U.S. Department Press Briefing – December 3, 2024

 

Department Press Briefing – December 3, 2024

December 3, 2024

1:14 p.m. EST

MR PATEL: Happy Tuesday. I do not have anything off the top. Shaun, you want to kick us off?

QUESTION: Sure. When I woke up this morning I wasn’t expecting to be asking about this first thing in the briefing, but South Korea?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I saw – Kurt – Deputy Secretary Campbell obviously made some quick comments just a short time ago —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — but to follow up on that, he voiced concern. Does the U.S. condemn what President Yoon has done in imposing martial law?

MR PATEL: So look, I’ve – Shaun, to take a step back, we are watching the recent developments in the ROK with grave concern. We are seeking to engage with our Republic of Korea counterparts at every level, both here in the United States and in Seoul. The Secretary has been briefed, and we are keeping him appraised of the developments as well as monitoring closely what’s happening on the ground.

Let me also just mention that our alliance with the Republic of Korea is ironclad and we’re fully committed to that, and ultimately here, our hope is – and every hope and expectation is – that any political disputes will be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law.

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, just a – the grave concern and the rule of law, is it – is it the perspective of the United States that President Yoon has been following that?

MR PATEL: So look, this is an incredibly fluid situation. I’m not going to jump to any immediate conclusions at this point. What I can say is that we are watching these developments with grave concern. We’re staying in close appropriate touch with our ROK counterparts, and I’m sure we’ll have more to say as the situation continues to unfold. I just don’t want to get ahead of that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, so the rule of law, I mean, the National Assembly has voted now —

MR PATEL: Certainly.

QUESTION: — to undo this —

MR PATEL: Right.

QUESTION: — to rescind martial law. So there – so from the perspective of the United States, should that stand? Should the martial law be rescinded?

MR PATEL: So look, every country, of course, has its own rules and laws and procedures. I’m certainly no expert in South Korean law and certainly how the South Korean legislature works and what the ins and outs are of that. But certainly, it is our hope and expectation that the laws and regulations of a particular country are abided by, by that particular country.

QUESTION: Does that include the National Assembly vote?

MR PATEL: That would be the case as well. But again, I’m just not going to get ahead of the process here.

QUESTION: Just a put a fine point on it —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — I mean, so it’s a National Assembly vote, so basically you think that that National Assembly voted, martial law should be finished. The United States respects that decision by the National Assembly?

MR PATEL: Shaun, I am not going to – there is obviously a lot happening in South Korea over the course of the day. Ultimately, for us, as I said, we want to see these political disputes resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. And of course, such a vote in the legislature would be consistent with that approach, but we’re continuing to remain in close touch with our ROK counterparts, and I’m sure we’ll read out any conversations that may or may not take place over the coming days.

QUESTION: Just a couple more.

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: I mean, the – has there been any conversations directly with President Yoon, not necessarily from the Secretary but from – with President Yoon —

MR PATEL: I have no conversations to read out with President Yoon. We are continuing to seek to engage our ROK counterparts, but I don’t have any calls to read out.

QUESTION: And maybe taking a step back, I mean, President Yoon was invited to a state dinner last year in March. He hosted the Democracy Summit, which of course is a signature issue for the outgoing president, for President Biden.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: What – were their concerns voiced in the past, or did this take the U.S. completely by surprise, or were there concerns voiced in the past about —

MR PATEL: Shaun, I’m not going to – I’m certainly going to keep private diplomatic conversations as that; I’ll keep them private. I think what I can say is that we were not notified of President Yoon’s announcement in advance.

But beyond that, I think the important thing to remember, Shaun, is that ultimately at the crux of this is not President Biden, President Yoon, these two specific governments. What this is about is the broader strategic relationship and the broader strategic partnership that we have with the Republic of Korea. And that alliance, as I said, is ironclad.

There continues to be, in our point of view, a lot of important work that we want to continue to do with the Republic of Korea. This incident, of course, as I said, we are continuing to watch with grave concern, and we will continue to follow developments on the ground very closely. But our commitment to the Republic of Korea and our alliance continues to be strong and ironclad. And as I said, they continue to be a vital partner in the Indo-Pacific. And I’m just not going to get ahead of this.

QUESTION: Sure. Just one final one.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: But the – to put a point on that, I mean, the National Assembly vote, I mean, do you want President Yoon to respect that? Do you want the military to respect that?

MR PATEL: As you heard me say, Shaun, that we want this to be resolved peacefully in accordance with the rule of law, and certainly the legislature voting to pass something would be consistent with the law of that country, certainly.

Daphne, go ahead.

QUESTION: You mentioned several times conversations that are taking place. Can you give any more detail on who’s having those conversations with —

MR PATEL: I don’t – I’m not at a place to get more specific beyond that, beyond just saying we’re continuing to seek to engage our counterparts both here in the United States but also in Seoul. And should we have any calls or meetings to read out, we’ll certainly do that.

QUESTION: But do you expect the Secretary to have any calls?

MR PATEL: I have nothing to preview right now, but as I said, the Secretary has been briefed on this, as has been others on our team, and we’re continuing to pay attention and monitor the situation closely.

QUESTION: And what’s the message been from the administration in these calls?

MR PATEL: Again, I’m going to keep private diplomatic conversations private. As you just heard me say to Shaun’s question, we’re watching these recent developments. We’re watching them with grave concern, and we’re seeking to engage our counterparts in the ROK.

