. I won’t speak to what processes and – other countries have in place. In the case of the United Kingdom, we noted and saw their statement during the UNSCR session on Ukraine, and I’d refer you to his majesty’s government for the UK’s assessment.

But as I said yesterday and just now, we are going to continue to consult with allies and partners on the implications of this, and whether this is – ends up being accurate. And we, of course, will continue to make our own assessments and look into this as well.

QUESTION: In the meantime, we just had some progress in your definition of this. You said “dangerous” yesterday, and today you used “reckless action.” Would that be an escalation, if true?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to categorize it one way or the other, Alex. What we have seen, of course, is Russia’s increasingly collaboration with a variety of malign actors. We have seen it earlier in this conflict in the closening of relationships that we have seen as it relates to Russia and Iran. And if these, of course, reports are true, it would indicate a dangerous and reckless and a closening of relationships between Russia and the DPRK, something that would certainly not be what I would call a stabilizing factor for the immediate Indo-Pacific region, but also broader global security as well.

QUESTION: And just come back to me later on, please.

MR PATEL: Sure. Nick, go ahead.

QUESTION: Different topic.

MR PATEL: Of course.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about the intel leak on the potential Israeli response plans to Iran. Some Republicans yesterday and today are criticizing administration officials for saying they’re deeply concerned, but otherwise not taking this seriously enough. What’s your response to that?

And yesterday you said this topic didn’t come up in any of the Secretary’s bilats. Now that he’s in the region and having bilats today, is that still the case?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything to read out on the Secretary’s government-to-government engagements today beyond some of the readouts that we’ve already made public, and so I would refer you back to there.

Look, as it relates to the issues surrounding the unauthorized disclosure, I think many of you have seen the statement from the FBI, who have indicated that they are investigating this. They’ve announced that, and I will defer to them to speak to it. Certainly, we would take any unauthorized disclosure – it’s something that we take very seriously and it is, of course, incredibly concerning. There are appropriate entities of the U.S. Government that are the appropriate authorities for these kinds of things, and we, of course, will defer to them when these things happen.

Simon, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can we come to Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: France is hosting a conference to try to make some progress on the issue. What – does the U.S. sort of support the French initiative to hold this conference, and what are you hoping will be agreed there?

MR PATEL: Well, look, we of course are always eager and – to engage with partners on important issues, including what is currently happening in Lebanon. We will have representation at this conference. We’ll hopefully be in a place to announce that in the next day or so, so stay tuned on that.

But look, when it comes to the Middle East, France has been a vital partner in continuing to marshal support for – in the context of Gaza, of course, trying to get us to a ceasefire. And similarly, we know that they share our goal as it relates to Lebanon for creating the conditions that will allow civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to return to their homes, and we know that they also would like to see 1701 effectively implemented. I have no doubt that a lot of these things will be talked about, as well as ways in which participant countries in this conference can continue to support humanitarian efforts in Lebanon as well. I expect all of this to be discussed, but I don’t want to get ahead of the conference.

QUESTION: You mentioned the U.S. participation, but it’s not – it hasn’t been announced as part of the Secretary’s travel. So do you expect –

MR PATEL: I don’t have any announcements to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s travel. The Secretary, we expect, will be in the Middle East region, as we’ve been talking about this whole week, but we will have participation at a senior level —

QUESTION: But —

MR PATEL: — at the conference.

QUESTION: Okay. So if you don’t send the Secretary, doesn’t that sort of signal some lesser support for this initiative?

MR PATEL: Not at all. We will have senior-level representation, and I will say that this is something that the Secretary himself will continue to be personally engaged on. He’s certainly talking about the issues surrounding Lebanon while he is on his travel. He is talking about it with important counterparts and interlocutors. And whatever our representation ends up being – looking like in Paris, we, of course, will be very latched up with the totality of the department.

