# India - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 9, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2024																																																					May 9, 2024																																																								1:22 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Okay. Matt?QUESTION: Really, four days in a row?MR MILLER: Four days in a row. I’m sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: Four days in a row you &#8212;MR MILLER: As I was – as I was walking out here I was remembering our exchange about this yesterday and thinking, oh, I’m going to get it, I’m going to catch it.QUESTION: There’s nothing going on in the world. It’s all very quiet. Everything is fine and calm.MR MILLER: I – again, my lack of opening remarks does not indicate lack of anything to say. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. Okay. So can you explain to us what the – what the practical impact, at least for the State Department, is of the President’s comments last night about arms shipments to – arms transfers to Israel and whether or not this plays into the NSM report that I guess is not coming today, and maybe tomorrow?MR MILLER: So let me speak first with the NSM report. It doesn’t have any practical impact on the NSM report. The NSM report is a backwards-looking report where we’re looking at a number of things over the past – conduct from last year and then up to when we send the report, and it doesn’t have any impact either on the content of the report or the timing of that report, which won’t be today but, again, I expect in the very near future. It’s just a matter of days that we’ll be able to get that report up to the Hill.And then with respect to the larger question, so what the President made clear is that we have concerns about a potential military operation in Rafah. I don’t think that’s any secret. We’ve been making those concerns known publicly and we have made those concerns quite clear to the Government of Israel. And as the President noted, there are certain types of military assistance that we will not make available to Israel for use in a campaign in Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. But I was under the impression that you guys didn’t speak to hypotheticals.MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear for some time our concerns about a Rafah operation, something the Israel Government has signaled is likely to be coming. And so, yes, we have been engaged with them on that.QUESTION: Well, I get it, but isn’t it “if?” Isn’t there a big “if” in here?MR MILLER: Certainly that would be our hope. We don’t want to see an operation go forward, and we are making that clear.QUESTION: Well, I know. But every time you’re asked any question that’s got the word “if” in it or it’s not something that has already happened, you refuse to answer. And now, all of a sudden &#8212;MR MILLER: I wouldn’t say every time. Wouldn’t say every time.QUESTION: Pretty much.MR MILLER: Look, this – I – so just to be – I know we should be serious about this.QUESTION: I am not trying to be making light of it.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah.QUESTION: I just – but I just – you’re – you guys have made or the President has made a policy prescription, apparently, based on something that hasn’t happened yet.MR MILLER: He has &#8212;QUESTION: Right?MR MILLER: He – because we have been in close conversation with the Government of Israel about this fact.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: There is a different than I – there is a very real difference, obviously, between coming to the briefing room and getting a question about something that might happen, and something that we’re engaged with a foreign government that they say they intend to do. And we treat those differently for quite obvious reasons.QUESTION: Okay, so you’re saying you won’t tell us the full truth but you will – anyway. My point is &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m saying it’s different when a reporter raises a hypothetical question &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: &#8212; versus a government saying, “This is what we intend to do, this is what our policy is going to be,” and we have to make determinations about our policy.QUESTION: And is it your understanding that the President has decided that what Israel has done in Rafah so far is – crosses the red line?MR MILLER: We have not yet seen an indication of a major military operation. That is something that we are watching closely, and the President made that clear in his comments.QUESTION: And yet he already decided to halt the – or to suspend these – the shipments based on something that hasn’t happened?MR MILLER: We have – we have paused one shipment &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and are reviewing others in the context of a potential operation. But again, we hope that there is no operation. That, I think, would be the best outcome for everyone involved.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Actually, can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; follow up? Just what is your definition exactly of a major operation in Rafah? I mean, you have tanks there. You have bombings going on every day. They took control of the Rafah crossing. What is your definition of a major operation in this case?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into too much detail about that from here, but I would differentiate it from the types of operations that we have already seen from the beginning when it comes to Rafah. We have seen Israel execute strikes against Rafah. We have seen – when I mean strikes, I mean airstrikes. Going back to last October, it’s something that they have engaged in. The operation that we saw to take control of the Rafah crossing appeared to be a limited operation; it’s not a major invasion of a civilian area, neighborhoods packed with people, thousands and thousands of people.So when we talk about a major operation, we’re talking about a campaign targeting these civilian areas that are densely packed with civilians, in many cases civilians who are refugees from their homes, sometimes refugees twice over who have moved once, twice, three times, and are now taking refuge in a place that is literally their last resort, where there’s nowhere else for them to go.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, on the NSM report, can we get the latest ETA on when State will submit that?MR MILLER: In the coming days.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: In the – it’s the very near future. I don’t have a date to affix on the calendar for you, but it will be very soon. I can assure you of that.QUESTION: So is there a chance it might slip into early next week?MR MILLER: I am not going to give any timetable at all other than to say the coming days, which is what I said yesterday. I can assure you it will not be long.QUESTION: Okay. A couple of other things. In your answer to Matt, you said the report is going to be retrospective. Right?MR MILLER: Correct. It’s looking at – it’s looking at past conduct.QUESTION: Right. And he asked you, I think, if I got it right, how – whether there is going to be any practical impact on President’s comments on the report?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: So – but the President’s comments last night also covered the past. He talked about – let me find the quote here. He talked about, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs.” So can you explain to us how his comments have no practical impact on the report?MR MILLER: What I was taking Matt’s question to mean is Matt’s question was related to the decision that the President announced last night or that the President made public to not provide Israel certain military weapons for a Rafah campaign. That is a forward – that is a forward-looking decision. We have paused shipments.Now, the report is a backwards-looking thing. Now, the report does – will obviously look at allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different thing than what the President – I mean, it’s a – I’m speaking just to a determination going forward versus a backwards-looking report.QUESTION: Okay, well, let me ask it in the way that I sort of was thinking about asking. It is a report that is assessing whether or not Israel’s assurances are credible on two things, and one of them is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international humanitarian law. And the President of the United States yesterday said, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs,” in reference to the 2,000-pound bombs. So can you explain again, like, how his comments – maybe that’s not a determination as a result of a legal process, but those are comments from the President of the United States. How does that not have any impact on the findings of the report?MR MILLER: So I think you have to look at two separate things. One is the tragedy – the tragic loss of civilian life throughout this conflict, which we have spoken to many times, the President has spoken to, the Secretary has spoken to, other members of the administration have spoken to. And we have said that far too many people have died; that Israel needs to do more to minimize civilian harm; that the actions they have taken have not yielded sufficient results – all of those things we believe to be true, still believe to be true. That is different than a legal question of whether there have been violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different question; it applies – it goes to not just questions of civilian life – or I’m sorry, loss of civilian life, but whether international humanitarian law was violated in the loss of that life. And those questions are something that we continue to look at and have not yet – not reached any determinations.QUESTION: And how do you determine whether international humanitarian law is violated with those killings? Is your criteria intent?MR MILLER: So there are all sorts of things when you look at – I’m obviously not a lawyer, but when you look at the standards that have been applied in every conflict around the world, it goes to questions of intent, it goes to questions of proportionality. There are other things you have to look at when making those determinations.QUESTION: Okay. My final thing on this. How do you think – I’m just trying to wrap my head around this. In his comments, the President has also said in the other part of the sentence, and in “other ways in which they go after population centers.” Going after someone or something does imply, to me, intent. And also, the bombs in question are 2,000-pound bombs, and their impact when dropped in a population center are known. We know that Gaza is already very – it&#8217;s very densely populated, and there are people squeezed in a small place. So how can any country claim there was no intent if you’re dropping a 2,000 bomb on a population center?MR MILLER: So this goes back to the very difficult problem that Israel has faced from the beginning, is that you have Hamas embedded in these population centers. So yes, the Israeli military very clearly is operating within population centers, because that’s where Hamas was; that’s where their military targets have been. And I will say as we have looked at this conflict from the beginning, obviously, we react to facts on the ground. So at the outset of this conflict, you saw Hamas that was well entrenched in civilian areas and was able to launch not just the attacks of October 7th, but dozens and dozens of rocket attacks. For a while, they were launching them every day for the first month of this conflict. And Israel, in the first stages of the conflict, was able to degrade Hamas’s ability to the fact that those attacks, while they still happen, are sporadic, they’re not – they’re not as frequent, and Hamas – the Hamas battalions in northern Gaza and central Gaza have largely been defeated and have been dismantled, though clearly there is still a Hamas population that exists in all of those areas.What we have also seen over the course of this conflict is Israel take measures to try and reduce civilian harm, and we have seen the numbers come down. Just if you look at the – at the death toll from back in October, November, as Israel implemented additional measures, the civilian death toll did go down. But we haven’t seen it come down far enough. And so when you look at – you take all those facts and you overlay them with a campaign in Rafah where you have a denser civilian population than we – than Israel would have faced anywhere else, just because of the people that have fled there, and you look at their track record at previous points in the operation, it leads us to believe that there would be incredible civilian toll, and it’s something that we can’t support.QUESTION: Okay. Truly final one, and I apologize to my colleagues. Can you tell us where we are on the hostage talks? And there are Israeli officials – I believe perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu – saying the deal on the hostage talks collapsed because of the President’s decision and because the President signaled this decision. What would you say to that?MR MILLER: So first of all, I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials – is that an on-the-record quote from someone? They’re not – I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials. But I would just say that is not at all our assessment of the hostage talks. We actually think that a Rafah operation would weaken Israel’s position, both in these talks and writ large. We’ve talked about this before, that a major military operation in Rafah would further weaken Israel’s standing in the world, would further create distance from its partners in the region who actually share Israel’s goal of seeing Hamas defeated and want to see Hamas replaced with a different governance structure in Gaza.And then also, if you look – just look at Hamas’s track record, they have never cared about Palestinian civilian lives. If they did, they wouldn’t have launched these attacks in the first place, which they knew would produce a response; they wouldn’t hide behind civilians, and they would have agreed to a ceasefire long ago. So I just don’t think that that argument holds any water.With respect to the talks itself – so we continue to engage with the Israeli Government on the amendments to the proposal that Hamas submitted earlier this week. There continues to be – we continue to work to try to finalize the text, try to get an agreement. And I will just say that any effort like this is incredibly difficult. This one has certainly been incredibly difficult, but we will continue to stay engaged to try to get a deal because we believe it’s in the interest of all relevant parties.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: So just – it wasn’t an anonymous official; it was the prime minister of Israel that &#8212;MR MILLER: So I hadn’t seen that on the record. That’s – I had seen anonymous quotes earlier. I think my comments stand.QUESTION: Okay. So &#8212;MR MILLER: I did give a substantive response in any regard, so – you can apply to that.QUESTION: Well, I – okay. Substantive – I don’t know by whose definition. But anyway, when you say the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ouch, Matt. I thought I was pretty substantive. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, when you say that the death toll – when you said prior – the death toll will continue – or has fallen since October, it’s come down but not yet enough, whose death toll are you talking about here? Whose figures are you accepting?MR MILLER: So we are looking at the figures that are released by the ministry of health, which we do have &#8212;QUESTION: By the Gaza – by the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, which you know that we have &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; which is run by Hamas?MR MILLER: Which you know that we &#8212;QUESTION: And you have &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – let me just finish. We know that we do have – we don’t have any way of verifying those figures on our own &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then how do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; but they are – they are the only figures that are available. And look, the UN relies on them, we look at them &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We do think there are probably issues with the numbers, but they do capture a large death toll and a large civilian death toll.QUESTION: But you’re fairly certain that, at least in terms of the trend, they’re accurate?MR MILLER: It – it’s just – I won’t – I can’t say accurate with any degree of certainty, like I can’t give you a, what, percentage accuracy &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then what – (laughter) &#8212;MR MILLER: But – no, no, hold on. But if you look at &#8212;QUESTION: With any degree of certainty? Like it could be zero percent?MR MILLER: No, no, I can’t say if they’re – I can’t say if they’re off – no, hold – if they’re off by 10 percent, by 5, by 50 – I can’t say something like that. But just –QUESTION: Well, I mean, they might be off by 50 percent. Who knows?MR MILLER: But stipulate whatever they’re off by, they have come down. And so they have come down over time – the daily number has come down over time when you look at where they were last October or November to where they are today.QUESTION: All right. Last thing really briefly, just on this whole “a hypothetical” thing – because when Humeyra started her question, it was about my question to you. And it is a hypothetical, because you have the President making a determination on something that hasn’t happened yet, right?MR MILLER: He is making United States policy based on conversations with the Government of Israel, where they tell us what they plan to do.QUESTION: Well, let me put it in a very flip way. Like should I be bringing an umbrella home with me when I leave work today?MR MILLER: I have not looked at the forecast. I can’t quite answer that.QUESTION: Right, so that’s a hypothetical, so you don’t know, right?MR MILLER: I don’t have control over the forecast. The Government of Israel &#8212;QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. The Government of Israel has control of what it’s going to do, and so when they tell us that they intend to do something, we make our policy in reaction to that.