QUESTION: Okay. I’ve got some questions on Lebanon, but I don’t know if anyone —

MR PATEL: Well, I’ll come back to you, Daphne.

QUESTION: Can I —

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. Just wondering – the U.S. ambassador to South Korea —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — put out a statement on X encouraging American citizens in South Korea to monitor local news sources.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And that’s been, as far as I can tell, the only kind of security alert that’s gone out —

MR PATEL: Right.

QUESTION: — to U.S. citizens. And that came several hours after martial law was declared in the country. Was there a reason for that delay? Is more guidance coming?

MR PATEL: Well, this is, Shannon, as you know, an incredibly fluid situation. And let me just say broadly that we have no higher priority than the safety and security of our citizens, especially those that are overseas. I don’t have any updates on the Travel Advisory or anything like that to offer from up here. The Travel Advisory warning for the ROK continues to be a Level 1, which is exercise normal caution. But that being said, the ambassador is absolutely right, and that we would encourage American citizens to enroll in Smart Traveler. That is the best way to stay in touch with the embassy and to stay in touch with the department as the situation develops, and that’s the best way to stay up to date on additional information.

We also have a 24/7 hotline for U.S. citizens to use in emergencies in which they can get in touch with our embassy in Seoul. We plan to issue regular updates on the situation via the embassy website. And as the ambassador said, we encourage citizens to monitor not just these channels that I mentioned but updates from local law enforcement and otherwise. And we’ll, of course, update our citizens appropriately.

QUESTION: Taking out the events —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — would you typically expect to be notified that an ally as close as South Korea was going to declare martial law ahead of time?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on what should or may or may not happen in these kinds of situations. What I can just say is that in – as it relates to this incident, we were not notified of President Yoon’s announcement in advance.

QUESTION: Just to draw a parallel to Kenya, another government where the leader was honored with a state visit by the Biden administration and then later saw some allegations of democratic backsliding over the summer, in the State Department’s engagements with Kenyan leaders at the time the State Department said it was encouraging them to honor all constitutional rights, including the right to peaceful assembly. In your conversations with South Korean counterparts, are you reminding them of the right for its citizens to peacefully assemble or other similar human rights?

MR PATEL: Certainly that would be a message that we carry with any government in which we have a bilateral relationship. Of course, that would be also true in our engagements with a partner like the Republic of Korea. And as I said to Shaun, I’m not going to read out private diplomatic conversations, but we are reiterating again that it is our hope and our expectation that any political dispute be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law.

QUESTION: Vedant.

MR PATEL: Sorry, Nike. My bad. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. So has the United States received specific threats from North Korea in the past 24 hours or in the past few days?

MR PATEL: I have no threat assessments, analysis to offer as it relates to the DPRK in the context of this.

QUESTION: Is – so does the U.S. – how does U.S. assess this surprise declaration? Is that mainly focused on domestic —

MR PATEL: I don’t have an assessment to make, Nike. And as I said to Shaun, we are watching these developments. We’re watching them with concern. We’re seeking to engage our counterparts, the ROK, both here in the United States as well as Seoul. We are also undertaking a number of steps, as I laid out to Shannon, about ways in which we are supporting American citizens and making information to them available as it relates to this.

But beyond that, I don’t have any other updates. Again, I will just echo that our hope and expectation is that any political disputes be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law.

QUESTION: And finally —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — I know you just spoke – talked about the Travel Advisory. Can you talk about the personnel and security posture within the U.S. embassy and with the U.S. military there?

MR PATEL: Well, we certainly wouldn’t speak to some of those things in detail just given the safety and security of our facilities and our personnel. But I don’t have any changes to announce.

QUESTION: Can I —

MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that point?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, in terms of how you – it’s very notable that you have put a lot of emphasis on the phrase “political disputes.” I mean, do you see this as basically a political dispute within South Korea?

MR PATEL: It’s not for us to characterize, Tom. What we are attempting to do is continue to gather the facts and continue to gather the circumstances of what’s happening on the ground; engage appropriately with our counterparts both here in the United States and at Seoul; and then monitor and make appropriate adjustments, if needed, as it relates to our personnel and our citizens, which, again, at this point we’ve not done, but we’ve – I’ve outlined a number of ways in which U.S. citizens can engage with us.

Beyond that, it’s really not for us to – I’m not going to speculate or opine on the theory of the case or the reasoning or the decision making here beyond just saying that it’s certainly concerning to us, we’re paying very close attention, and that, for us, what we want to see is this resolved peacefully. And we want to see it resolved in line with rule of law.

QUESTION: I mean, President Yoon has very much sort of framed this, represented this as a strategic security issue. He’s talked about the need to eradicate pro-North Korean forces and protect the constitutional democratic order, but it’s sort of notable in your statements so far you haven’t reflected that sort of notion of a strategic threat at all. Does that mean you don’t – you share that assessment with him?

MR PATEL: So look, certainly when it comes to the Korean Peninsula, I’m sure that any number of U.S. officials could spend a lot of time talking about the destabilizing force and presence that the DPRK is and the long litany of reckless and destabilizing actions that we’ve seen the DPRK undertake, not just over the course of this administration but many years beyond that.