And again, I think we kind of get into this back and forth of whether just simply present somewhere indicates any kind of prioritization, and that certainly is not the case. This is a priority for the Secretary. The Secretary is on travel in other parts of the world right now, but this is a vital issue to him. And we will make sure that there is senior-level representation from the United States at it.

QUESTION: And if the other countries there – specifically France – would like to see a ceasefire, your position, as most recently, seems to be that you don’t – you’re not calling for an immediate ceasefire. So do – is this administration out of line with European allies particularly but allies who would like to see this conflict come to an end?

MR PATEL: There is a – look, Simon, I will let European allies speak for themselves, but we know that there is a convergence between us and our European allies on what we all want to see, and what we all want to see ultimately is the effective implementation of 1701 but more importantly the conditions created so that civilians can return to their homes on both sides of the Blue Line. And perhaps even broader than that, we want to see the country of Lebanon be able to stand on its own two feet, out of the stranglehold from Hizballah.

I am not going to speculate on what proposals and ideas may come from the conference. I think that’s the purpose of these kinds of engagements, to have these important conversations in multilateral settings, and we’ll let that process move forward.

Jenny, go ahead.

QUESTION: I want to ask about the Israelis striking a hospital in southern Beirut. Does the U.S. have comment on this strike that killed more than a dozen people and left dozens more injured?

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen that reporting, Jenny. I don’t have any specifics that I can offer as it relates to that operation. We, of course, will let the IDF and the Israelis speak to the kinds of operations that were – that they are conducting. But look, we have been as clear as we have been that when it comes to operations that the IDF is undertaking to degrade Hizballah – which we, of course, support – that every possible measure needs to be taken to minimize impact on civilians, to minimize civilian casualties. And that one step beyond that, every possible measure needs to be taken so that civilian infrastructure – whether it be hospitals, schools, anything in that category – that impact on that needs to be minimized as well. We have asked the Israelis for additional information as it relates to this particular strike, but I don’t have anything to offer as it relates to that.

I think let’s also not lose sight on the fact that Hizballah is a terrorist organization that does have deep-rooted infrastructure in various corners of Lebanese society, and part of that has included Hizballah co-locating itself with civilian infrastructure. Again, as it relates to this particular hospital, I don’t have any insight that I can offer from up here, but this is something we’ll continue to engage on directly with the Israelis.

QUESTION: If you could —

QUESTION: Will the U.S. conduct its own investigation into whether every possible measure was taken here to protect civilians?

MR PATEL: Broadly speaking, Jenny, we have measures and levers and processes in place to ensure that international humanitarian law was abided by, that civilian harm was minimized in whatever way possible. I certainly wouldn’t speak to that in these settings, and we would not necessarily open our own investigation at this point.

QUESTION: Has there been any investigations into whether Israeli measures in Lebanon or Gaza have taken every possible measure to protect civilians?

MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t speak to ongoing or —

QUESTION: Can you say whether those have —

MR PATEL: — deliberative processes. We have —

QUESTION: Can you say whether other – any of those have wrapped up?

MR PATEL: We have talked about the tools that the United States has at its disposal to do this work basically since the onset of October 7th. I know this group is quite familiar with them – whether they be CHIRG, whether it be the Leahy Process, whether it be the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and various other things. Those – all of those are active, ongoing things that the United States continue to have at its disposal to assess circumstances around any country in which we have a security relationship with. And that, of course, is going to continue and we’ll always be effective implementors of U.S. law.

Leon, I saw you had your hand up.

QUESTION: I’ll pass.

MR PATEL: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: Can I just ask quickly one more?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary get any commitments from the Israeli Government today that they would increase humanitarian aid to northern Gaza after the letter last week?

MR PATEL: Our – the Secretary, in his readout, which I know you all saw, was pretty clear in his readout that there are still many things and many progress markers that we need to see as it relates to the flow of humanitarian aid. I don’t have any specific commitments to outline beyond what was in the readout.