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just a point of clarification on that very front, because Admiral Kirby said this morning that the Israelis have been saying their Rafah operation is limited, precise, and of a short duration. That’s something that you’re going to monitor. So are they – have they told you that they are going to undertake a big operation in Rafah, and that’s the reason for this policy shift?MR MILLER: They have made quite clear they intend to conduct an operation. The operation they have conducted so far has been limited. They have talked, I think quite openly, about conducting a major military operation in Rafah. We are opposed to that, but we’ll see what happens. We have made quite clear we don’t want to see it happen.We continue – and I should say we do continue to engage with them about other options that they can pursue. We have presented a full range of other policy choices that they can make that we think would achieve the goal of dismantling Hamas and choking off the Hamas battalions that remain in Rafah without further endangering civilians there and without causing this mass population displacement with no place for them to go. And so they may end up taking that option, but right now we will wait and see what happens.QUESTION: Have you had any indication in conversations since this policy shift was announced that they are considering a different tactic?MR MILLER: I’m not going to talk about our private conversations with them, but you can look at their public remarks and draw conclusions from that.QUESTION: Okay. The original reason, going back to April 4th, that both the President and the Secretary have said that the U.S. would shift its policy was because Israel needed to boost the amount of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. That picture looks about as bleak as it has ever been with Rafah being closed, Kerem Shalom being open but no – nothing going in. So is this suspension meant to also address the humanitarian effect, or are there other potential consequences that the administration is considering on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into previewing any other potential policy options. I will say, first of all, you’re right – we have been very clear that the level of humanitarian assistance needed to come up and it needed to stay up, and it is not at the level it needs to be this week. That said, Kerem Shalom is open today and some trucks have moved through Kerem Shalom, so we are – have had a bit of an increase from where we were yesterday. I don’t have the number but I – just before I came out here – told that some trucks moved through.Some trucks also move through Erez, so there are trucks that have gotten in. Not enough – clearly, not enough, not at the level that they should be, and so that’s why we’ll continue to push, continue to work with humanitarian partners to try and get them back up as well as to get Rafah open. That will continue to be a priority for us.QUESTION: But are there any additional – because that was April 4th, so that was a month ago, a little over a month ago. So are there any additional consequences at this stage being considered for – specifically for the humanitarian &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not going to preview specific steps, but we have always made clear, when it comes to humanitarian assistance and the need to have it increased and sustained, that we will make our policy determinations based on the facts on the ground. And that’s the case.QUESTION: Okay. And one follow-up on Humeyra’s question about the hostage talks. How can you say with such confidence that the policy shift the U.S. has just announced didn’t meaningfully affect the trajectory of those talks, either by undercutting the Israelis at the negotiating table or emboldening Hamas at the negotiating table?MR MILLER: So it is just not our assessment, based on actually being in the middle of these talks and seeing how it’s happening and what Hamas is actually demanding and what their incentive structure actually is. That’s just not how we see it. But also, again, to my point, the idea that – we just have never seen Hamas as having any interest in the – in civilians and civilian life in Rafah. So the idea that a Rafah invasion that would kill civilians is something that they lose sleep over just isn’t backed up by the facts, isn’t backed up by their track record the past seven months, when they have put civilians in harm’s way time and time again.QUESTION: If a full-scale Rafah operation goes forward, is it safe to assume that it eliminates the prospects of a ceasefire and hostage deal altogether?MR MILLER: We will continue to work for a ceasefire that brings the hostages home no matter what it takes. That will continue to be the goal that we will try – that we will work for.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one question on the NSM delay. Is there any reason that you can provide to us for the delay?MR MILLER: That we just continue to work to finalize it.QUESTION: Okay. I’m curious about President Biden saying that those 2,000-pound bombs were used to kill civilians, and now the United States won’t allow those bombs to be used or doesn’t want those bombs to be used. But we know that all of Gaza is so intensely populated, so is there a differentiating factor in terms of how many civilians lives you’ll allow to be killed with those bombs?MR MILLER: No. First of all, we have always made clear that we don’t want to see any civilian loss of life. And we have consistently pressed the Israeli Government to take additional steps to minimize the loss of civilian life. But the assessments that we make are informed by what happens on the ground, and we are in a very different place today than we were last October. That’s what I made clear a minute ago in response to – I think it was to Humeyra’s question – where you have seen Hamas significantly degraded. You have seen their ability to launch the kind of attacks that they did on October 7th significantly degraded, if not completely eliminated.They couldn’t launch an attack of that scale today. Their weapons production factories underground have been eliminated. Their – most of their battalion leadership in the north and in central Gaza has been eliminated. So Israel has achieved a great number of its military objectives. So that’s one thing that is different now versus then.But the other thing that’s different now versus then is that we have watched the experience of those few months, and even when Israel has taken additional steps to minimize civilian harm, we’ve still seen results that were – we’ve still seen results where far too many civilians were dying. So we talked about this on some of the trips, where – there was one in November where the Secretary went and pressed Israel to take additional civilian harm measures. They did, they announced some of those, we talked about them publicly, and we still saw an unacceptable loss of civilian life.So when you look at all of those factors, both where the battlefield – the battle versus Hamas stands today and the track record over the last few months, it leads us to believe that the loss of civilian life in Rafah, where you have a situation unlike anywhere else, both because of the concentration of people and because there’s nowhere left to go because all of these people have come down to Rafah and there’s nowhere for them to go now, it leads us to believe that the results would be disastrous from a civilian harm perspective.QUESTION: Okay. And then NSC’s John Kirby said earlier today that Biden doesn’t want certain categories of American weapons used in particular operation in a particular place. Can you just clarify for us: Is this review of the future shipments of U.S. weaponry based on what those weapons are, or is it just based on the possibility of delaying or halting all U.S. weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get ahead of what the President said last night. We are reviewing – we have paused one shipment; we are reviewing others. But as the President made clear, we will always be committed to Israel’s defense. He talked about continuing to provide them defensive weapons. We will always be committed to Israel’s security. We will always be committed to helping Israel defend itself against Hamas, Hizballah, the threat from Iran, the threat from other terrorist groups and malign actors.But when we look at a potential operation in Rafah, the President made clear that we are not going to provide them certain weapons that they could use in such an operation.QUESTION: And then just last question. Kirby also said that Biden was forth – was as forthright in his conversations with Netanyahu about the possibility to pause weapons shipments as he was in the conversation publicly on CNN yesterday. Was the Secretary also as crystal clear in his private conversations as President Biden was publicly yesterday?MR MILLER: Yes. I don’t – we have been quite clear with the Government of Israel some – for some time that we are opposed to a major Rafah operation. And the Secretary in his conversations has made that quite clear and made quite clear the potential implications, as has – as the President did.QUESTION: He’s made clear which shipments might be paused?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – I’m not going to get into details, but you can be fully assured that the Government of Israel understood our policy.QUESTION: Sorry. Did he make that warning in last week’s trip?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into details. As I said, there is no doubt that they understood what our policy was should they launch a Rafah operation, or what our policy would be, I should say.Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. And before I ask about Rafah, I want to bring your attention to two days from today, May 11, will mark the second anniversary since an Israeli sniper killed our colleague Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist. And I want to ask you: Are you satisfied that everything that could have been done to bring those responsible, to hold them accountable has been done, and do you consider that case to be closed?MR MILLER: That death continues to be a tragedy – one that was investigated by the Israeli Government, one that we investigated, and I don’t have anything further to add to what we’ve said – what we’ve said in the past.QUESTION: So the case is closed?MR MILLER: I just don’t have anything further to say on what we said many times from this podium.QUESTION: Now, on Rafah, Matt, I know there is – or what you guys keep saying that there is no major operation, but there are little tiny operations. They just killed a family of eight last night in an area that is to the west, not to the south or to the east, in Tel al-Sultan. I mean, I don’t want to name all their names, but four were children: Ahmad Abdulrahman (ph), 10 years old; Lanana (ph), 12 years old; Muhamad Ramzi Lulu (ph), five years old; Jana Muhamad Lulu (ph), one year old. I mean, so these things go on day in and day out, and &#8212;MR MILLER: Every one of those deaths is an absolute tragedy, Said.QUESTION: Right, right. But I mean, it is obvious that the Israelis are not heeding the President’s call, your call, to sort of hold back and so on. And the one thought or what we heard is that once they raise the Israeli flag on the Rafah crossing that maybe things will not go south from there, but they are. Right?MR MILLER: So I don’t know where you heard that, Said. Every death is a tragedy. We have made clear we want to see them take additional steps to reduce civilian harm, but that doesn’t change the fact that just as a factual matter we haven’t seen a full-scale major military operation. Again, what we’re talking about is – like the kind of operation you saw in Khan Younis, like the kind of operation you saw in Gaza City. Just as a factual matter, that has not yet begun.QUESTION: By the way, you said that Hamas is hiding among the civilian population. It was not Hamas that drove the people south. It was actually the Israelis. They told them to go and hunker in Rafah, and now &#8212;MR MILLER: So, Said, you’re getting to my exact point, which is it was appropriate to evacuate people when there was – hold on – when there was some place for them to go, right?QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: When there was Rafah, which was if not completely safe, safer than Gaza City, safer than Khan Younis, and someplace for them to go. That’s not true anymore. There are not sufficient – there’s not sufficient infrastructure in Khan Younis or elsewhere in Gaza for the people that moved to Rafah to go somewhere else. That is why we are so opposed to a military operation there.QUESTION: Yeah, which takes me to my next question. I mean, if the Israelis, as you said, have already achieved their goals, and if there is no place for these people to go anywhere, why can’t the United States say, no invasion of Rafah, this operation must end now, full stop? Because obviously this is a wall, or dammed, or whatever it is.MR MILLER: I think we have said no major invasion of – Said, hold on. You were just listening to the initial part of this briefing. But that said &#8212;QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, hold up. There are still Hamas fighters there. We have never said that Israel shouldn’t be able to do anything to take on the Hamas battalions that are there. We – there are things that we support. We have made clear in private conversations with them alternative paths for taking out and degrading and choking off those Hamas battalions. That continues to be our position. And it continues to be our position that Hamas could end all of this right now if they would – if those battalions would lay down their arms, if Sinwar would come out of the tunnels and if they would stop fighting. That’s another way that you could end all this.QUESTION: And lastly on the aid, it seems that there was another attack by Israeli settlers on aid trucks a couple days ago. Are you aware of that report, and is the United States doing anything about that?MR MILLER: I am aware of that report. In fact, we – if you looked at the statement we put out – I think it was day before yesterday – the Secretary talked with the foreign minister of Jordan about that attack and made clear that the Israeli Government needs to do everything possible to prevent those attacks and to hold people accountable. It’s our understanding that the Government of Israel arrested six people in response to those attacks. That was after they had arrested three people in response to the previous attack.That is clearly the right thing to do, but they need to do more to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. These are attacks on aid convoys delivering humanitarian assistance to civilians. They have nothing to do with this – with the conflict with Hamas. They should not be impeded, delayed, obstructed in any way.QUESTION: Well, they have nothing to do with it except that it wouldn’t be needed as desperately &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean. What I mean &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; as it is if it wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean is if your goal is to deprive Hamas of something, stopping these convoys for civilians does nothing to achieve that goal.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Josh.QUESTION: Hey, thanks. Just wanted to clarify something you said at the top. I think I heard you say there are certain types of military systems that we will not make available to Israel for use in a Rafah campaign. Does the President’s statement preclude delivering those weapons shipments or analogous ones to Israel for use in other areas during this timeframe?MR MILLER: I am just not going to get beyond what the President said last night at this point. We’ve made clear what our policy is. We will engage with the Government of Israel about this question and others, but as I said at the top, while we are opposed to the – I’m just going to speak about this generally – while we’re opposed to a Rafah – major Rafah military operation, we do still support Israel’s right to defend itself against other threats. That has not changed; that will not change. The President’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad.And I should have said this earlier, so I’ll make the point now – we actually think – one of the – we actually do believe that a Rafah campaign actually – in addition to all the harm it would cause to the Palestinian people, actually weakens Israel’s security, doesn’t make it stronger. It’s one of the other reasons we’re opposed to the campaign.QUESTION: So and – and this just as a practical matter, do you assess that Israel requires the weapons in these shipments to proceed with the – with the operation?MR MILLER: I am not – I just am not going to get into the details of how they would conduct an operation at all.QUESTION: Okay. So, well then, on Hamas’s incentive structure, granted that – granting your point that they are not concerned in these negotiations about civilian casualties, you have said before – you even alluded just now – there is Hamas – there are military targets in Rafah. Does Hamas in these negotiations feel an incentive to release hostages in order to preserve that military infrastructure?MR MILLER: We think the only thing the Hamas leadership cares about is protecting themselves, not the &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah fine – all the Hamas – all the Hamas assets that &#8212;MR MILLER: Is themselves, so I’m going – I’m kind of limited in what I can say here, but ultimately, when you look at the things that are on the table in the hostage deal, the point of a hostage – this deal, the things that Hamas gets out of it, are things that would benefit the civilian population of Gaza. Those aren’t things that they have shown they have a huge interest in advancing.QUESTION: Right. And I’m just trying to think about how – obviously, this is a big issue that has a lot of really important components, but I’m just trying to zoom in on how it affects the hostage negotiations. I’ve talked – spent a fair amount of time this week interviewing the families of Israeli Americans. They’re – I think every one of them was very complimentary of how the administration and this building has been supportive of them, but I can’t help but wonder, as we watch what Hamas says – and so much of this negotiation seems to hinge on the sticking point of a ceasefire, of an end to the military campaign – if – do you assess that the President coming out up front and saying that there – they will – that the U.S. would not provide weapons in this context – does that not undermine Israel’s leverage in a negotiation?Or do you just think that the military issue here is not – and I mean, I heard what you said earlier about how you think this would play out, but however self-serving Hamas is, does not the – do you just not think the threat of military losses on that file are relevant to the negotiations?MR MILLER: No. It just hasn’t been our assessment that that is how the negotiations have played out at all.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, so I want to go back to the talks and following up on that question. There was some reportings that the talks are now on pause because the Israelis brings a new demand of excluding Rafah from any ceasefire – agreed ceasefire in the – in Gaza Strip. Can you comment on that? Can you confirm or deny, or is this will be something acceptable for you, to exclude areas from ceasefire?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the kind of picayune details of leaked reports, but largely speaking – broadly speaking – the ceasefire negotiations have been about a ceasefire for all of Gaza, not isolating any one particular area.QUESTION: Not exclusions?MR MILLER: No seclusion – they have been a ceasefire for all of Gaza.QUESTION: And two days ago you were positive that a deal is possible and bridging the gap is still possible in the negotiations. Is it still your assessment?MR MILLER: It remains our assessment that it’s possible. This has always been difficult, though. It’s been difficult from the beginning, and when you get to the end of these types of negotiations, it – it can – you’ve heard the Secretary say this before. Oftentimes the last issues are the hardest ones to reach. There were other periods where we thought we might be close to a deal. All I can say is that we think there’s space for a deal still and we’re going to continue to stay engaged with our partners in the region to try to push for one.