As it relates to this incident, though, specifically, it’s just not for us to draw those – any kind of conclusion or to particularly link those kinds of things. For us, what we are focused on is assessing the facts, paying close attention to the situation on the ground, making appropriate adjustments, if needed, as it relates to our consular posture, but beyond that, engaging with our ROK counterparts and then ultimately wanting to see this be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Times from South Korea.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: So under the emergency martial law, if some military action happens then what is the role of U.S. personnel in South Korea?

MR PATEL: So look, as it relates to defense posture and the posture of our personnel, I know my colleague Major General Ryder is going to be briefing later today, I believe. I will leave it to them to speak specifically about DOD personnel and our service members in uniform.

As it relates to our diplomatic facilities, as I said to Shannon, there’s been no change in our posture. We have outlined a number of ways in which American citizens can stay in touch with us, and we’ll offer updates through those channels should we need to. But broadly, I will reiterate again that our alliance to the ROK is ironclad, and we continue to be committed to that partnership.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: On this?

QUESTION: No, I’m changing.

MR PATEL: Okay, let me just make sure there’s nothing on the region.

QUESTION: Sure, yeah.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on this, please?

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Jalil. I have a strong suspicion this is not on the ROK, but I will – you’ll – I’ll humor you.

QUESTION: On a similar kind of situation.

QUESTION: I have one on ROK too.

MR PATEL: Is this – is this on the ROK or not, Jalil?

QUESTION: Yes, it’s regarding the martial law in ROK, yes.

MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So in their martial law they have declared one of the reason for declaring this is because of the internal conflicts and their parliament members’ relationship with the anti-state, which they refer to as North Korea, right. So Pakistan also has the same situation in —

MR PATEL: Oh, my God, Jalil. This is not on the ROK.

QUESTION: No? Vedant, I was —

MR PATEL: I will come back to you to ask your off-topic question.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Jackson.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So does South Korea’s deflation affect U.S. assistance to the country?

MR PATEL: Sorry, can you repeat that?

QUESTION: Does what’s happening in South Korea – does it affect U.S. assistance to the country?

MR PATEL: So as I said a number of times at this point, our alliance with the ROK is ironclad. Our partnership to the ROK, we remain committed to that. The emphasis that this administration particularly has put in strengthening our partnerships and alliances in the Indo-Pacific, that has not and – has not or does not change, either. This continues to be a priority for us.

On this specific situation, as I said, we are monitoring the situation. We continue to have grave concerns over some of these developments, but ultimately it’s our hope and expectation that this is resolved peacefully in accordance with the rule of law.

QUESTION: And will the martial law matter affect the fact that the ROK falls under our nuclear umbrella?

MR PATEL: I am just not going to speculate on what the causation there could be.

Anything else on the – go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: This is one of the hypothetical situations, but if this martial law situation continues and is not – does not end, like, quickly, then do you think that this will affect coordination between the two allies on North Korea and other issues?

MR PATEL: So that is certainly a hypothetical question, so let me just – I don’t want to engage in hypotheticals. So let me just say this: That again, our commitment to the ROK is ironclad, our alliance to them and the partnership that we have with them, and the emphasis that we over these past years have placed on strengthening our ties in the Indo-Pacific, including with partners like the ROK. As I said, there continue to be a number of key priorities between us and our bilateral relationship. Certainly at the crux of that is the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula; that has not changed. And we continue to have partnership with them on a number of other key areas. I do not expect – I don’t have anything to preview on how that may or may not change. What we’re focused on right now is continuing to gather the facts, monitor the situations on the ground, and expect this to be fully resolved peacefully and in – consistent with the rule of law.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I just —

QUESTION: Thanks. So just –

MR PATEL: Let me get to – I’ll come back to you, Shaun. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on Nike’s question, you said you have no threat assessment. So you don’t see any changes of North Korean forces’ posture in last few hours?

MR PATEL: I wouldn’t speak to that kind of assessment from up here.

Shaun, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just briefly, to follow up on the previous question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The – South Korea obviously in recent weeks has been speaking a lot with Ukraine about arms —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — in light of the situation with North Korean troops. I mean, obviously it’s just been a few years, but is it the U.S. assumption that those – that type of dialogue can continue between Ukraine and South Korea, or is this going to be a —

MR PATEL: I mean, Shaun, I think you kind of answered your own question. And this being just a couple of hours old, I’m not going to draw any conclusions as it relates to broader foreign policy implications on this incident. Yeah.

Leah, go ahead in the back. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Has the U.S. been in contact with Japan or any other allies about this situation?

MR PATEL: So we’re continuing to – I don’t have any specific calls to read out, but of course part of this is maintaining close communication with other regional partners as well. I don’t have any specific calls to read out, but that’s, of course, a priority for us as well.

In the back, in the red. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: My question is about China.

MR PATEL: Is it related to —

QUESTION: The gallium and germanium bans. Were you anticipating the export ban from China? Is there any strategy to dealing with it in the coming future, as it’s both dual-use military and civil applications?

MR PATEL: Let me see if I can – I can have the team follow up with you specifically on that one.

Okay, I’ll come back to you, Said.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MR PATEL: Did you have something on —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead. Then I’ll come to you, Said, I promise. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I am from South Korea, SBS. You said very particularly you hope all political disputes will be resolved peacefully. Then the Department of State believes that President Yoon declared the martial law due to political reasons?