QUESTION: I ask because the Israelis don’t make any mention of it in their own readout of that meeting.

MR PATEL: Well, look, I am not a spokesperson for them. I’m a spokesperson for the U.S. Government, and it is something that the Secretary has placed significance – significant emphasis on, both in the letter from earlier in the month, the letter from April, but also the consistently at – consistency at which this Secretary has raised humanitarian aid. And the Secretary made very clear that there are continued areas where we need to see marked improvement.

Michel, and then I’ll come to you, Said. Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. still consider the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 as the only solution for the war between Israel and Hizballah?

MR PATEL: We certainly do. And when – I know that there’s been a lot of interest in 1701 over the past couple of days and perhaps a little bit of misunderstanding in how – or misinterpretation in how it’s being discussed. So let me just be unequivocally clear. We – what we want to see is the effective implementation of 1701. We think that it is vital, and it can help create the conditions that will ultimately allow civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to return home.

The Secretary has been clear about that. I know, Michel, you always like to ask about what Special Envoy Hochstein has been up to. It’s something he has been very clear about in his travels and in his engagements as well. The Secretary reiterated that with the prime minister, as you saw in the readout that the travel team just put out. And it’s something that we will continue to stress.

Ultimately what we want to see here is conditions that will allow civilians to be able to return home and, beyond that, get the government and country of Lebanon to a place where it is out of the stranglehold of Hizballah and able to stand on its own two feet, be in a place where it can select a new president. All of these things we have been unequivocally consistent and clear about.

QUESTION: But the parties in the past, as Amos Hochstein said in Beirut, failed to implement the 1701. What would make them – or we force them – to implement at this time?

MR PATEL: So I’m just going to speculate, Michel, on what might or might not happen. What I am offering you is what our perspective has been in what we think is a credible and clear solution that is a step in the right direction, and we think that is the effective implementation of 1701.

QUESTION: And finally —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — Congressman LaHood and Issa sent a letter to the President asking them to put pressure and sanctions on the Speaker of the House Nabih Berri to elect a new president. Are you considering such move?

MR PATEL: So certainly would not – first, again, and just would not get into the details of our congressional correspondence. We engage with members at both the House and Senate pretty regularly. And certainly, I’m not in a place to preview or get into what actions we may or may not be considering. But when we talk about what we want to see for the future of Lebanon, selecting a president is, of course, at the top of that list. We want to see a president that is reflective of the will of the Lebanese people; we want to see a government that is free from the stranglehold of Hizballah.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Now Vedant, from this podium we heard some time back that if Sinwar was to depart the scene the war would end. I remember things akin to it will end tomorrow, and so on. But what we have seen —

MR PATEL: I don’t think we’ve ever –

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: Said, I’m – so I always – I’m always happy to give you the space to ask whatever it is, whatever questions that you want to ask. But I am going to just jump in and say that no one has ever said that.

QUESTION: Okay. Fine.

MR PATEL: What we were talking about was that Mr. Sinwar had a choice to make as it relates to the ceasefire proposal that had been on the table and that he, time and time again, chose not to accept what has been on the proposal. We never said that if he were to die or be killed that that all the sudden would mean that the conflict would end.

What this means – and what we said on Thursday and what the Secretary stressed in his meetings with Israeli counterparts today – is that this is a new opportunity. His death is a new opportunity to reinvigorate that conversation and work to get a ceasefire proposal, one that allows an influx of humanitarian aid into Gaza, one that brings the remaining hostages home, including the seven Americans, and get us on a path to diplomacy that we hope will help get this region out of the endless cycles of violence. That’s what this is about.

QUESTION: Fair enough. Now what we have seen since Sinwar’s death is really an intensification of this assault. As a matter of fact, it probably surpasses other times. Israel has always greeted American officials, Secretary Blinken, with increased assaults on Palestinians and so on. But we have seen really, I mean, a spike in killing dozens, hundreds of Palestinians since last Thursday when they announced the killing of Sinwar, even with some people calling for resettlement in Gaza and so on. So my question to you: Is Israel committing the so-called generals’ plan that aims to depopulate Gaza and resettle it by Israeli settlers?