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Switching the topic?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Two questions on Iraq. Under Secretary Uzra Zeya was in Baghdad yesterday and she was in Erbil today, and she met with the different officials. I want to know if there is any connection between her visit to Baghdad and the recent law that was passed by Iraqi parliament, anti-LGBTQ. And overall, how does the U.S. view the human rights and democracy in both Iraq and Erbil?MR MILLER: So this was a long-planned trip to advance regional humanitarian, human rights, and civil security priorities. She had three objectives there: one, promoting democracy and partnering with Iraqis to support a vibrant civil society; two, advancing the protections of human rights, including press freedom and freedom of expression; third, advocating to create safe, informed, voluntary, durable solutions to internally displaced persons throughout Iraq. But of course our position on that law is well-known. We’ve made that quite clear.QUESTION: And secondly, in her meetings with the KRG officials, what we saw from the KRG statement, and also her meeting with the president of Kurdistan, they touched about the situation in Sinjar, the current situation in Sinjar, and also the agreement of Sinjar. How do you see the current situation in Sinjar and the agreement of Sinjar that was agreed in 2022 – in 2020, sorry, but it hasn’t been applied (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a full answer.Go ahead, Willy.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Are you worried that – I mean, this is – the weapons has kind of been your trump card. Are you worried that by using this card now you’ve lost your leverage and your ability to influence Israel, particularly on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So we have – I’ve gotten this question a lot about leverage. We’ve never seen it just as a question of leverage. Israel is a longstanding ally of ours. We have a deep relationship with them at a government-to-government level. We have a deep relationship with them at a people-to-people level. We have always seen this – understood this relationship is between two sovereign countries. Israel is going to make the decisions that they are going to make. They have to make a full assessment of the situation they face in Gaza. They have to take a full assessment of what that will mean for the policies of their allies and partners. And we have to do the same thing, and we will.That said, we will continue to give Israel our best advice about what they should and should not do, as we have from the beginning. We will continue to have – (cell phone rings). That’s loud, Kylie. (Laughter.) Will have very direct at times, I’m sure, conversations about both how they operate their military campaigns and the provision of humanitarian assistance. I don’t expect that to change in any way.QUESTION: Those channels remain just as open today after the President’s interview on CNN as they did (inaudible)?MR MILLER: We have continued to have conversations with the Israeli Government today, I can assure you of that.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Moving to Europe.MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Happy Europe Day. The EU approved a plan to use some of the funding generated by profits from Russian – frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine. Are you on the same page with them now that REPO Act is the law of the land?MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make. We continue to work with our European partners to ensure that we use those assets that remain frozen and that will remain frozen – that we use those assets for Ukraine’s benefit. But I don’t have any further announcements to make about it.QUESTION: On the supplemental, do you feel any urgency in terms of obligating the funding that you have available? The DOD already announced 7 billion immediately, but you have 2 billion available from State to meet the urgent needs in Ukraine (inaudible) the funding &#8212;MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: Hmm?MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: The State Department has &#8212;MR MILLER: When? Was the question when we’re going to &#8212;QUESTION: To meet – to meet the urgent needs.MR MILLER: Stay tuned.QUESTION: All right. So &#8212;MR MILLER: If the question is when. I didn’t – I didn’t hear the first part of the question, but stay tuned.QUESTION: On Georgia, I know we discussed that yesterday as well, but an awful lot happened since yesterday. We have seen graphic pictures of them beating up the protesters. Some young protesters are being – are being beaten up in and outside of their apartments. Where are you standing? I know that you made it clear that you stand with the people of Georgia. Is there any obvious example you can give us to prove that’s the case?MR MILLER: So we are deeply troubled by the actions taken against those protesting against the draft law and the actions taken to advance it. We are aware of increased reports of harassment and physical assault of civil society and opposition activists and journalists. We condemn this and we call for a full, independent, and timely investigation. And I will just say, and kind of in response to the broader question, we have enjoyed a successful partnership with Georgia for more than 30 years. We would like to continue to work with Georgia. There is still time to work collaboratively with Georgia, but the Georgian Government needs to change course for that to be the case.QUESTION: Clearly they ignored every warning from this building. Is it time for the Secretary to step in and pick up the call, call them and say enough is enough?MR MILLER: I always appreciate the very prescriptive policy options you have to offer us in this briefing, but we will take – (laughter) – we will &#8212;QUESTION: It’s the general sentiment.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: That’s the sentiment in Georgia. People feel &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I understand. But we have made clear what our policy is and we will continue to make that clear, and I’m not going to preview any actions that we are going to – going to take from this podium.QUESTION: Again, I &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me – let me just – let me go – just go ahead.QUESTION: I’m afraid I may have just gotten my answer with “stay tuned,” but now that the battle in Congress is over for aid and American support, what is going to be the main focus? And if Ukrainian manpower is now a concern, what, if anything, can the U.S. do to help in that regard?MR MILLER: So when it comes to manpower, that is a question that Ukraine of course has to answer for – answer for itself, and we have seen the Ukrainian Government take steps to that question. What we can do as a partner of Ukraine is to continue to support them militarily and to continue to support their economy, and most of all, to do what we can to help to get them to a place where they can stand on their own two feet. And you have seen us implement a number of policies in that regard. We’ve started to see the money that was passed in the supplemental flow. I can assure you there will be more announcements coming – upcoming in the next few weeks.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, question one. Senior UNRWA official Scott Anderson told Politico the other day that IDF units are already on the ground in Rafah killing dozens of people there, including kids. He also said one of the units is the same that killed seven World Central Kitchen workers, including an American, of course. So he is saying the IDF is already killing people, to Said’s point, kind of in a way that questions this line between major and minor operations. And one of these units is one that ostensibly killed an American. So how is the U.S. letting an Israeli unit that killed an American now continue to kill Palestinians? Like, is that not a red line?MR MILLER: So I’m just not able to verify that report; and since I’m unable to verify that report, I’m not able to comment on any implications of it.QUESTION: But conceivably, I mean, look (inaudible).MR MILLER: The red line I – bottom line, I cannot – I mean, I can’t verify that to be true, so I can’t talk about any &#8212;QUESTION: Understood.MR MILLER: &#8212; possible implications for something I don’t know to be true.QUESTION: But just to follow up on that, what is the latest on the unit that did kill the World Central Kitchen workers?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, it’s been 101 days now since Hind Rajab, her family members, the medics sent to save her were killed. So first question related to that: Is there an update on the investigation into that attack?MR MILLER: I don’t have any – one. I’m happy to go back and get you the latest.QUESTION: All right, okay, okay. So she’s one of 14,000 kids killed, Israeli forces have killed. Those World Central Kitchen workers, of course there’s a hundred more. President Biden admits Israel has killed civilians with U.S. weapons. We have the delay of the memo as to whether or not the U.S. determines whether Israel has violated international law.With all of this, I understand there’s been a pause in one shipment of weapons. You have said other shipments are under review. But how did the U.S. feel comfortable sending Israel 17 billion if we can’t get answers to any of this, and how can it justify sending any more weapons at this point?MR MILLER: So two things can be true at the same time, and two things are true at the same time here. One, that we have – do have concerns about certain ways that Israel has conducted operations. We’ve been open and forthright about those. We’ve engaged with the Government of Israel about ways they can improve their operations to minimize civilian harm. We’ve seen them take some steps. We haven’t seen them take enough. And of course, that has led us to have concerns about how a Rafah operation would unfold. That is one thing that’s true.The other thing that’s true is that we are committed to Israel’s defense. Israel is a democracy in the Middle East that is a longtime ally of the United States with whom we share many values, that faces a number of threats from its neighbors, it faces a number of threats from terrorist groups, and we are not going to abandon Israel in the face of those threats, and that includes spending every dime that is contained in the supplemental for Israel’s defense. I would also add that there is money in that supplemental for humanitarian relief efforts for the Palestinian people, and we intend to spend every dime of that money as well.QUESTION: And I know you’ve said still Hamas remains there. But as we’ve discussed before many times in this room, there is the possibility not just of Hamas sustaining for many more months but that this might turn more people to sort of join Hamas after being bombarded. So, like, to what end does an operation remain just committed to, like, removing Hamas from, like, threatening Israel, given that there’s also the concern of hostages?MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Like, four have been killed, three have been saved in military operations.MR MILLER: I’m just saying I feel like you have been listening and internalizing the Secretary’s speeches, because what the Secretary has made clear is that there has to be a political path forward.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: That there can’t be only a military &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Hold on – just be a military operation. There has to be a military operation that is followed by a political path forward that meets the legitimate political aspirations of the Palestinian people, or you will have a continuation of this endless cycle of violence. And that is why we have engaged in diplomacy in the region to try to create that political path forward.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Three quick questions, if I may. Yesterday Russia accused the United States of meddling Indian election and also stated that the U.S. has not yet provided any reliable evidence regarding the murder plot against a U.S. citizen named Pannun by Indian nationals. Could you comment on this?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first, no, of course we don’t involve ourselves in elections in India, as we don’t involve ourselves in elections anywhere in the world. Those are decisions for the people of India to make.With respect to the second question, there is a publicly-returned indictment that contains alleged facts. They’re allegations until they’re proven before a jury that anyone can go and read. I won’t speak to them here because, of course, it’s an ongoing legal matter. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Two Bangladeshi citizens were shot dead by Indian security forces at the Bangladesh-India border, and this continues a concerning trend of civilian killing at the border which appears to violation – violate international law. Could the U.S., given its strong partnership with India in the region, request that India assess these killings and ensure accountability for any violations?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports about this incident. We understand the Indian and Bangladeshi border security agencies are in communication with one another, and I would defer to them to speak to their respective investigations into the circumstances of the shooting.One more, quickly.QUESTION: One more, thank you. Following the sham election in Bangladesh in January 2006, the ongoing local government election which is being boycotted by the main opposition party BNP is experiencing issues of intimidation, voter rigging, harassment, attack on journalists, and low voter turnout. Could you provide an update on the U.S. visa policy as announced last year for those responsible for undermining democratic election in Bangladesh?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to announce. We obviously made that policy public. At times we make designations under that policy public; at times we keep them private. I don’t have anything to announce today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I take your point a few moments ago about the word “leverage,” that you don’t love that word. But President Biden’s announcement about the arms shipment I think would be seen by most people as the most assertive mode for trying to rein Israel in. With approximately 35,000 people dead, approximately 80 percent of the population of Gaza displaced, and the UN saying there’s a fully blown famine in the north, what do you say to critics who say that such a move should have come earlier?MR MILLER: So I spoke to this earlier and said that our policy responds to the facts on the ground. We made clear at the outset of this conflict we wanted to see Israel defeat Hamas, we wanted to see Israel dismantle Hamas and prevent its ability to launch the terrorist attacks of October 7th again. They’ve largely succeeded in that goal. As I said, Hamas could not launch attacks again today. We also respond to the increasing civilian death toll, and while we’ve seen the daily count come down because of steps that Israel has taken that we have urged, it hasn’t come down enough. And so when you look at all of those things in total, that leads us to believe that an operation going forward would have enormous impact on civilian harm.And I do just want to say, again, every time I get this question about the number of civilians that died in this conflict, it gets posed to me as a question about the Government of Israel. And remember, it is Hamas that hides behind civilians, it’s Hamas that has built tunnels under hospitals and schools and mosques and at times hides in those facilities and puts civilians at harm’s way. So I get there are very fair questions about how Israel has conducted this war, and I stand here and answer them. The Israeli Government answers them too. But it is also true that a lot of the harm to civilians is because of the way Hamas decided to embed itself in the civilian population in the first place. That in no way changes the burden on the Government of Israel, as we’ve made clear.QUESTION: But respectfully, Matt, I mean, they’re dead because the armed forces of Israel killed them.MR MILLER: It – going after Hamas fighters who are hiding behind civilians. That has been the – the has been true since day one; it remains true today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Just to follow up on his question, it makes it – your answer makes it sound like it’s an okay number for 40,000 &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s – that is not –QUESTION: &#8212; people to be killed.MR MILLER: That is not – hold on. That is not at all a fair reading of what I said. I made quite clear that – we have made quite clear for – since the – for months and months and months that far too many Palestinians have been killed in this conflict. And we have engaged with the Government of Israel to bring down the level of civilian death and convince them to take additional steps to reduce civilian harm. When we look at the operation in Rafah, it is a landscape like no other both because of the densely – the way people are densely packed into such a small area – people from Gaza City; people from Khan Younis – and, unlike with respect to an operation in Gaza City or Khan Younis, there’s nowhere for them to evacuate to, and that is a critical difference when it comes to a Rafah operation that didn’t exist for previous ones.QUESTION: So the Israeli army says that it has the munitions it needs for the Rafah operation and for any planned operations. Does that mean – do you think that that is their way of saying we will go into Rafah?MR MILLER: I will let them speak for themselves on those questions.QUESTION: And just more about the aid. You say that every dime in that U.S. aid to Gaza will be spent. How do you – how do you plan to spend it in Gaza given that settlers are stopping convoys from going into Gaza?MR MILLER: Delaying – delaying –QUESTION: And today UNRWA &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – delaying not stopping.QUESTION: And today UNRWA was set on fire by settlers as well.MR MILLER: So first of all, they delayed those convoys; they did not stop them. Those convoys eventually got through. And those attacks on those convoys are just one route into Gaza. That’s a specific route coming from Jordan being delivered into Erez. There are other routes. There’s deliveries from Ashdod that are coming straight into Erez, as well as hopefully we’ll get Kerem Shalom back open and running at a significant level as it has been for several weeks. And, of course, we want to get Rafah open. That’s what we’ve been working on. It’s what we’ll continue &#8212;QUESTION: And can I ask about Sudan?MR MILLER: Let me – that’s – just because that was three and we’ve been going a while, let me go &#8212;QUESTION: Sudan?MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I want to go back to the NSM report. Okay, the timeline, it starts in 2023 – January 2023, correct? I was wondering when is the cutoff. When does the report stop that review?MR MILLER: I am going to defer that answer – I know this will be unsatisfying – until you can see a public piece of that in the coming days. All of the questions about what’s contained in the NSM will be answered.