MR PATEL: I am not here to offer an assessment or a – or to draw a conclusion on the reasoning behind such a decision. That’s certainly not for us to speak to. What I am speaking about is what the United States efforts have been as it relates to this, which, as I said, have been, one, trying to gather as much information as we can, continuing to monitor the situation on the ground. We are monitoring these developments, as I said, with serious and grave concern.

On top of that, we’re seeking to engage our counterparts both here in the United States but also in Seoul as it relates to this, and ultimately want to see this resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. I’m not going to draw – make an assessment or a conclusion on the reasoning here.

QUESTION: And when did the U.S. Government receive the notification from the South Korean Government about the martial law?

MR PATEL: As I said, I think, in answering Shaun or Daphne’s question, we were not notified in advance as it relates to President Yoon’s announcement.

QUESTION: Yeah, not advanced, but when? When get the notification? Just through the news?

MR PATEL: We were not – no, there was not – we were not notified in advance. We were not notified in advance. Beyond that, I’m not going to get into the specifics of our private diplomatic conversations, but we were not notified in advance of President Yoon’s announcement.

QUESTION: So the U.S. Government also noticed the martial law from the news?

MR PATEL: We were not notified in advance.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m changing topics.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Can we talk about Gaza?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, according to New York Times, Israel is building a base or bases in central Gaza, which is an indication that they are there to stay. Do you have any comment on that? Do you —

MR PATEL: Well —

QUESTION: Are you – is the administration able to do anything to undo this or to make sure that this does not happen?

MR PATEL: Said, I have not – I have seen those reports and I will leave it to the Israeli Government to speak to their veracity or not. Certainly it would not be for us to speak to, but the – just on that, Said, if they are true, certainly they would be inconsistent with a number of the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo about a year ago of what our viewpoint is when it comes to the region and the future of the region. So firstly, that would most certainly be the case, and I think key among them is that there cannot be any reduction in territory of Gaza. Beyond that, there can also be no forced displacement of Palestinians from their home, and they must be allowed to return safely to their homes in the north as soon as the conditions allow.

So first and foremost, should this be true, it would be inconsistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo. I will leave it to the Israeli Government to speak to that reporting. It’s really not for us to speak to.

QUESTION: But certainly you have the means to determine the veracity of these claims or these reports. I mean —

MR PATEL: I don’t have a —

QUESTION: — do you have to wait for the Israelis to tell you —

MR PATEL: I don’t have an – I don’t —

QUESTION: — that they are building bases?

MR PATEL: I don’t have an assessment to offer from up here, Said, on —

QUESTION: It’s not on – the United States is – it’s not – it’s involved in this process all throughout.

MR PATEL: Said, as you so know, we don’t have any boots on the ground in Gaza. Beyond that, I don’t – I don’t have a – it’s certainly not for us to speak to on the veracity of these. If they are, it would most certainly be inconsistent with what we want to see for the region and certainly would be inconsistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo. And should they be true, it’s certainly something that we will raise quite seriously with our partners in Israel. But I don’t have an assessment to offer, Said.

QUESTION: But Vedant, this must be one of the most surveilled pieces of real estate anywhere in the world, especially by the United States and by its allies. You can’t tell me you don’t know what’s going on in Gaza.

MR PATEL: Said, we of course know what’s going on in Gaza. We of course are paying very close attention to what’s happening in Gaza. As it relates to this particular piece of reporting – which I’ll just note comes from a media outlet, it’s not any kind of government-to-government announcement or government-to-government engagement – I don’t have anything else to offer beyond what I just said.

QUESTION: Well, I’ll tell you that Volker Turk, the chief UN human rights person or chief – yeah, human rights chief, Volker Turk – said this is the darkest moment in northern Gaza. He’s saying that what is unfolding is a total disaster. It’s a total catastrophe. And he’s talking about killing, displacement, destruction, lack of food, starvation – all these things, all the trimmings that are happening in Gaza. And he’s calling on you as a signatory to the Geneva Convention – he’s calling on everybody, as a matter of fact – to do something, that you are obligated under the Geneva Convention to actually do something. Why are you not doing anything?

MR PATEL: Said, we are deeply concerned about the humanitarian toll in Gaza and the high number of civilian casualties, and we are continuing to press Israel to maximize and streamline the existing crossings and open more crossings to help further address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. On top of that, we want to see an end to the war, and that’s what we’re trying to accomplish, and that’s what we have continued to be engaged on for quite some time now and we’ll continue to work at this till the very last hour of this administration.

QUESTION: Yeah, but being concerned and doing something are two separate things.

MR PATEL: Well, Said —

QUESTION: I mean, I am sure there is a great deal of concern and there is a great deal of anger and frustration in this building, but we don’t see any action that is taken to end this thing.

MR PATEL: Respectfully – respectfully, Said, I would take issue with that.

QUESTION: Okay, well —

MR PATEL: Because over the course of this – over the course of the totality of this conflict, when we have seen things that are inconsistent with what we want to see for the region, when we have seen things that are inconsistent for what we want to see for Gaza, when we’ve seen things that are inconsistent with what we want to see for the Palestinian people, we’ve said so. Sometimes we’ve said so publicly. Every time we’ve said so privately and we have raised this directly with our partners in Israel. And I needn’t point further than some of the specific areas in which we have asked for remediation when it comes to humanitarian aid.