MR PATEL: What I can say, Said, is that, first, the rhetoric that you’re referring to about resettling Gaza or however it was phrased, we certainly – that’s the kind of rhetoric that we unequivocally reject. We have been clear numerous times that what we are working towards and what we want to see is Palestinian-led governance in Gaza and a Gaza that is unified with the West Bank under what we hope is a revitalized Palestinian Authority.

The Secretary was clear about this in the immediate months after October 7th in a speech that he made in Tokyo that fall, where he laid out that there can be no long-term displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. We don’t want to see any territorial reduction in Gaza, and we certainly don’t want to see any reoccupation of Gaza after this crisis ends. What we want to work on and what we want to see are affirmative elements that will get us to a sustained peace. And that in our view needs to include the Palestinians people’s voices, their aspirations, and that needs to be at the center of post-crisis governance in Gaza. The United States would not and will not support anything less than that.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. I also appreciate every time you call on me. I love it and thank you. I wanted to ask you about Palestinians have been accusing the Israeli military of using detainees as human shields in Gaza. I wonder if you are aware of this report and if you are doing anything about it, about investigating this issue.

MR PATEL: So we’ve spoken to this a little bit before, Said. These reports are incredibly disturbing. And if they are true, they are completely unacceptable. We’re still gathering information. But as we have said before, civilians need to be protected and Israel has a responsibility to investigate credible allegations of violations whenever they arise.

QUESTION: And how will you determine if its true or not?

MR PATEL: We will continue to engage with our partners in Israel on this, Said. Of course, as you – we’ve talked about before, the United States does not have boots on the ground in Gaza. We will continue to assess these through the limited means that we have. But the ultimate thing here is that we want to see Israel appropriately investigate credible allegations or violations whenever they arise. We have, of course, seen them do that in certain incidents and we want to make sure that that is consistently applied to anywhere that these issues arise.

QUESTION: Could we have an update on the delivery of aid? From what —

MR PATEL: Sure, I’m happy to. I’m happy to offer some updated information on that. Look, I think first let me just say – and Jenny asked this a little bit – that this is something that the Secretary stressed and reiterated with the prime minister earlier today that we want to continue to see progress made. We are continuing to press Israel that there is a responsibility to maximize and streamline the existing crossings and open more crossings for more increased levels of aid into Gaza.

A hundred and fourteen trucks crossed yesterday. That included trucks from Kerem Shalom and the Erez west crossing. Certainly, I don’t say that to try and make the point that that is satisfactory or enough, but we want to continue to see a steady influx of trucks and humanitarian assistance into Gaza, Said. Especially as the region heads into the winter months, we want to make sure that appropriate foodstuffs and winterization supplies are appropriately surged.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I want to go to BRICS gathering in Kazan.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: But before that, what do you make of the fact that UN secretary-general refused to attend Ukraine’s peace summit which is about defending the UN Charter, chose to somehow attend this Putin summit which is about defying the UN Charter?

MR PATEL: So Alex, I will let the secretary-general and his team speak to whatever scheduling decisions they have or have not made. I just want to be clear, though, Secretary-General Guterres I think has – the UN system in itself has been an incredible partner when we are talking about holding the Russian Federation accountable and making – in almost as unison as one can be in the UN system making it clear that there is a strong collection of countries that are standing up against Russian aggression, Russians’ territorial – its infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity, its infringement on Ukrainian sovereignty. So let me just first address that as it relates to the secretary-general.

On the BRICS summit broadly, Alex, we believe all countries are sovereign countries and they have their own choice and make their own choices about the countries and groupings in which that they associate. What the United States is focused on and the approach that we bring to all of the foreign policy and the diplomacy that we conduct is that we are focused on working with partners around the world to build the broadest and deepest coalitions possible to help achieve our shared goals.