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Maybe not all, but a number of them, so &#8212;QUESTION: All right. I have a couple more, please.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Have humanitarian organizations had any input in this report? And if so, how was it decided to be incorporated in the report?MR MILLER: So the report is written by people here in the State Department as well with input from the Defense Department. It’s not written by outside organizations. Of course, it can’t be. It is a report by the United States Government, so they don’t have input in the sense that they are actually looking at the report, editing, contributing components to it. But that said, we interact with humanitarian organizations all the time. We take their feedback. We take their input. And it is reflected in all of the work that we do.QUESTION: Okay. Two more now, moving away from Israel.MR MILLER: Two more?QUESTION: Just a little.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Two more.QUESTION: Earlier when you talked about defending – still defending Israel’s security, you mentioned a couple of threats to Israel, including Iran. Now, I was wondering if you mean Iran the country or the rulers – the people in power in Iran.MR MILLER: I certainly don’t mean the people of Iran. I mean the regime in Iran that has financed terrorism against Israel and recently launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel.QUESTION: It seems like Iran is feeling – feeling a little threatened, because today another senior advisor of Ali Khamenei, the leader, said that if Iran’s existence is threatened, they will review their military and nuclear doctrine. I was wondering how concerned are you by these – this threat – this comment about revision of their nuclear doctrine is – how concerning is it?MR MILLER: So those comments are irresponsible, but as the President and Secretary have made clear, the United States will ensure one way or another that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We continue to use a variety of weapon – or sorry – a variety of tools in pursuit of that goal and all options remain on the table. Ultimately, we believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve a sustainable, effective solution, but given their escalation across the board – including their failure to cooperate with the IAEA – we are far from – far away from anything like that right now.And then we’ll do one more and then wrap up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. The President said he put the hold on munitions and bombs to Israel over not wanting them used in a full-scale invasion of Rafah. Why has the U.S. put a hold given that a full-scale invasion is not underway and instead it’s a limited operation by Israel?MR MILLER: I think I may – I have answered that any number of times already in this briefing. So go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. And will other shipments &#8212;MR MILLER: No offense. It’s just kind of – (laughter) &#8212;QUESTION: Will other shipments be put on hold? Is that something under consideration?MR MILLER: We are reviewing other shipments. I don’t have any announcements to make.QUESTION: Finally, is the NSM-20 report binding in terms of providing weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: The – I’m not going to speak to the NSM report until it is final to make a conclusion. That said, you can look at the national security memo itself and see what factors go into our determinations and what potential outcomes are – not – and I will leave it at that.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Bangladesh																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Ukraine
- Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Lu’s Travel to India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu will travel to India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh May 10—15. His trip will strengthen bilateral cooperation with each country and demonstrate U.S. support for a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.In Chennai, Assistant Secretary Lu will meet with Consulate personnel to bolster bilateral engagement in southern India.He will then travel to Colombo to engage with officials from across the political spectrum and deepen the United States’ partnership with Sri Lanka. In his meetings, he will reaffirm the United States’ support for Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, as well as the importance of a robust civil society as a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.Assistant Secretary Lu will conclude his trip in Dhaka, where he will meet with government officials, civil society leaders, and other Bangladeshis to discuss U.S.-Bangladesh cooperation, including on addressing the climate crisis and deepening economic ties.
- Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 6, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024																																																					May 6, 2024																																																								1:47 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Don’t have any opening comments, so to you, Matt.QUESTION: You have nothing to say?MR MILLER: I think I &#8212;QUESTION: Nothing is going on in the world?MR MILLER: I think I imagine what your first question is going to be, so –QUESTION: Well, I figure &#8212;MR MILLER: So go ahead.QUESTION: You know what? I’m going to surprise you, because I don’t want – before we get into the long back and forth about Rafah and the ceasefire, I want to ask you if you can just answer this straight and – simply and straight about the Israeli closure of Al Jazeera. What is – what is your response?MR MILLER: So we have seen the announcement from the Government of Israel about closing Al Jazeera. We have made quite clear that we support media freedom all around the world, including in Israel, and that we are quite concerned about this action.QUESTION: You’re quite concerned about this action? Are you – are you asking the Israelis to do anything?MR MILLER: So as the President said on May 3rd, journalists and media workers are an essential part of any democracy &#8212;QUESTION: I know.MR MILLER: &#8212; because well-informed dissent is critical to building stronger and more successful societies, and we will continue to support and advocate for free and independent media around the world. We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel, as they operate in other countries in the region.QUESTION: Okay. So you oppose?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: You oppose this?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Then getting on to – so you’ve seen these reports in the last hour about Hamas accepting a ceasefire, but also the Israelis ordering or telling people in Rafah to get out. What’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I can confirm that Hamas has issued a response. We are reviewing that response now and discussing it with our partners in the region. As you know, Director Burns is in the region working on this in real time. We will be discussing this response with our partners over the coming hours. We continue to believe that a hostage deal is in the best interests of the Israeli people. It’s in the best interests of the Palestinian people. It would bring an immediate ceasefire. It would allow increased movement of humanitarian assistance. And so we’re going to continue to work to try to reach one.QUESTION: And so – but you haven’t made any – yet made any determination about whether this is – whether they’re accepting what is on the table or they’re accepting something that is different?MR MILLER: We have only received the response in the last hour, 90 minutes, and as I said, are going through it now and discussing with it – discussing it with partners in the region. So I don’t want to characterize the nature of that response just yet.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.MR MILLER: Okay. Shannon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Al Jazeera?MR MILLER: Wait. Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports that – from Israel that perhaps Hamas agreed to a proposal that was put together by Egypt and Qatar that was softer than the initial framework that was in the works last week. Is it possible that there has been a different proposal that the U.S. is not involved with tracking?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those suggestions; I’ve seen some of those reports. And I think you’ll – I hope you’ll understand that because we are still reviewing the response that has come in and because we are working on this in real time and trying to reach an agreement, I’m just going to decline to comment in detail about any of those reports. We are going to be discussing this response with our partners in the region in the hours ahead. It remains our top priority to try to reach a ceasefire agreement that will lead to the release of hostages, that will allow a surge of humanitarian assistance both into Gaza and allow it to move around inside Gaza. But I don’t want to comment on any of the various reports about what they might have been responding to until we’ve been able to go through it in detail and come to a full understanding and discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: And can you say at this point – maybe you can’t – but Hamas’s political wing and their militant wing, are they on the same page here? Do you feel like this is a response that at least indicates where the entire group is?MR MILLER: I am just not going to – I am just not going to speak for Hamas at all. As we have said for some time, there has been a significant offer on the table. The ball has been in Hamas’s court. We have made clear that they should accept that offer, that Israel made significant compromises, showed that they wanted to reach an agreement that would lead to the release of hostages, that would bring an immediate ceasefire. And we have hoped that Hamas would take the deal that was on the table. Now, as to what’s in their response, what it looks like, we’re going to review that and withhold judgment until we’ve had a chance to conduct a full review.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I ask about the – this – the threatened Israeli offensive in Rafah? In the hours before this, there were lots of reports about evacuations – not just a report, but Israel is talking about evacuations from Rafah. How does this – what’s the U.S. message to this now? Do you think that Israel should hold off on the – on any operations in Rafah as we discuss this response from Hamas?MR MILLER: Of course we do. We’ve made quite clear our position on Rafah for some time, which is that we cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned. We have made clear – the Secretary made this clear in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government last week – that we have not seen a humanitarian plan that is credible and that is implementable. And we believe a military operation in Rafah right now would dramatically increase the suffering of the Palestinian people, would lead to an increase in loss of civilian life, would dramatically disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, all of which is coming through – I shouldn’t say “all,” but the great majority of which is coming through Kerem Shalom or Rafah and is being distributed inside the Rafah area. If you think about what it would do when you have people moving north to places where internal distribution lines are not currently set up and you’re going to have to try to re-establish those in the middle of conflict in Rafah, we think that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do.So even absent this latest response, we have made clear that we do not support Israel launching a full-scale military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, you just said that in terms of – that’s the standard U.S. position on this. But has there been any communication with the Israelis about – I mean, in the past hours or so – about the response from Hamas and how this affects the situation in Rafah? Is there a message &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into our – those conversations. As I said, we just literally in the past hour, 90 minutes received that response from Hamas in the first place. Of course, we will be discussing it with Egypt, with Qatar, with Israel – the three countries with whom we have been working throughout this negotiation process. But I don’t want to get into the timing of those, but obviously, if we have – if those conversations had not already started, they will be ongoing in the next several hours.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, under the current circumstances, do you still think a ceasefire is achievable, based on what you know coming here?MR MILLER: I – what do you mean, is a ceasefire achievable?QUESTION: Like &#8212;MR MILLER: A ceasefire is what we are trying to achieve.QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, it has &#8212;MR MILLER: There is – there is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; over the weekend there was, like, there was a quiet impasse, and right now Hamas has accepted it. But from Israel, we’re hearing that that’s not the proposal that we’ve sent; that’s a softened version. That throws into – the whole thing into doubt.MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think I answered &#8212;QUESTION: So I’m just wondering, like, what’s your sense here?MR MILLER: A ceasefire is absolutely achievable. There has been a deal on the table – a proposal on the table – that would achieve an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. Now, as for Hamas’s response, which I think gets to your question, again, I don’t want to characterize it in any sort of detail until we’ve had a chance to review it in depth and talk with our partners in the region about it.QUESTION: And one thing on the humanitarian aid. Last week, when the Secretary was in Israel, there was an increased emphasis on – in his – during his trip on the delivery of humanitarian aid. We visited Kerem Shalom, which got shut down over the weekend after the Hamas attack. But can you give us, like, a sense of what a Rafah offensive – how that would impact all of Gaza? Because there are issues with distribution in the north. If we have a Rafah offensive in the south, could there be any meaningful humanitarian aid delivery in the north?MR MILLER: So let me just speak broadly to all of Gaza first, and then I’ll come to the north. So certainly a Rafah operation in – a Rafah operation would make it incredibly difficult to sustain the increases in humanitarian assistance that we have been able to deliver over the past few weeks since the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 4th. You have seen an increase in the number of trucks going in through Kerem Shalom; you have seen an increase in the distribution inside of Gaza, including inside southern Gaza. All of that would be put in jeopardy by a Rafah offensive because obviously, just look at what happened in the past 24 hours when you saw Hamas rocket attacks on Kerem Shalom that led to the death of three IDF soldiers and led to the closure of Kerem Shalom.If you had an ongoing kinetic military operation, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the impact that that would have on the delivery of humanitarian assistance – not just through Kerem Shalom, not just through Rafah gate, but of course inside all of Rafah and all of southern Gaza.Now, separate from that, we have been working on standing up additional delivery mechanisms to get aid directly in to northern Gaza without having to go through Kerem Shalom – not because we anticipated an upcoming Rafah operation, but because it’s so difficult to get aid through Kerem Shalom and then move it all the way to the north of Gaza. So that’s why you saw the opening of Erez crossing, which is something that the President insisted on and something that we achieved last week when the Secretary was there, first in Jordan and then in Israel. So you can have trucks move directly from Jordan, through Erez crossing in the north, not have to go all the way to Kerem Shalom and come back up north. You saw Ashdod Port opening so goods can come directly from Ashdod and go in through a northern crossing, and it’s why we’re standing up the maritime operation.So there will be ways to get humanitarian assistance in to northern Gaza directly; we have been working on those because it’s important to do so because we’ve seen how difficult it is to get aid from southern Gaza into northern Gaza. It’s hard to speculate what the impact of a Rafah operation would have on the delivery of that aid to northern Gaza, but certainly you can say without a doubt that it would dramatically impact the delivery of humanitarian assistance in southern Gaza.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just going off of that for a second, you said earlier – reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t support a full-scale invasion into Rafah. What about a limited invasion into Rafah?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate on the types of military operation. We &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not speculating &#8212;MR MILLER: No – so – no, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; the Israeli Government has said limited &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m about to answer, Kylie. So there are proposals that we have put on the table – and this is why I’m not going to talk about some of this publicly &#8212; there are proposals that we have put on the table to the Israeli Government that we have discussed with them, that we think would be a much more limited, much more targeted, much more effective way of achieving their legitimate military – their legitimate military objectives, which is taking on the Hamas battalions that are remaining in Rafah. Those look very different than the types of operations that we have seen proposed publicly by the Israeli Government, and I think I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So just to be clear, what you have proposed to them isn’t your understanding of what they are planning to go ahead with in the near future?