I would point back to the first days of the administration in which it was the work of this Secretary that really helped unlock the initial influx of humanitarian aid, and in the ensuing months since then it is the work of this department and others across the interagency that has continued to push for the use of additional border crossings, the use of additional tactics to further enhance humanitarian aid. We have taken appropriate action. We’ll continue to take action, as I said, till the very last hour of this administration when we see things that are inconsistent with what we want to see.

QUESTION: So let me just – on this point, we saw the statement issued by Matt yesterday or last night about the meeting with Dermer between the Secretary of State Blinken —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — and Dermer in which he says he talked about the need to end the war and then the need to get the hostages home and so on.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Now, at the same time earlier in the day, we saw a statement by the President-elect basically threatening to wipe out and make whatever happened thus far in Gaza to seem like a picnic. I’m – those are my words, not his words. But that – does that give you more incentive to do more things, and does it give a sense of urgency to you that you’ve got to do something and do it quick before the 20th of January?

MR PATEL: What we are focused on, Said, is we are focused on using every ounce of energy and every time that we have available to bring this war to a close, to do everything we can to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza and everything we can to make sure that the hostages can return home and bring this war to a conclusion and start having a serious diplomatic conversation of what we want the region to look like the day after. That’s what we’re focused on. There’s only one president at a time. I will leave it to you all to ask the tough questions of the next administration starting on the 22st. But beyond that, I’m really not a spokesperson for them so I will let them clarify whatever thoughts they have about the Middle East.

QUESTION: No, I’m not talking about the coming administration.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m saying does that give you – does it make you feel an urgent —

MR PATEL: We are continuing to operate with upmost urgency, and I think there is not really a public statement, whether it’s from a former president or otherwise, that is going to impact that, because we are already operating at maximum urgency.

QUESTION: My last question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I asked Matt yesterday on the killing of the World Central Kitchen employees.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And yesterday – that was happening – I guess that happened on Sunday. Yesterday they killed one aid worker from Save the Children. I mean, if this had happened anywhere in the world – if it was happening in Ukraine or anywhere, in Africa, wherever it is – you would be outraged. Why is there no – not even a whimper, not even an outrage, not even a statement?

MR PATEL: We are – Said, we are outraged.

QUESTION: Not even a statement saying you condemn this – the killing of —

MR PATEL: Said, we are outraged and we are wanting more information about this incident. We are concerned by that reported strike that killed the Save the Children aid worker in Khan Younis. Our view is and has been that humanitarian workers must be protected so they can safely deliver aid, whether it be in Gaza or whether it be truly anywhere in the world.

And as I said, the IDF needs to provide additional information about this incident. I am not going to draw any conclusion on it until we have seen more information and are able to gather the facts. But broadly, we urge Israel to thoroughly and transparently investigate actions like these and take appropriate action in their system, including ensuring accountability for any violations within their system.

QUESTION: Do you condemn the killing of aid workers by the Israeli army?

MR PATEL: Said, we of course condemn the intentional —

QUESTION: Including the aid – the killing of aid workers here?

MR PATEL: We condemn the – we condemn the intentional killing of aid workers anywhere. As it relates to this specific incident, we have asked for additional information. I’m not going to draw any conclusion until that has happened, but of course we are deeply concerned and troubled by this reported strike. And as you’ve heard me say, we think that aid workers need to be able to do their work not just in Gaza but in other places in the world.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Jenny has patiently had her hand up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Has the new channel of the civilian harm mechanism that you guys established with Israelis met yet?

MR PATEL: It has not. It has not.

QUESTION: When will that meet?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to offer a timeline on that. That’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.

QUESTION: Matt suggested it would be in early December. Is that still what you’re tracking?

MR PATEL: Well, it’s December 3rd. So again, I’m not going to – I’m not going to put a timeline on it, but we expect that to happen sometime soon. But I don’t have a specific date to offer.

QUESTION: And then there was a meeting on humanitarian aid for Gaza in Cairo yesterday. Who represented the U.S. at that?

MR PATEL: We did have representation from the United States and the State Department. I will have to double-check the specific names, but I’m happy to check and get back to you. But we did participate in that forum.

QUESTION: And I have a couple on Lebanon, but if anybody —

MR PATEL: Any – or do you want to —

QUESTION: Yeah, I have one on Lebanon.

MR PATEL: Okay, great. Why don’t we —

QUESTION: Where do you assess the ceasefire standing, or do you still see it as being largely successful?

MR PATEL: We do. We do. Look, the ceasefire writ large is the result of intensive diplomatic effort over many months by the United States as well as partners in France working closely with Israel and Lebanon. Our hope and our expectation is that parties are going to abide by their commitments and that the ceasefire will continue to be implemented. We are continuing to support that implementation. We’re working on continuing to build a robust mechanism that assists the parties in addressing violations. We’re working to support the LAF and continuing to work closely with UNIFIL. And we think that kind of work is essential to that.

QUESTION: Nine Lebanese were killed yesterday in Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Do you see this as a violation of the ceasefire?

MR PATEL: So there are – there is a mechanism in place to address and speak to specific violations. On this specific incident, I don’t know enough about the specific activity that took place to offer any kind of assessment. But in President Biden’s remarks last week, he was pretty clear, and you saw the Secretary echo that, that if there is a direct threat to Israel’s security, Israel has a right to defend themselves. But again, on this specific incident I just don’t have any assessment to offer.