We want to enhance the value proposition of what the United States can bring to the table, and we want to work with countries through investments in the kinds of things that we know these kinds of countries are looking for, and we are looking to sharpen and deepen and broaden our partnerships in that way. And of course, the multilateral institutions, whether it be the UN, G20, groups – groupings like APEC or ASEAN, are, of course, important and vital avenues for us to do that, and that’s why you have seen the Secretary place an emphasis on continuing to engage with those countries.

And look, as it relates to the specific makeup of BRICS, we’re going to continue to work and have a strong, positive relationship with Brazil, with South Africa, with India. We work bilaterally with those countries in a number of key areas, a number of key areas that we frankly think are going to continue to define the 21st century.

When it comes to China, our goal and our intent is to continue to manage that relationship and manage that relationship responsibly, manage our competition with China responsibly. That is what we know that the rest of the world expects of superpowers.

And lastly, as it relates to Russia, we will continue to push back on Russian aggression and make clear to any country on the planet that it can no longer be business as usual with the Russian Federation.

QUESTION: As you know, there’s some newcomers in the room. Azerbaijan is one of them. Kazakhstan was punished for not joining. But Türkiye – Turkish president is among the participants. Does the department have any view of the NATO partner’s BRICS membership bid?

MR PATEL: No. This is a – this is a – this is an issue for our Turkish partners to speak to. Türkiye is an important and vital NATO Ally, and as I said at the beginning, we believe that countries are able to chart their own foreign policy and choose whatever countries and groupings in which they associate.

QUESTION: And final one for me, Vedant. Speaking of Türkiye, Turkish parliament today – the government has reintroduced a law called, quote/unquote, “agent of influence,” which is another copycat of Russian foreign influence law, foreign agent law. Do you have any position on it?

MR PATEL: I’m not very familiar with that, Alex, but I’m happy to check with the team and see if we can get something back for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has made an appeal to President Biden for the release of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who is in U.S. prison for attempting to kill American officials in Afghanistan. How would you respond to that request?

MR PATEL: So first, I certainly wouldn’t get into private diplomatic communications. And on the case itself, I would refer to the Department of Justice to speak to any inquiries regarding Dr. Siddiqui’s incarceration.

QUESTION: Sir, police in southern Pakistan have shot at a doctor accused of blasphemy, and it’s not just killing. After he was killed, a violent mob dragged out his dead body from a car and burned it to death in front of his family. How much are you concerned about the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan?

MR PATEL: We uniformly oppose blasphemy laws everywhere in the world, and that, of course, includes in Pakistan. We believe that these laws jeopardize the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion or belief. We regularly raise these concerns with countries around the world, including, of course, Pakistan.

QUESTION: Sir, last question. Media reports suggest that United States has communicated to the Indian Government that it seeks meaningful accountability regarding the alleged murder plot of a Sikh activist in New York. Could you confirm? If that kind of message was sent to India, what was their response?

MR PATEL: So to take a step back, there was valuable engagement with India’s inquiry committee last week, and information was exchanged between our two governments to further our respective investigations. We understand that the Indian inquiry committee will continue its investigation, and we expect to see further steps based on last week’s conversations.

We continue to expect and want to see accountability based on the results of that investigation, and certainly the United States won’t be fully satisfied until there is meaningful accountability resulting from that investigation. Beyond that, I’m just not going to address this in further detail given that this is an issue that is active and remains under investigation and ongoing under both of our countries.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. Just two questions, sir. Today, this one senator resigned from Pakistan senate. He was on dialysis, and he said that while he was picked up by the powerful – usually by “the powerful” they mean the establishment, the military of Pakistan. He said while he was picked up, he was given dialysis even twice during that five, six days’ time. Do you have anything to say? Are you even aware about it?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware and I really don’t have anything to offer on that.