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what they might be planning to go ahead with; I’ll let them speak to that. We’ve seen the announcement they made today about evacuation orders for not the entire – not entire southern Gaza, not entire – the entire Rafah area, but for a significant portion of it, 100,000 people. And I – of course we have concerns that any evacuation at all in such a crowded area, if you see 100,000 people move, you’re going to see other people in the next area move as well – which, of course, is something that you want to see happen if there is a military operation. But the problem now is there’s such limited places for them to go inside Gaza, and there is no effective way to distribute them – distribute aid to them and make sure they have access to shelter, access to sanitation, in the places that they would go if, say, you had hundreds of thousands of people moving from Rafah.QUESTION: And then without characterizing the Hamas response, given you guys are still reviewing it, would you say it’s a hopeful sign that they have given a response here?MR MILLER: I think that would be characterizing it, so I’m going to decline to do so until we have completed that review.QUESTION: And when do you think you will be able to complete that review? When should we expect an assessment from the administration?MR MILLER: The – Director Burns, as I said, is in the region literally working on this right now. I don’t want to put a timetable on it, but it is something that is a top priority for everyone in this administration from the President on down. You saw that the President had a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. Achieving a ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of hostages was one of the top priorities of the Secretary’s trip when he was in the region last week. So everyone is focused on this. Everyone is trying to get a deal over the line.QUESTION: Thank you. Last week there was some reporting that the Biden administration had put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel. Have you seen that report? Can you comment on its accuracy?MR MILLER: I have seen that report. As is usually the case, we don’t comment on specific cases of arms transfers, and I’m not going to do so here.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to clarify on the offer, the offer that you said was generous and on the table and what seems to be accepted now. Does that mean that the ball is no longer in Hamas’s court?MR MILLER: Said, it’s impossible for me to answer that question without characterizing the response that Hamas has given, which I’m not yet willing to do.QUESTION: Okay, all right. On Al Jazeera, now we know that Israel is accusing the correspondents of Al Jazeera, our colleagues who are Israeli citizens by the way, accusing them of incitement that goes back many years and all these things, a crime that is punishable by imprisonment. Are you worried that these correspondents might actually be imprisoned by the Israelis? And if they are, what would the Government of the United States do?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to those specific allegations. It’s not something that we’ve reviewed in detail. We would have to do that. I’m certainly not going to speculate about what we might do in response to an action that has not yet been taken. I will just reiterate that when it comes to the decision to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, it’s something that we are concerned by. We support the work that journalists and media do.We have had – and I don’t think it’s any secret that we have had our differences with Al Jazeera &#8212;QUESTION: Right, of course.MR MILLER: &#8212; over the years, including in some of the ways in which they – that they cover this conflict. But we support the free media &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; conducting their operations everywhere in the world.QUESTION: Yeah, I think most countries have had an issue with Al Jazeera. Let me ask you about Rafah. Now the movement, 100,000 people and so on, now how many would need to move before Israel can go in and legitimately go after Hamas’s position? I mean, the area is so small – al-Mawasi, where they are moving and so on – just meters – kilometers away.MR MILLER: It’s not &#8212;QUESTION: What – would prevent, let’s say a Hamas fighter or Hamas leaders and so on to actually move to another place? They allegedly have a network of tunnels that would allow them to do that and so on. And then we have the same kind of situation. We see the Israelis saying we want to go after them in that area. I mean, how do you read this whole situation?MR MILLER: So that is not really a question I can answer. I will just make clear, as I have already and as others in the administration including the President, including the Secretary have on a number of occasions, that an operation – a major operation in Rafah – is not something that we can support.QUESTION: Yeah. And finally, I asked on Thursday about Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh. I was wrong. He wasn’t shot. He was – apparently he died and some say under torture and so on. I know that your colleague at the White House said what she said, that she was saddened and all these things, but have you followed up on this issue? How do you follow up on it? Because apparently they are keeping his corpse. I mean, they are not turning it to his family or others and so on for proper burial.MR MILLER: It is one that we have raised with the Government of Israel. I don’t have a response to read out. We have made clear with Israel, as we have made clear publicly, that they must treat all detainees humanely and with dignity in accordance with international humanitarian law and that they must respect detainees’ human rights and also that they must ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Since they took all the Al Jazeera questions, I’ll skip mine.MR MILLER: No problem.QUESTION: I just want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Alex, did you have something?QUESTION: No, no, no, no.QUESTION: I just want to – because I’m a little bit confused, if you can clarify. So the Hamas response is not on the general’s proposal? It’s not – it’s not accepting this proposal?MR MILLER: I think I made clear I am not going to characterize their response one way or the other until we’ve had a chance to fully review it, digest it, discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: All right. My second question is about the pier that the United States is conducting. We believe we have, in our reporting, that it is close to being operational. Can you just tell us how this pier will operate? I mean, who will have the upper hand in all – in making this &#8212;MR MILLER: So it is something that we have been trying to complete as soon as possible. And when I say we, I mean largely our colleagues at the Pentagon who are constructing the pier. We have been involved in liaising with humanitarian groups that will be involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance once it comes in to Gaza, but with the actual timeline for the launch of the pier and its operation, any details I’m going to defer to the Pentagon to comment on those in any detail.QUESTION: By the way, on the pier itself, it was – it was said over the weekend that it was moved to (inaudible) because of some high winds and waves and so on. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to the Pentagon for any of those operational kind of details.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: They’re the ones that are responsible for constructing and moving it and ultimately launching it.Michel, go ahead, and we’ll do a few more in the Middle East before we &#8212;QUESTION: Did you ask Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from Doha – from Doha, and is it the time for these leaders to leave?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As we have said a number of times, the Secretary in his conversations has made clear with a number of partners in the region that any relationship they have with Hamas, any influence they have with Hamas, they should use to make clear to Hamas that it – to Hamas that it needs to accept a ceasefire deal that includes the release of hostages. And he has also made clear publicly that at the end of this process there can be – there can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, as existed in too many places before October 7th. And I think I’ll decline to comment for any further.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Any more on the region? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: In the region on &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. For World Press Freedom Day last week, the Secretary did put out a statement about that. I’m just curious as to why that was a decision not to mention the Gaza war, granted that many journalists have been affected by a lack of press freedom around the world and that – and also being killed in various conflicts, but there was a substantial number of journalists that were killed in Israel and Gaza at the end of last year. Was there a reason why that wasn’t mentioned?MR MILLER: No. The Secretary has spoken to that a number of times, including in the region, including speaking directly to the colleagues of journalists in some instances who have lost their life tragically. We mourn the death of every journalist. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to the fact that it is because of journalists in Gaza that we see what’s happening, that the world knows what’s happening. And so we support their work. We want to see it continued. And we mourn the loss of every journalist, and I’ve spoken to that many times since the outbreak of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, just one more on the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Or just on Kerem Shalom.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the Israelis have agreed to reopen it after the attack that happened on Sunday?MR MILLER: So, yes, that was a – if you looked at the readout from the President’s call &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; it noted that the prime minister had agreed to open it in that conversation.QUESTION: Okay. Because the Secretary was just there on Wednesday, and you believed that Kerem Shalom was critical &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; with or without a Rafah &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: operation.MR MILLER: Kerem Shalom is absolutely critical to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, especially in southern Gaza now that we’ve stood up operations in the north. But &#8212;QUESTION: Right. So is it open now, do you know?MR MILLER: I do not know if it’s been reopened. I’ll say it was an incredibly cynical act for Hamas to attack Kerem Shalom yesterday knowing that Kerem Shalom is the linchpin to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It goes to this point we’ve made on a number of occasions that Hamas claims that they represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but when you see some of their actions – and we talk about them hiding behind humans, using them as human shields all the time. When you see them attacking the gate that serves as the delivery point – as we saw if you were there last week, as we saw with our own eyes – the delivery point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza, it really does undermine any claim that they have to acting on the people of Gaza’s behalf.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I switch regions?MR MILLER: Let me – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What action would the U.S. take if Israel were to invade Rafah?MR MILLER: We have made clear that we cannot support an operation, and I don’t want to speculate on what actions we might take if one should proceed.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the department’s reaction to Türkiye suspending trade ties with Israel?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. They are both allies of ours, and we would encourage them to work through their differences, but I don’t have any specific comment.QUESTION: And finally, what is the department doing to hold the CCP accountable for continued Chinese assistance to Russia’s defense sector?MR MILLER: So you heard the Secretary speak to this when he was in China and made clear that China can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be a partner of Europe on the one hand and then continue to fund the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War on the other hand. He raised this directly with President Xi. He raised it with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. And he made clear in those meetings that if China didn’t act, we would. And a couple of updates to that. You saw us roll out additional sanctions on Chinese entities who have supported Russia’s defense industrial base last week.And then I want to note that we’ve made clear that it is not just the United States that is concerned about China’s activities, but it is also our partners in – and allies in Europe. And you know President Xi is in Europe today meeting with President Macron, meeting with the president of the EU. And if you noted the comments from the Government of France, they very much intended to press this same case with President Xi and make clear what a threat they see – that they see it the way we see it, which is that it is a threat not just to Ukraine but is a threat to European security. And we think it’s important that our allies and partners stand strong in sending that message as well.QUESTION: And just one more?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And what is the department’s message today given it’s Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, especially with Israel having suffered several months ago the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? And I note the Secretary’s step-father &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, the Secretary put out a statement on that yesterday &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; where he reiterated what has been our continuing message, which is never again. And I think you’ll see this President speak to this further.QUESTION: Matt, can I piggyback off &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, you said you (inaudible) &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; for a limited – more limited operation in Rafah. And you’re working – you are working on a ceasefire with your partners. What comes first? I mean, you share the objective, you said, with the Israelis that they have to defeat Hamas in Rafah. But since you are working on a ceasefire, it’s a little bit confusing what you support. What’s the priority here?MR MILLER: Our immediate objective is to achieve a ceasefire that alleviates the suffering of Palestinian people, that secures the release of hostages, and then we want to build that ceasefire, as we have made clear, into something more sustained and something longer lasting. I’m – a little bit of a bind here because I can’t really speak to the options that we have proposed to Israel – you can see why we would want to keep those confidential – but we have proposed options that we believe are more effective and would be more effective in dealing with the threat that Hamas poses. And those are options that they could pursue, and I think I’ll leave it – I’m – unfortunately, I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. In case these negotiations fail, are you preparing for a worst-case scenario that the Israeli went into Rafah – goes into Rafah and this lasts until the fall?MR MILLER: Of course we are prepared for every scenario, but I don’t think I want to read out what actions we might take.QUESTION: For every scenario?MR MILLER: Well, that’s a fair point, Matt – every scenario that you can reasonably predict we prepare for.QUESTION: Well, what happens if, like, aliens come down?MR MILLER: That’s why I said every scenario you can reasonably predict.QUESTION: Are you prepared for that one too?MR MILLER: If that happens, I’ll run to the hills with – right behind you, probably.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Are we ready to move on to different region?QUESTION: Could I just do one more?MR MILLER: Shaun – yeah, Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: I know you &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, Nike. I tried. Let the record reflect I called on you, and Shaun, the head of the State Department Correspondent Association, stepped on your question.QUESTION: Yes, I – exactly. Well, I’ll gladly defer to Nike – gladly defer to Nike after this, as – I figure you’re not – probably not going to answer this, but the – just &#8212;MR MILLER: For a question I’m not even going to answer, too.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: Sorry. Go ahead.QUESTION: But just a couple of – on a serious note – just a couple of moments ago, the Israeli army saying that the evacuation orders that it issued earlier – confirming that this is preparation for a ground invasion. I know they’ve been speaking about a ground invasion in – a ground operation in general for some time. Do you have any further comment on that? I mean the – this – whether – do you have signs that the Israelis are actually going ahead imminently with a ground operation?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to their military activities. We have made quite clear that we oppose a military operation there and I’m going to leave it at that.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Russia, Russia President Vladimir Putin will be set to start another six-year term on Tuesday. Do you have anything on that? I understand U.S. Ambassador Tracy is currently out of the country. My question is: Is anyone from the U.S. embassy attending his inauguration ceremony, or is the U.S. joining other countries to boycott?MR MILLER: No, we will not have a representative at his inauguration.QUESTION: U.S. is boycotting?MR MILLER: We will not have a representative there. You can draw your own conclusions.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does that mean that you don’t consider Putin a legitimate president?MR MILLER: He – we certainly did not consider that election free and fair, but he is the president of Russia and is going to continue in that capacity.QUESTION: Let me get your immediate reaction to reports about Russia’s planned nuclear drills. How much it will complicate the situation, and what kind of response will that invite from the United States?MR MILLER: So Russia’s rhetoric – their nuclear rhetoric – has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict. That said, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture in response to these announcements, nor any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more on South Caucasus, if I may. On Georgia, we had a protest in front of this building on Saturday. Georgian Americans were asking the State Department to impose sanctions on Ivanishvili and the GD MPs – not for actions that they might or might not take, but the actions they have taken already. So are you considering any measure?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to make any sanctions announcements, whether that relates to what we might do or what we are considering, as is typically our practice here.QUESTION: We heard from senior officials, this building – it feels like you guys are – you guys expecting some U-turn in this case or some offramp by suggesting that Ivanishvili might be misinformed, so all the statements we have heard from him are not his or his – or reflecting his viewpoints. Is that a reflection of what we have heard from them?MR MILLER: I’m not going to characterize at all. We are going to keep pressing our case, which is we believe that the law that they are considering would put Georgia on a precarious trajectory. It would jeopardize Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermine the U.S.-Georgia relationship, and we will continue to make that clear, and they will make their own decisions.QUESTION: And thank you. On – finally, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, ambassador to Baku today for the first time visited Karabakh. Let me get your sense of significance of it and where in – this week there will be ministerial in Kazakhstan. What are your expectations &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that or any expectations.