QUESTION: Do the Israelis have the right under the agreement or a side agreement with the United States to adjudicate their own assessments of violations and then act accordingly, or is it only direct threats?

MR PATEL: So I am just not going to – I’m not going to offer —

QUESTION: Would projectiles launched hours earlier be cause for —

MR PATEL: So on this specific incident I am just not going to offer an assessment or draw some kind of conclusion on what would fall in the parameters of a violation or not. I think you saw the President speak to this pretty clearly that if there is a direct threat to Israel’s security, Israel has a right to defend themselves. If Hizballah or anyone else breaks the deal or poses a direct threat to Israel, then Israel certainly retains the right to self-defense consistent with international law, consistent with what any country would do if they were facing a terrorist group that was pledged to their destruction. But again, on this specific incident I just don’t have an assessment to offer on how it necessarily comports with that.

QUESTION: And then last question. Is the mechanism fully operational at this point?

MR PATEL: That is my understanding. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Netanyahu today said that Israel is committed to the ceasefire deal with Lebanon – or sorry, with Hizballah but warns that it did not mean the war was over. What’s your assessment of those comments?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I’m not going to – I’m not going to interpret the prime minister’s comments. I will leave it to you all to ask his office to do that.

From our perspective, we are doing everything we can to make sure that the parties abide by the ceasefire, as I said in response to Jenny’s question. We want this ceasefire to be implemented. It has been a product of months and months and months of work between the United States and France and other partners, and we are committed to supporting that. Of course, as part of that caveat, as I said to Jenny there, that if Israel’s security is threatened, it has the right to defend itself. Hizballah, at the end of the day, continues to be a terrorist organization, and we want to make sure that they can no longer act upon a springboard of terrorism onto the Israeli people.

But I will leave it to the prime minister’s office to offer any context to his comments.

QUESTION: And he said that Hizballah had seriously violated the accord on Monday and that Israel has subsequently attacked more than 20 targets across Lebanon in retaliation. Is it Washington’s assessment that Hizballah had seriously violated the accord, as Netanyahu said?

MR PATEL: So there is a mechanism in place to address possible violations. As I said to Jenny, I’m just – I don’t have an assessment to offer on specific incidents. Our point of view is, is that we believe the ceasefire continues to be largely holding in place. As I said, there is mechanisms to address questions or to address violations. That is up and running. But beyond that, what we are focused on is working with partners to make sure that this ceasefire is continuing to hold and can continue to be implemented.

QUESTION: Did Israel coordinate with the U.S. at all ahead of this retaliation or let you know that it was going to happen?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer on military action.

QUESTION: As part of the accord, would Israel have to notify you that it was going to retaliate?

MR PATEL: Again, on the specific military pieces I will let colleagues at the Pentagon speak to the ins and outs of that.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Did you pressure Israel yesterday not to strike Beirut, as the Israelis have said?

MR PATEL: Michel, I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. Our perspective continues to be that all parties need to do everything possible to abide by the ceasefire. We’ll continue to receive and assess reports of alleged violations of the ceasefire through the monitoring and implementation mechanism, and we are committed to helping the parties implement the ceasefire, as I said, through this robust monitoring mechanism that we hope will address such violations.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. preparing to provide military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces to implement the agreement?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific announcements to preview, Michel, beyond just saying that the United States of course has been one of the largest supporters of the LAF over many, many years, but I don’t have any specific announcement to preview or share. Yeah.

QUESTION: On Syria if you don’t mind.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday Matt said that the U.S. didn’t support the opposition; their military movement. Today the SDF, who are supported by the U.S., is expanding its influence in Deir al-Zour province and expanding their territories too. Is the U.S. providing any support to them?

MR PATEL: Michel, what the events of the past 48 to 72 hours underscore is that this conflict can only end once and for all through what we view as a political settlement that’s consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We think it’s time to reinvigorate that political process, and we think that the only path forward is a UN-facilitated one. And certainly our view is that certainly no country should be taking advantage of this particular incident, and really we are engaging with partners and allies with a consistent message is that any who sort of have power or who have influence over some of these actors is do everything that we can to continue to stress de-escalation.

QUESTION: But the SDF, who are supported by the U.S., are expanding their territories and they are part of a military action in northeastern Syria today.

MR PATEL: So again, our viewpoint continues to be that the only solution here is one that is Syrian-led, Syrian-inclusive, and reflective of the will of the Syrian people. And that would be one that is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

QUESTION: And finally on Iraq.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the waiver on Iraq to import energy from Iran?

MR PATEL: So – sure. On November 7th, the department did renew Iraq’s electricity waiver for the 23rd time since 2018. It was done so for an additional 120 days. We remain committed to reducing Iran’s malign influence in the region. Our viewpoint is that a stable, sovereign, and secure Iraq is critical to these efforts. Since 2018 – as you know, this started in the previous administration – the State Department has permitted Iraq to purchase Iranian electricity while Iraq continues to develop its own domestic generation capacity.

QUESTION: Follow-up on that?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Go ahead, yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you seen any progress from the Iraqi Government to step up towards energy independence from Iran? Because there are reports that even Iran get a billion a year from Iraq since Prime Minister Sudani took office in 2022.