Jackson, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just one more question.

QUESTION: Thanks —

QUESTION: Just one more —

MR PATEL: I’m going to – you got two yesterday. Go ahead, Jackson.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks. Thanks, Vedant. There’s a report that Ariane Tabatabai was the leaker of the documents purporting to show Israel’s plans to retaliate against Iran. Can you confirm?

MR PATEL: I certainly wouldn’t speak to that from here. As I said in a response to Nick’s question earlier, the FBI has announced that they are actively investigating the unauthorized disclosure, and I will ultimately defer to them to speak to that further.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss the leaks during his visit to Israel?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything else to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagements beyond what was in the readout.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. When it comes to intel analysis, South Korea and the United States have been very in lockstep, in very close coordination, especially about North Korea’s military activities, and this time there seems to be some difference, and you said it’s not about confidence in South Korean intelligence. Then are you rejecting the notion that there is a discrepancy in intel analysis between Seoul and Washington about North Korean deployment?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speak to the process, the intelligence processes that we have in place. Let me just be unequivocal about this: When it comes to the Indo-Pacific, when it comes to our priorities around the world, our relationship with the Republic of Korea is one of the most vital and one of our most consequential and important relationships. They are a partner in a number of key areas. Especially when it comes to our broader and ultimate goal of seeing peace and stability across the Indo-Pacific, our partners in Korea are integral to that goal.

Separate from that, the reporting that we have seen as it relates to soldiers from the DPRK who – the suggestion that they have been sent to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine – should that be true, that would be incredibly concerning. It would be dangerous and certainly it would be reckless. The United States has its own processes in place and our own assessments that we need to make before, certainly, we can publicly say that we are seeing anything as it relates to a particular policy area. It is not at all a reflection of any country, whether it be the ROK or otherwise. It’s not a reflection of that at all.

QUESTION: Any discussions underway as to what to do in terms of, like, sanctioning North Korea or any steps to take, if it’s true?

MR PATEL: Look, I – at the center – at the center of this, if these developments are true, they would certainly be incredibly dangerous, and that is why, at the core of this, is continuing to consult with our allies and partners, of which ROK would certainly be a part of that. But I’m not going to preview any – preview any actions we may or may not take from up here.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you know how many aid trucks arrived in northern Gaza over the weekend up until today?

MR PATEL: I don’t have a specific breakdown for you on transit intra Gaza. What I can say is what I asked – answered to Said’s question, is that there were – and I will pull up the number again just to be precise – it was on October 21st 114 trucks that we saw enter Gaza, which, again, I’m not at all – don’t make that – offer that statistic to say that that is satisfactory, but that is the updated metric that we have. And simultaneously, we of course are stressing with partners in Israel that more needs to be done to enhance the flow of humanitarian aid.

QUESTION: I ask because a journalist yesterday on the ground in northern Gaza yesterday told me that an UNRWA facility in Gaza City had received seven trucks containing flour and canned goods, but which have yet to be distributed, but received no water. I don’t know what you do with flour without water, but they’re having a hard time even distributing these because of the ongoing onslaught there. So —

MR PATEL: So I’m just going to stop you right there. We are not at all saying that the situation has improved or that the situation is satisfactory – far from it. We have – in the immediate days following the letter that Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin sent, we saw some important steps in the right direction as it relates to particular border crossings. Those were good, positive signs. I can say that on October 21st 114 trucks made its way into Gaza. But of course, we are continuing to see challenges as it relates to ensuring that aid is getting to where it needs to go within Gaza. That’s something that we are continuing to work closely on with partners in Israel, NGO partners, and international organizations, and that’s something we’ll continue to stress.

All right, everyone, we’re going to wrap there. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:43 p.m.)

# # #

Tags

India Iran Israel Lebanon North Korea Office of the Spokesperson Palestinian Territories Russia South Korea Turkey Ukraine