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. A question on Iran. As you may be aware, the IKR president, Nechervan Barzani, he’s in Iran with an official visit with a purpose finding solutions to the disputes between Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan region. How does the U.S. view this visit and efforts? Do you have any comments on that?MR MILLER: So we have consistently encouraged de-escalation in the region, but we don’t have any comment about the specifics of that trip. I would leave it to the Kurdistan Regional Government to comment more in detail on President Barzani’s travel.QUESTION: And one more question: Do you think that having these kinds of discussion with Iran could help and lift any impacts on the Iraqi stability? Because we witnessed they attacked the Iraqi Kurdistan and there were a lot of tensions between these two capitals.MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to these specific conversations, but of course we have always encouraged any conversations that would lead to de-escalation and would lead to further stability in the region, including vis-a-vis Iran, which of course has been one of the greatest contributors to instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.QUESTION: And last question, as we are speaking of Iran. Minutes ago, the Iranian foreign minister put a post on X and he said that we sent Hamas response to the plan proposed by Egypt and Qatar. What he says that – he said that to stop the attacks by Israel, and second, exchange prisoners, and thirdly, the human blockades. And now the ball in the opposite court, we are honest with – in our intentions. This is what he posted. So how do you see the Iranian role in bringing that Gaza the conflict into the end and &#8212;MR MILLER: Bringing a Gaza conflict to an end? I see no Iranian role in bringing a Gaza conflict to an end. You’ve seen Iran be one of the greatest instigators of this conflict in the first place, from financing Hamas and supporting Hamas to financing and supporting Hizballah and other groups that have contributed dramatically to instability, not just when it comes to attacks on Israel but when you look at the – their proxy, the Houthis, and attacking international shipping, and greatly destabilizing the region. So no, I don’t see Iran playing any kind of productive role.QUESTION: And they are not the &#8212;MR MILLER: That would be – that would be completely out of character for them.QUESTION: They are not honest with their intentions, what he said on his post?MR MILLER: They’re not what?QUESTION: Honest with their intentions?MR MILLER: With their – Iran’s honest with their intentions? No, I would not characterize them as honest with their intentions. When it comes to the specific comments that they made about Hamas’s response, I’m not going to comment on those, because as I said, we’re reviewing their response, so I don’t want to confirm what may or may not have been in it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So can I just get your reaction to this? Over the weekend, a Moscow court sentenced a Russian Falun Gong practitioner to two months in detention for her beliefs. It’s the only other country outside of communist China to incarcerate a citizen for the meditation practice. Jake Sullivan said that he wasn’t surprised by this, as China’s – Russia relies on China’s economic and technological support. So given these circumstances, what’s the State Department doing to address the broader implications of the spread of China’s persecution of Falun Gong into Russia, possibly in exchange for support?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a specific response, since it relates to this one case that you mentioned.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: A little over a week ago, China held unification, unity talks between Hamas leaders and Fatah. Sir – and they – I think it resulted in them just saying that they’re agreeing to &#8212;MR MILLER: Keep talking, yeah.QUESTION: Keep talking? What’s your reaction to China being involved in unity talks between these &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t have any reaction to them playing a role in these talks. We saw previous talks take place between Hamas and Fatah in Moscow. They’ve held talks in other locations. Leaving that aside, we have long said that if China wanted to play a productive role in bringing this conflict to an end, that it’s something that we would welcome. If they wanted to play a productive role in helping prevent escalation in the region, that is something we would also welcome. The Secretary has spoken to his counterpart, Director Wang Yi, six times since October 7th to press this case, to press China to use all of its influence in the region. And we will continue to press them to do that.We think there certainly are countries that they have a relationship – with whom they have a relationship in the region, including countries, most notably Iran, with whom we don’t really have a relationship. So if China can bring its influence to bear, that would be a productive step for it – it would be a productive step that it could take that would benefit the region and benefit the entire world.QUESTION: One more on Saudi Arabia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The other day, you had said that in order for normalization to take place between Saudi Arabia and Israel, that Saudi Arabia is looking for calm in Gaza &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; as well as a path to peace. That path to peace, is that the Oslo Accords? Is that something different than Oslo? Is that expanding on Oslo or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the details, because it’s something that we still continue to talk with Saudi Arabia about, but it is a path to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. And the details of what that would look like is something that we’re continuing to discuss with them.QUESTION: So would that make Oslo irrelevant? MR MILLER: I just – I don’t want to – it’s a – it is a negotiation and a discussion that is ongoing right now; I don’t want to characterize it in any way with respect to how it would interact with past agreements.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: A ceasefire deal doesn’t end the war in Gaza. It means returning to fighting again and more Palestinian civilian victims, as it’s happened daily – ten of thousands have already murdered due to the bombing and the famine imposed by Israel, most of them children and women. My question: Why the U.S. doesn’t intervene to stop the war completely – I mean, permanent ceasefire – especially that the Palestinian civilian killed with the American weapon?MR MILLER: So we have been working incredibly hard – it has been the focus of most of this briefing – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that would stop the fighting in Gaza and would alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, those who have died as a result of the conflict and also those who are suffering as a result of lack of humanitarian aid or inability to access humanitarian aid.Now, that’s the first step. We want to get an immediate ceasefire and then we do want to see it turn into something more durable. We’re going to try to work to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible. That said – and I know I’ve – hammer on this – have hammered on this in the past and the Secretary hammers it on the past – has hammered it in the past – Hamas could achieve an immediate ceasefire right now. Hamas, the entity that started this conflict by murdering civilians – innocent civilians – could lay down their arms, could surrender and stop putting the Palestinian people in harm’s way.So it – when people ask questions about Israel that are legitimate questions, and when they ask questions about us that are legitimate questions, I hope people will also realize that Hamas plays – played the instigator role in beginning this conflict and could end it today if they wanted to.QUESTION: But it’s not permanent. It’s temporary.MR MILLER: We are – as I – I just spoke to that in my answer.QUESTION: Yes. Excuse me, I want a question.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: That IDF already requested the people in Rafah to evacuate. I wonder if the evacuation for Palestinian in Rafah across the Egyptian border is being considered.MR MILLER: So Egypt has made quite clear that they do not want to see the displacement of the Palestinian people. It’s not just Egypt. We have heard that from virtually every country in the region: that they do not want to see Palestinians displaced because of the very unfortunate history in that regard. And we have made clear to the Israeli Government that Palestinian – the Palestinian people shouldn’t be replaced – or displaced.Now, one of the major risks of a full-scale Rafah operation is that it would destabilize that border between Gaza and Egypt and would lead to that sort of displacement, which would destabilize the Sinai Peninsula, of course. It’s another reason why we believe such an operation is a bad idea in the first place.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you very much. U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Sunday that the United States will have to send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine is defeated in conflict with Russia. Any chances that is a real option for &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment on statements made by members of Congress. The President has made clear that he will not send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine.QUESTION: Okay. And one more question. Can you explain why is it okay for the United States to have a law on foreign agents and it’s not okay for Georgia, Russia to have one?MR MILLER: So the difference is in the nature of those laws. When you see the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act, it is to people who are acting on behalf of a foreign government, not people who are doing legitimate nongovernment organization work, who are doing humanitarian work, who are doing civil society work. It’s a very different type of thing. I’ve seen those false equivalencies drawn in the past. And when you look at the text of the proposal in Georgia and the text of the proposal that has been passed due to Kremlin influence in other countries, they are very different than the type of law that we have on the books here in the United States.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Question is regarding the ministers’ priorities on the normalization talks regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan mentioned, insisted, in an interview that the administration will enter in any defense pact with Saudi Arabia if only they normalize ties with Israel. So question is: Is it diplomacy of United States for integration of Israel in the Middle East or it’s another defense pact by the United States to counter Iranian-backed movements in future from the Middle East?MR MILLER: I’m not sure I completely understand the question. But I will say I don’t want to get too much into the details of our negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the ongoing discussions, but that we continue to work to finalize both the bilateral pieces of such an agreement as well as what the pathway to an independent Palestinian state would look like.QUESTION: Secondly, Canadian authorities arrested three individuals linked with the killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The United States have many findings on the connections of Indian foreign operations at U.S. soil, as Wall Street Journal reported last week regarding the connection of Indian Government with some targets here in the United States. So with this recent development, what do United States have more to take up with the Indian administration?MR MILLER: So I would refer you to the Canadian authorities to speak to the details of the investigation there. With respect to the indictment that was returned in the United States, I’ll let the Department of Justice speak on behalf of that in detail. And then the only thing further I’d say: When it comes to the State Department, we made clear when these allegations were first made public that it’s something we think India should take very seriously and investigate. They opened a Committee of Enquiry to look into the matter, and that work is ongoing, and we’ll wait to see the results. But we made very clear that it’s something that we take seriously and we think it’s something they should take seriously as well. Hudson.QUESTION: Matt, apologies for not asking in the Israel section, but I have nosebleed seats today so I didn’t get it. But &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just – I’m just happy to see you here in the briefing.QUESTION: Great to be here. In response to the Axios report that the U.S. is withholding an ammunition shipment to Israel, the Biden administration has told several reporters around town that the U.S. has surged weapons into Israel since October 7th. I’m kind of curious about this response because for much of the conflict, the administration has downplayed reports about the near-constant approval and shipment of arms to Israel. I’m just wondering if you could clarify, what’s the case? Has the U.S. been surging weapons to Israel since October 7th or not?MR MILLER: So we have provided weapons to Israel since October 7th. We have always made clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense. That commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad, and that includes providing security assistance to Israel since October 7th to ensure that the attacks of October 7th can never be repeated.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Kylie, and then I’ll come to Humeyra.QUESTION: Can you just provide us an update on the NSM-20 report and if it’ll go to Congress on time, when it’s due on Wednesday?MR MILLER: The only update I have is that we continue to work on it, and we’ll have more to say about it later in the week.QUESTION: You can’t say that it’s on track to be delivered on time?MR MILLER: It’s on track. We’re working on it. I just don’t have any updates. It is our intention to provide it on time, and we’ll have more updates as we get closer to the deadline.QUESTION: And just two quick questions on it. I know you don’t want to get into it, but I still have two questions. There are concerns among lawmakers that the Political-Military Bureau in this building is leading the drafting of the report, and I wonder how you respond to that.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the internal mechanisms that we go through to develop such a report, but I will say that a broad spectrum of the department will contribute to this report. People will have a chance to make their views known. People will have a chance to offer their assessments of what they’ve seen. It’s important that different bureaus inside the department which bring different skills to bear and different points of view and different capabilities have the chance to review both of the section – both of the tasks that we were given in the report, both when it comes to compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and we expect all of them to speak candidly about what they’ve seen and make their recommendations and make their honest assessments, and we’ll deliver a report that reflects that.QUESTION: And one more question. The memorandum requires all recipients of U.S. weaponry, including Israel, to make assurances that they’re using those weapons, quote, “in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Will U.S. officials at the department be probing those assurances that they get from Israeli officials if there’s reason to believe that they aren’t credible assurances?MR MILLER: So we are taking very seriously the task that we were giving – that was given to us in this national security memorandum, and it pertains not just with respect to Israel but with other countries as well that receive U.S.-provided security assistance. So the initial step was to get assurances from those seven countries that they were complying with international humanitarian law and that they were not impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We’ve received those assurances I think probably 43 days ago, somewhere around that, and now we are going through and looking at compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I don’t want to get into – too much in detail because we are close to when a report will be delivered and I should wait and let the report speak for itself, but it is – I can tell you it is something that we take incredibly seriously and there is a lot of work going on at the department to make sure we fulfill that obligation and we fulfill it thoroughly.QUESTION: So you’re not taking those assurances on face value?MR MILLER: I – let me just let the report speak for itself when it comes out, but it is something that we are absolutely taking seriously, and we are looking at a whole host of activities and actions when it comes to any one of the governments – the relevant governments in this case, and we’ll be making our own assessments not just based on what those governments have told us but based on what we have seen in our review here at the State Department.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Just one thing on that, actually, Matt. So when the report is produced, we have reported that there are people – there are some U.S. officials at the State Department who have raised serious concerns about Israel’s possible noncompliance with international humanitarian law, and what they say is its arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian aid. So when you produce that report, you’re basically weighing in on whether the assurances are credible or not. Is there going to be a section where you address those countering, let’s say, opinions from different bureaus, or is it just going to be we found that credible or not?MR MILLER: You – this is going to be a very unsatisfying answer, but you are just going to have to wait until &#8212;QUESTION: I’m used to that.MR MILLER: Yeah, sorry about that – until the report is complete. But I will say that one of the strengths of this department is that we have people with a rich diversity of experiences, a rich diversity of expertise, and a rich diversity of views, and the Secretary takes all of those seriously. He takes all of their points of view seriously, and the entire senior leadership of the department looks at the entire landscape when compiling – when going through an exercise and compiling a report like the one we are doing here.QUESTION: Right. But really, from a format point of view, it’s just going to have, like, one assessment?MR MILLER: I know, and I’m just – that I’m not – and that I’m just not going to speak to today.QUESTION: Okay. And will there be a – because you said – in your answer to Kylie you said we collect recommendations. Can you confirm there is going to be a recommendation one way or the other from the legal department?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to the internal mechanisms of a report that is still being compiled.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Said, and then Shaun, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly, but on breaking international law and so on, is the threatening of the ICC by Israel or even by members of Congress itself a violation of international law, the threat itself?MR MILLER: I am not enough of an expert in international humanitarian law to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. But this department &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear that we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction in this case and oppose their investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. I’m just saying the threatening of the ICC by Israel.MR MILLER: I see. You should take it up with an international humanitarian lawyer.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. On two things – two different topics. Rwanda – the Rwandan Government didn’t really like a statement that you issued last week saying that the Rwandan Defence Forces were involved in the attack near Goma on the east of the DRC, saying that the statement’s ridiculous and that the Rwandan forces weren’t involved in that. Do you stand by that? Has there been any communication with Rwanda?MR MILLER: We absolutely do. The attack in question came from the Rwandan Defence Forces and M23 positions on the Mugunga IDP camp. The Government of Rwanda must investigate this heinous act and hold all of those responsible accountable, and we have made that clear to them.QUESTION: Has there been any communication directly with the Rwandans themselves?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to diplomatic conversations, but we have made quite clear what we think about this act and the fact it ought to be investigated.QUESTION: Great. And then a completely different topic, Mexico. The three surfers who were killed, one of them an American – I don’t know if you – do you have any lines, any communications with the U.S. on that?MR MILLER: Yeah. So we can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen, Carter Rhoad, near Ensenada, Mexico, and are closely monitoring the situation. We offer our sincere condolences to the family on their loss. We are coordinating with local law enforcement on their investigation into the matter, and out of respect for the privacy of the family, we will decline to comment further at this time.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Canada																								China																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Rwanda																								Saudi Arabia																								Ukraine