MR PATEL: I think I’ve spoken to this – a little bit about this before, Diyar, and I don’t have any updated assessment to offer beyond we have seen some progress and steps in the right direction by the Iraqi Government as it relates to their own sovereign domestic energy production. That continues to be the case. I don’t have a different assessment to offer today.

QUESTION: Can I ask two more questions on Syria?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Today the Iraqi prime minister office issued a statement, and they said that Iraq is not stand and monitoring the situation in Syria, but they will exert all efforts to preserve the security in Syria and Iraq. How do you see this statement from the Iraqi prime minister?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to draw any particular conclusions from that statement, Diyar. What we are telling partners in the region – what we continue to echo – is that from our viewpoint, from the United States viewpoint, the only solution is a UN-led one that is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. I expect that there is actually going to be a UN Security Council resolution on this later today, and we want every country doing everything they can in their power to de-escalate. We don’t want to see escalates – we don’t want to see tensions escalate at such a fraught time.

QUESTION: And lastly on humanitarian situation in Syria.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: So far, there are about 200,000 Kurds, Christians, and other people – minority – have displaced, and a part of them, they went to the SDF areas on which your – you are – your partner. And I’ve learned that the SDF and Syrian Autonomous Administration have reached out to you and they are seeking help to addressing the humanitarian situation in Syria. Are you offering any support in this regard?

MR PATEL: So look, appropriate – offering appropriate humanitarian assistance is of course vital, and we think that is critically important. We have for many, many years now been a important and robust provider of humanitarian aid to those impacted regions. I don’t have any specific announcement to offer as it relates to today, but we are just continuing to monitor the situation and we’ll take appropriate steps if we need to.

Willy, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Earlier you mentioned that under the ceasefire, Israel retains a right to defend itself.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, does that same right transfer to the Lebanese state? I say this because Israel’s new defense minister today said that if it fails to deter Hizballah from attacking it, the Lebanese Government will not be immune from attacks in the future.

MR PATEL: So I think you’re asking me to again speak to a hypothetical, which I’m just not going to engage on.

QUESTION: I mean, is there something in the ceasefire that says if attacked, the Lebanese state has the right to defend itself?

MR PATEL: So at the crux of this – at the crux of this long conversation that we’ve been having as it relates to northern Israel and southern Lebanon has been UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and at the center of that is this notion that Hizballah will withdraw to north of the Litani River and that, likewise, Israel will return to south of the Blue Line back to Israel. Again – but I think to just pressure test your question a little bit, I don’t think that there is a desire from Israel to invade or attack the Lebanese people. What we were talking about is specific acts or incidents of self-defense. Again, I’m not going to —

QUESTION: It still – it still killed 12 Lebanese citizens.

MR PATEL: Certainly I’m not trying to minimize the impact on Lebanese civilians, but I’m not – I just don’t have an assessment to offer on some of these specific incidents beyond just saying that as it relates to the ceasefire, there is a mechanism in place to address violations, and ultimately at the crux of this, the – Israel, if it is threatened or if its security is violated by Hizballah, by a terrorist group, they certainly have the right to their self-defense.

QUESTION: But it’s a chicken and the egg. Does Lebanon then not retain that same right?

MR PATEL: I – your —

QUESTION: If they are – okay, let’s say Israel is the aggressor.

MR PATEL: Again, we are going down a slippery slope of hypotheticals. We are —

QUESTION: It’s not that hypothetical.

MR PATEL: It – we – it is a bit of a hypothetical, because on one side we are talking about a terrorist group that as part of its mission statement has the destruction of Israel stamped at the center of that, and on the other side you have Israel, a sovereign, democratic state.

QUESTION: That has invaded Lebanon three times.

MR PATEL: And – as – part of what we are talking about and part of this ceasefire is for Israel – at the crux of 1701 is to withdraw to south of the Blue Line. I think these situations are not totally comparable, but I really appreciate you trying.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Very quickly on Secretary’s engagement on Ukraine, and then I have South Caucasus to cover.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: You guys signed MOU today with Ukraine, Ukrainian foreign minister, which will provide 825 million in energy assistance to Ukraine. Can you please clear up in what form it’s going to be delivered and where is it coming – as part of the FAA or USAID budget? I’m asking because Ukrainian side is asking for providing more additional air defense systems to secure their energy sites, rather than just assistance for dealing with the results of Russian attacks.

MR PATEL: So in terms of the budgetary line item, Alex, I don’t have a specific steer for you, but of course what I would say is that this is another long step of ours in doing what we can to make sure that Ukraine can continue to stand on its own two feet. Ultimately, the end goal here, Alex – and you’ve heard the Secretary talk a lot about this – is making sure that Ukraine can stand on its own militarily, economically, and it can continue to grow and be part of these Euro-Atlantic institutions. But I’m happy to check specifically if we have some specifics on the budgetary information on the MOU. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. In terms of delivering that —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — is there any sense on your end that there’s time tickling here?

MR PATEL: Sorry, can you repeat that?

QUESTION: I mean the time ticking here. You have less time to deliver 825 million in energy assistance.

MR PATEL: We continue to work around the clock to do everything we can to find ways in which we can continue to support Ukraine. As you probably saw, Alex, that as part of the surge in the security assistance that the President announced in late September, the U.S. is providing another significant package of urgently needed weapons and equipment to our Ukrainian partners as they continue to defend against Russia. That – this additional assessment – assistance is being provided under presidential drawdown authority, and we – it’s valued at approximately 725 million. It includes a whole litany of systems and capabilities that we think will continue to help Ukraine defend itself.

QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to South Caucasus.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Azerbaijan arrested a leading human rights defender – I should say one of the last remaining defenders, Rufat Safarov, today. And there are reports that he was supposed to be Secretary’s human rights defenders awardee next week. So do you have any reaction to this arrest?

MR PATEL: We’re deeply concerned by reports that human rights defender Rufat Safarov has been detained in Azerbaijan. We’re closely monitoring this case. It’s imperative that human rights defenders everywhere are able to conduct their work without hindrance and free and – fear from retribution. And we continue to urge Azerbaijan to release all of those unjustly detained and to cease its crackdown on civil society, including human rights defenders and journalists.

QUESTION: Any sense on your end that – Vedant – failure to secure political prisoners’ release during the COP, before that, and after that has emboldened the regime?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on the decision making here or what may or may not have caused this, Alex. What I will just echo is that we’re urging Azerbaijan to release all those unjustly detained and cease its crackdown on civil society, including human rights defenders and journalists.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. And finally, on Georgia, I wanted to get your reaction to the brutal attacks on the protesters during the past 24 hours, even before that. How do they – handling this —

MR PATEL: Well, Alex, we condemn the excessive use of force by police against Georgian protesters seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression, including their ability to peacefully protest. The U.S. is deeply concerned by reports of the detention and assault of journalists, and recognizing that a free press, we believe, is a cornerstone of a democratic system. We’re continuing to call on all sides to ensure protests remain peaceful, and we are urging the Georgian Government to strictly respect the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: When you say both sides, Vedant, don’t you —

MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit, Alex. You’ve gotten three.

QUESTION: Just to clarify —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: When is the right time for you to impose the sanctions on the person who has organized this massive, massive violence in Georgia? And I’m speaking about the founder of the Georgian Dream Party.

MR PATEL: So look, I’m not going to preview or speculate on any actions the U.S. may or may not take. What I can say – what we are focused on right now is engaging with the Georgian Government and emphasizing to them the strong responsibility they have to respect the rule of law, respect human rights, and respect fundamental freedoms, which we continue to believe are the foundation of Georgia’s own Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. In Bangladesh, British MPs Barry Gardiner and Priti Patel released – concerned in the UK parliament over violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, highlighting over 2,000 violent incident and calling for urgent government discussion with Bangladeshi authorities to ensure protection, law and order, and freedom of religion for minority communities. Are there any plan to address this concern through diplomatic and policy measurement from U.S.?

MR PATEL: So we are consistent with every government in which we have a relationship with – we are clear that there needs to be the respect of fundamental freedoms; there needs to be respect of religious freedom and basic human rights. Any kind of protests should be and need to be peaceful, and that any kind of crackdown – not even crackdown – that governments need to respect the rule of law, they need to respect basic human rights as part of that. And that’s something we’ll continue to emphasize.

QUESTION: And definitely you already know that Chinmoy Das Brahmachari, the leader of ISKCON in Bangladesh – also Tulsi Gabbard, proposed director of U.S. National Intelligence, is the member of ISKCON. The Chinmoy Das is illegally arrested, putted in the jail, and no lawyer in Bangladesh willing to stand for Chinmoy Krishna Das because his lawyer was beaten and sent to the hospital. Will you take any – any action on that?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have the details surrounding that case. But again, we continue to stress and emphasize that even those who are in detention need to be afforded appropriate representation and need to be treated with basic fundamental freedoms and human rights.

QUESTION: And finally, in the —

MR PATEL: In the back. Go ahead. Yeah, you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. A couple questions on Gaza.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Number one, reports are circulating that Hamas and Fatah are closing in on an agreement to select a committee of supposedly politically independent technocrats to administrator Gaza. Number one, has the U.S. been coordinating with Ramallah on that process? Does it take a position on this process? And was it discussed between Secretary Blinken and Minister Dermer yesterday?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have any further readouts or perspectives to offer from the Secretary’s engagement. Beyond that, I’ve seen the reporting as it relates to this announcement but don’t have anything to offer beyond just saying obviously, for the United States, Hamas continuing to play a role in any kind of governance form in Gaza would certainly be deeply troubling for us.

QUESTION: So the U.S. has not been looped into this before?

MR PATEL: I just don’t have any diplomatic conversations to read out.

QUESTION: One other question —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — on humanitarian aid.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The UN has put the onus on Israel to clamp down on the looting that’s been happening with the trucks going into Gaza. Meanwhile, the UN also says that it cannot allow Israel to escort those trucks, because it’s one of the warring parties, which is a complete catch-22. How, in the U.S.’s opinion, should Israel go about trying to stamp out the looting of the humanitarian trucks and, again, what’s – I guess you already answered the question, but has the U.S. been engaged with Israel in guidance and support in trying to find a solution to the looting?

MR PATEL: So we’ve been – we’ve been engaged on this issue not just with Israel but other important regional partners as well, including, of course, the United Nations. It is a serious area of concern, and it’s an area of concern where we continue to want to see more happen and more diligence given, not just, of course, from Israel’s perspective but also from the United Nations as well.

QUESTION: Can the U.S. provide a solution to it?

MR PATEL: This is something we’re continuing to engage on with partners.

All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:06 p.m.)