- Building Partnerships for Innovation and Safe Tech Around the World Richard R. Verma, Deputy Secretary of State  for Management and ResourcesIn our ever-changing tech landscape, the private sector is leading and, in many ways, outpacing the work happening in government. But this doesn’t mean that our governments need to get out of the way. Rather, as governments, we need to create the right ecosystem for innovation.Forging International Tech PartnershipsOne of our core strategies is to build strong partnerships globally. Take, for instance, the groundbreaking INDUS-X project initiated during Prime Minister Modi&#8217;s visit to Washington in 2023. It connects U.S. and Indian private sectors – addressing defense supply chain weaknesses and boosting innovation.I recently participated in the INDUS-X Summit in New Delhi, where I saw a strong commitment from both the U.S. and India to accelerate innovation, support researchers and start-ups, and eliminate regulatory obstacles for private industry success. To echo Prime Minister Modi: &#8220;A society that does not innovate will stagnate.&#8221;Launched in 2023, INDUS-X promotes #USIndia defense cooperation and bilateral trade via investments and capitalizes on critical and emerging technologies. This year we are working to lay sustainable commercial foundations for defense innovation and collaboration. pic.twitter.com/5QJRyUE2mq&mdash; Richard R. Verma (@DepSecStateMR) February 20, 2024Driving Digital Transformation in AfricaPartnerships drive our bilateral and multilateral initiatives in digital innovation. In 2022, President Biden initiated the Digital Transformation with Africa (DTA) program, underscoring our commitment to this cause.Through DTA, we&#8217;re allocating over $350 million and mobilizing further funding to enhance digital accessibility and literacy throughout Africa. Our goal is to partner with African nations, ensuring broader participation in the global digital economy.Innovating Defense CooperationOur partnerships go beyond traditional security aims. During Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin&#8217;s visit to Kenya in 2023, he signed a framework for defense cooperation in Nairobi, opening avenues for enhanced cooperation on defense technology and innovation.As Kenyan Defense Minister Aden Bare Duale said, &#8220;In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, our ability to work seamlessly together is paramount. This cooperation will enable us to respond effectively to the ever-evolving security challenges in our region.&#8221;Such partnerships are vital, not just for security but also for fueling economic growth and tackling environmental challenges, propelling businesses forward and preparing for the future.Today I met with 🇰🇪 Cabinet Secretary of Defense Duale in Nairobi. The signing of the Framework for Defense Cooperation between our countries demonstrates that our ever-growing defense partnership is resilient and strong. pic.twitter.com/P0lQIp6FNj&mdash; Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) September 25, 2023Harnessing Technology for Environmental ResilienceSecretary Blinken&#8217;s recent visit to Brazil highlighted our partnership in using technology to combat climate change. With investments exceeding $260 million, we are upgrading infrastructure and deploying technologies to enhance environmental resilience.In Rio de Janeiro, the United States is providing more than $260 million in financing to help upgrade infrastructure and install 5,000 public Wi-Fi access points, as well as public lighting systems that cut electricity consumption by up to 60 percent, while also lowering costs and cutting CO2 emissions.Met with President @LulaOficial ahead of the G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting. Brazil is a key partner on many issues including combatting the climate crisis and advancing human and labor rights. As we approach 200 years of U.S.-Brazil relations, our ties are stronger than ever. pic.twitter.com/wdVWL6KQ5j&mdash; Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) February 21, 2024Global Dialogues on Emerging TechnologiesOur conversations with other nations about emerging technologies are pivotal in constructing a digital landscape that embraces inclusivity and sustainability for all while benefiting the environment. We have launched high-level critical and emerging tech dialogues with the Republic of Korea, Singapore, India, and Israel to drive closer cooperation on AI, biotechnology, and quantum information sciences.During the U.S.-Republic of Korea ICT Policy Forum and the Japan-U.S. Dialogue on Digital Economy, we engaged with businesses to ensure safe 5G tech and foster digital growth in developing countries, focusing on AI, data security, system integrity, and eco-friendly tech.Ensuring Responsible AI DevelopmentAs we explore the possibilities of technologies like AI, it&#8217;s crucial to make sure they&#8217;re used responsibly and ethically. Through initiatives like President Biden&#8217;s Executive Order on AI, we are leading efforts to set international standards and guidelines for how AI is developed and used. We celebrate the recent adoption of the U.S.-led UN General Assembly Resolution together with 123 co-sponsors to demonstrate the widespread agreement on the need to seize the opportunities of safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development.While AI offers immense opportunities, we must ensure safety, accountability, fairness, and privacy. To leverage AI’s tremendous potential to advance U.S. diplomacy and statecraft and ensure ethical and responsible use at the Department, we’ve developed an enterprise-wide Artificial Intelligence Strategy.The challenges and opportunities of AI are global. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;re working with our partners to make sure AI is safe, secure, and works well for everyone, everywhere.Shaping a Better Future TogetherOur commitment to fostering global innovation is unwavering. As Secretary Blinken has said, “our success ultimately depends on working effectively together.”By leveraging partnerships, embracing digital transformation, and prioritizing responsible innovation, we&#8217;re not just shaping the future of technology — we&#8217;re shaping a better world for all.
- Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 2, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024																																																					May 2, 2024																																																								1:21 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Let me just raise this a little.QUESTION: Welcome back.MR MILLER: Thank you. Good to be back. Good to see everyone.QUESTION: Good to see you.MR MILLER: Forgive me if I’m a little slow on the draw today. There’s been a lot of – a lot of travel the past week and a half or so.QUESTION: Between the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ellen, do you want to do the honors?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I’m impressed you’re here today.MR MILLER: We’ll see. We’ll see if you still feel that way at the end of this briefing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.) As things stand now, how does the international community keep the bar from being lowered in setting the stage for future conflicts in the Middle East and globally to allow for the bombing of schools and hospitals and ambulances and aid convoys and journalists and places of worship if there – and with the conclusion that there won’t be practical penalties for them?MR MILLER: So I would say we absolutely do not want the bar to be lowered. This bar should be – the same standard should be applied to every conflict everywhere in the world, including in this one. Now, the nature of this conflict does make it a little bit more difficult because, for example, when you look at other conflicts around the world, it is not always true that you see one side of the conflict hiding itself in civilian sites, hiding – using ambulances to hide the passage of fighters around territory, embedding themselves under hospitals, inside hospitals. So that it makes it a difficult – that makes it a much more difficult conflict, but the principles of international humanitarian law apply the same to this conflict as they do anywhere else in the world, and they should be upheld the same way in this conflict as they are anywhere else in the world.QUESTION: And do there need to be penalties to make sure that happens?MR MILLER: International humanitarian law needs to be enforced – absolutely. That is true – that is the position of the United States everywhere in the world.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. What’s the latest on the hostage deal? A delegation from Hamas is set to visit Egypt soon for further ceasefire talks according to a statement today, and Israel’s war cabinet is meant to meet today on hostages and a plan for Rafah. Has there been any movement toward a deal?MR MILLER: There has not been any movement in the past few days. You heard the Secretary speak about this extensively while he in the region, that there is a proposal on the table that answers much of the demands that Hamas made in previous rounds of negotiations. Israel made a significant offer in this last proposal that went forward. They compromised on many long held positions that they had taken, and as I said, met many of the demands that Hamas had said they needed to agree to a deal. So we believe it’s now incumbent upon them to take the deal. The deal that they demanded that has been offered, they should accept and move forward. It is Hamas that is the only barrier to a ceasefire right now – an immediate ceasefire – and we’re awaiting their response.QUESTION: Why do you think they’ve taken so long?MR MILLER: I am not at all going to put myself in the heads of the leadership of Hamas, but I will say every day that goes by without a ceasefire right now is on Hamas, because they’re the ones that are holding up an answer to this proposal and they are the ones that are holding up reaching an immediate ceasefire that would help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza.QUESTION: And then just quickly, there’s been reporting that a Saudi-U.S. bilateral defense pact is close to completion as part of a wider Saudi-Israeli normalization deal. When do you plan to announce the full plan, and how confident are you that it will materialize if no truce between Israel and Hamas is reached?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to a U.S.-Saudi defense pact in specific terms. What I will say is that the Secretary did meet with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia this week when he was in Riyadh, as he’s met with him on previous meetings, and we are very close to reaching an agreement on the bilateral pieces of a normalization agreement – normalization agreement would, of course, be between the – Saudi Arabia and Israel, but as part of the bilateral piece – the package that is between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we are very close to reaching an agreement on that.There are a few details that we have to continue to work through, but we think we can reach agreement on those details in very short order. There is still more work to be done on a separate piece of that, which is the proposal for a pathway to a Palestinian state, but we are actively discussing that with our Saudi counterparts, as we are with the broader group of Arab countries that the Secretary met with also Monday in Riyadh, where we were looking at not just a path to two states but also the reconstruction of Gaza, governance in Gaza, security for Gaza.So we are working on all of those. Some pieces are further along than others – the bilateral piece between the United States and Saudi Arabia most relevantly – and some pieces are a little bit further along. We hope to make progress on that and have the agreements ready to put forward as soon as is possible.QUESTION: So – sorry, just to clarify, you’re close on U.S.-Saudi part &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; but not the Israeli part?MR MILLER: The – so the – let me unpack that a little bit.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: The idea of this agreement is that you would have a bilateral peace that are agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to speak to those in specific, but the details of them have been widely reported. I think everyone knows what they are. As part of that there would – and that part is fairly well advanced, and the Secretary has spoken to this. We have work to do to finalize some of the details, but we were very far along. I think the Saudi foreign minister also spoke to this on Monday in Riyadh after we met with him.Separately, and it will – I say “separate” but it will be a part of this package – there are pieces that that relate to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. That’s something that’s important to the United States; it’s something that is important and essential to Saudi Arabia and would be a key part of the deal. So while there are pieces of it that are closer than that, the entire package will include all of those pieces together.QUESTION: And how confident are you that that will materialize while there’s no truce between Israel and Hamas?MR MILLER: So we could reach an agreement – this gets – a little bit of speculating about timing, because we don’t know whether there’ll be a ceasefire. That’s in Hamas’s hands right now. But I’ll say we could reach an agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, and we could reach agreement with some – the other Arab countries we’re working with about what the broader package looks like, right – not just normalization but the post-conflict issues that relate to Gaza.But Saudi Arabia has been very clear for this – putting a proposal on the table is one thing, a proposal that we could take to Israel, but there will be no agreement in this regard while the conflict in Gaza is still raging. Saudi Arabia has made very clear that as part of any normalization deal with Israel, they have two requirements: one, calm in Gaza, and two, a path to an independent Palestinian state. So you could put a – you could you could see where we might reach agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, but in terms of an actual deal that includes normalization with Israel, there needs to be calm in Gaza.QUESTION: And sorry, just one more follow-up. Netanyahu has repeatedly objected to a Palestinian statehood, a key condition for Saudi to agree to normalization, as you’ve said. What’s the point of your progress with Riyadh if in the end Netanyahu will end up objecting anyway?MR MILLER: So the Secretary has spoken to this in detail a number of times, including quite extensively in Israel in January when we first put together this group of Arab countries with whom we wanted to work on these issues. And the point he made then – and it continues to be our point today – is that we believe broader integration is key to Israel’s long-term security. It’s not just the right thing to do for the Palestinian people – and it is very much the right thing to do for the Palestinian people to answer their legitimate political aspirations – it is also the best thing that you can do to achieve Israel’s long-term goal, the goal they have had – the goal that that Israel’s had since the founding of its country, which is normal relations with its neighbors.It would provide broader security to Israel, it would isolate Iran, and significantly, it would address some very real challenges Israel is going to face in Gaza when you look at the end of this conflict with determining – with figuring out how to rebuild Gaza, with figuring out how to provide security to Gaza. So ultimately, the Government of Israel will have to make the choice about what’s in the best interest of their people. But for the United States, we have a point of view, we’re going to work to finish up the proposals that we are working on with our Arab partners, and we’re going to put that point of view forward, and Israel can decide.QUESTION: On this?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Following up on Daphne’s question, I understand you could reach an agreement, I guess, in principle with the Saudis on this bilateral component, but is there any world in which that would be operationalized without this broader Negev two-state normalization deal?MR MILLER: We have been very clear, Saudi Arabia has been very clear that this is a package deal that would include a bilateral component and also include a path to two states.QUESTION: So there was no discussion in the meetings in Riyadh about breaking off that bilateral piece and getting it into the &#8212;MR MILLER: No. No.QUESTION: Okay. And then on Rafah, did you get any sense of timing on when the Israelis plan to move forward on their incursion?MR MILLER: I will let Israel speak to that question.QUESTION: Do you get the sense that they are waiting on Hamas’s response before making a final decision?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to let Israel speak to what their plans are. I will speak on behalf of the Secretary, and the Secretary in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday made very clear the United States position on Rafah, which is that we do not support a major military operation there. We do not believe a major military operation is in Israel’s long-term security interests. We believe there are better ways to address the threat that Hamas does still propose – or does still pose in Gaza because of the four battalions that are in Rafah. Secretary spoke in some detail about our ideas in that regard yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: What was the reception to those deals &#8212;MR MILLER: We had a very direct conversation about it, and I’ll just leave it at that.QUESTION: And are – did you get any sort of commitment or is it your understanding that if a deal was reached on the hostages and ceasefire, that Israel would not move forward on Rafah incursion?MR MILLER: I think let’s take it one step at a time. The proposal that is on the table right now, as I said, is a significant offer that would achieve an immediate ceasefire. That is our goal; that’s what we’re trying to accomplish. We have always said that we – if we get a ceasefire, we want to work to build enduring peace, enduring calm from that ceasefire, but let’s get a ceasefire first and then we can talk about what would be – what would be the next step.QUESTION: And if I could quickly – on the determinations under Leahy Law, are there any updates on the status of cutting off military assistance to that fifth unit?MR MILLER: No. With that one remaining unit, we are still engaged in a process where we’re collecting information from the Government of Israel that they have provided to us and examining that information. And I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Is that new information – sorry.MR MILLER: One second – I don’t have a timetable.QUESTION: Is that new information since the last time you guys said there was new information? Have they presented even more information &#8212;MR MILLER: Which was what, a couple of days ago, I think, when Vedant said it?QUESTION: A couple days ago, yeah.MR MILLER: No, it’s – Michel, did you – did you – she answered – okay.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on something that Ellen raised on the hospitals and ambulances and so on, I want to bring your attention – I don’t know how we could probe this issue further. The Palestinian surgeon Ahmed – Adnan Ahmed Bursh was killed on the 19th of April. He was taken from Shifa Hospital back in December and was killed by the Israelis recently. I mean, he was shot I guess in cold blood and so on. Is there any way that the United States could look into this issue and find out the authenticity of such a &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not familiar with that case. I’m happy to see if we have any further information.QUESTION: Okay, okay, all right, all right. Just to follow up on a couple of things. Now, you said that it’s a generous offer. Everybody used that word and so on. Now, if the prime minister of Israel keeps saying that there is no – he will not agree to any permanent ceasefire, that this war will go on, I ask you: What incentive is there for Hamas or the militant groups to say okay, I mean, we will give whatever leverage we have and then they can come and so on?MR MILLER: What &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just curious.MR MILLER: What incentive is there for Hamas?QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: How about – hold on. How about the well-being of the Palestinian people in Gaza?QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. Let me say that ought to be an incentive enough.QUESTION: I’m with you. I’m with you.MR MILLER: That ought to be incentive enough.QUESTION: Of course.MR MILLER: Good. Well, then that answers the question because that &#8212;QUESTION: But they – but &#8212;MR MILLER: To be clear, that is the incentive.QUESTION: No. Okay, well maybe we have just a &#8212;MR MILLER: The incentive for Hamas is that an immediate ceasefire &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; would help alleviate the suffering of the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: Hold on. Of the Palestinian people. It would allow aid – it would make it easier for aid to get in. It would make it easier for aid to move to people in Gaza.QUESTION: Fine.MR MILLER: It would allow people in Gaza to return to their homes and their neighborhoods &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; and rebuild them. So &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: I get your point about arguing about leverage, but let me &#8212;QUESTION: But let me ask you &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, Said, let me finish.QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, just let me finish. You will get your chance.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: The well-being of the people in Gaza that Hamas has always claimed they represent ought to be incentive enough for them to take this deal, period.QUESTION: I agree.MR MILLER: Period.QUESTION: I agreed.MR MILLER: Good.QUESTION: But – but the prime minister is not committing himself to a ceasefire. He’s saying that his war will continue. I am saying that in the long run he has the prerogative to continue this war however they please – go in, destroy, conquer, whatever, take hostages, do all kinds of things in the future. I am not talking – I’m not defending or saying – I’m asking, exploring, if the prime minister of Israel, if the cabinet in Israel, is determined not to have a ceasefire, doesn’t that make it less generous than people think it is?MR MILLER: So no, I would not agree with that. First of all, as the Secretary said yesterday, we’re going to judge every entity in this conflict by their actions.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And the actions that Israel has shown in this negotiation process is making an offer for a ceasefire that, as I said, was a significant offer that answers a number of the demands that Hamas had said were prerequisites for them to agree to a deal. So if Hamas really does care about the Palestinian people, they should agree to the deal, period. This is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you about &#8212;MR MILLER: This is one of those rare issues where it’s just actually not that complicated.QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of question on the aid. Israeli settlers have vandalized Gaza aid trucks and so on, I think the trucks that left from Jordan that – probably the ones that you guys bade farewell to. I don’t know. Do you have any comment on that? Do you know of what happened and do you have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I do. I’ve been following this issue very closely because it happened while we were in Israel. And I’ll tell you what the Secretary said about it to the prime minister, which is that these attacks on aid shipments are unacceptable and that Israel ought to take steps to prevent them and ought to take steps to hold people accountable for them. And I will tell you we were glad to hear that Israel yesterday arrested three of the people involved in the attacks on this convoy. That is the appropriate step. That’s the step that they ought to take whenever there are attacks on aid convoys, and that furthermore they ought to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. That’s what we will hope they’ll do because these are aid shipments that are being delivered to innocent civilians who had nothing to do with October 7th and they ought to continue unimpeded.QUESTION: Now, lastly, the prime minister of Israel said that the ICC arrest warrant would be an antisemitic hate crime. Do you agree with that?MR MILLER: I will let the prime minister speak for himself. On behalf of the United States, we have made clear that the ICC in our view has no jurisdiction in this conflict and we oppose this investigation.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Ellen.QUESTION: Can you say anything about how distribution of that aid after the settlers – the aid shipment that was attacked by settlers, how the distribution went once inside Gaza?MR MILLER: I think you’re referring to these reports and the statement that Hamas put out about the diversion of that aid. So those aid convoys came from Jordan into Erez crossing, which was just opened – something that the President insisted on in his April 4th phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yesterday was the first major shipment of aid from Jordan over this new land route through Erez crossing. The convoys from the Jordan military that brought the aid in unloaded the aid inside Gaza. It was then picked up by a humanitarian implementer for distribution inside Gaza, and that aid was intercepted and diverted by Hamas on the ground in Gaza.And ultimately, the UN is either in the process or has by now recovered that aid, but it was an unacceptable act by Hamas to divert this aid to begin with, to seize this aid. We have made clear that it’s an unacceptable act. I think the UN partners will be also making clear that it’s an unacceptable act. If there is one thing that Hamas could do to jeopardize the shipment of aid, it would be diverting it for their own use rather than allowing it to go to the innocent civilians that need it, so they certainly should refrain from doing that in the future.QUESTION: Has this been a widespread issue, Matt? (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: No, it has not.QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: This is the first widespread case of diversion that we have seen. Hamas had diverted these trucks for some time after – not the original, just to be clear, because that could be misleading. The original trucks came in, unloaded the aid; they were then picked up on different trucks for distribution inside Gaza. They did divert those trucks; they were held for some time. To my understanding, the aid has now been released. It’s been returned to the humanitarian implementer that was responsible for it in the first place. And we have made clear – and we think the United Nations relief organizations involved will also make clear – it’s an unacceptable act that Hamas should not repeat in the future &#8212;QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; because it jeopardizes the delivery of aid to the Palestinian people.QUESTION: But in terms of the number of occurrences that Hamas has diverted aid, is this – how many times would you say this has happened?MR MILLER: There may have been minor ones in the past. I can’t speak to – this is the first major diversion of aid. And as I said, it ultimately has now been returned to the humanitarian implementer, so it will get where it needed to go. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was an unacceptable act.QUESTION: And what happened to the team that was with the aid at the time?MR MILLER: I can’t speak to that. I don’t have the details.QUESTION: Do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: I do know that they are all safe now. I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Do you know which organization it was?MR MILLER: I do, but I don’t think it’s my – should be my prerogative to speak for them.Anything else on the region before we go – Michel, yeah.QUESTION: Are you talking now about a permanent ceasefire or a temporary ceasefire? And did you talk to the – and how will you build on it, as the Secretary has said yesterday? And second, did you talk to the Israelis about the – their northern front with Hizballah?MR MILLER: So the proposal that is on the table is for an immediate ceasefire for a defined period of time. But as we have always made clear, we do want to build that into an enduring calm. We don’t want this conflict to go on a day longer than it has to. We want to see it brought to a close in a way that ends Hamas’s ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th, in a way that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ultimately gets to this broader point I was making in response to some of the earlier questions – in a way that establishes a political path forward for the Palestinian people, for the citizens of Israel, that provides greater peace, security, stability for the entire region.QUESTION: And on &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, and on the north, sorry. It was a conversation – it was a subject of our conversations. I don’t have any updates. Our goal remains the same as it has been since the outset of this conflict, which is to resolve the dispute in the north of Israel diplomatically.QUESTION: And one more on Syria, if you don’t mind. Why did the administration oppose to include the Assad regime Anti-Normalization Act to the – or in the supplement aid package that passed last week?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific comment to that. We generally don’t comment when it involves pending legislation. Our position, however, has been clear, which is that we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is meaningful progress toward a political solution, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Our sanctions remain in full effect; I know that was one of the other pieces of this particular legislation. And we remain committed to using all tools at our disposal to promote accountability in Syria, including by issuing sanctions under the Caesar Act and other authorities.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A different &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Just also under the Syria policy. It’s reported that the Caesar Act that you just mentioned expires at the end of this year. Are you guys looking to extend that?MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that one back and get you a specific answer.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And secondly, just can you talk about – there was a report – or a group in Bahrain today claimed to have attacked Israel. And that seems to be a new – if accurate and true – that’s a new front that’s open. Is it the department’s assessment that U.S. policy towards trying to contain this conflict in Gaza is successful to this &#8212;MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of that report, so I wouldn’t want to comment on it or the veracity of it specifically. But it has been our goal to prevent this conflict from spreading. We’ve seen a couple points where – during – or a couple points since October 7th where there have been serious – the serious potential of it spreading and having it escalate, and you’ve seen us work quite intensively during that period. Of course, the last month, with respect to Iran, was one of the most intense periods. So it continues to be our goal, and it is something that you have to work on every day. When you see the conflict in Gaza continue, obviously it adds to tensions in the region, and so it’s one of the – it is a type of thing that you can never rest on, in terms of trying to prevent the conflict from spreading.Go ahead.QUESTION: My question is out of the region if that’s okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. I wanted to ask if the State Department is aware of the American that has gone missing in Mexico on a surfing trip – Jack Carter Rhoad, along with two Australians. Was wondering if the State Department’s aware, is working on it, and/or has comment.MR MILLER: There may be people who are aware of it; I’m not personally, and often, I think as you know, that we have Privacy Act rules when it involves cases of Americans overseas. I’ll have to take that back and get a more – check with others in the building, see if we have a more specific answer.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics – Russia, Russia first. I was wondering, in light of your latest finding that Russia that has been using chemical weapons in Ukraine, is the department getting any closer to state the obvious: that Russia is a terrorist state?MR MILLER: We have not changed our position with regard to that designation. But it in no way changes the actions that we have taken to hold Russia accountable. You’ve seen since the outset of this conflict the United States imposing sanctions on Russia, imposing export controls on Russia. We imposed new sanctions on Russia yesterday. You’ve seen us use our diplomacy to press other countries to stop their support from Russia – for Russia. It was a focus of the Secretary’s recent trip to China, where he made clear that China should stop supporting Russia by rebuilding its defense industrial base and also making clear that if they didn’t take action we would. And most significantly, we’ve taken action to hold Russia accountable by supporting Ukraine in its fight for its territory.So I know you always like to ask this question about this one particular designation, but if you look at the entirety of our policy with respect to Russia, I think you would see that it shows us taking actions across the board to hold them accountable for their aggression.QUESTION: But just so I understand correct, is there any ongoing effort for that SST designation, or this is just done deal, you are not going to review?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to my previous answer on this.QUESTION: Thank you. On Georgia, if I may.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: We’ve seen all the warning lights are blinking bright these days. So the embassy made a statement saying that we offered them engagement, they refuse. We have heard oligarch Ivanishvili’s statements about the U.S. and NGOs. I don’t want to repeat everything he said. But there are calls from the Hill for a policy shift. I know that you made clear that you are deeply concerned, but that’s not enough, so when is it going to be &#8212;MR MILLER: Are you going to make policy claims now? Or are you going to ask a question, Alex? No offense, but – (laughter).QUESTION: When is it the right time? When is it the right time for the U.S. Government to announce the policy shift?MR MILLER: So I will say, as we reiterated in the statement we put out last night, we are deeply concerned with the legislation that is currently working its way through the Georgian legislature. And we’re also concerned and condemn the false narrative that government officials have adopted to defend the legislation. And the anti-Western rhetoric of Georgia Dream’s leadership has put Georgia on a precarious trajectory that jeopardizes Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermines the U.S.-Georgia relationship. It is still draft legislation, and I’m not going to comment on specific responses that we might take or preview specific responses that we might take while it remains pending legislation. But I think we have made quite clear how seriously we take this issue and how concerned we are about it.QUESTION: How closely the Secretary has been involved with this? We haven’t heard from him on this very &#8212;MR MILLER: I can assure you he’s watching incredibly closely. Even on our travels around the world and other countries, it’s something that he’s regularly updated on.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions, if I might. National Security Communication Advisor Kirby said this morning about the Russian refined petroleum, and their shipment have already pushed North Korea input above the 500- barrel and your cap mandated by the UN Security Council. March alone, Russia shipped more than 165,000 barrels of refined petroleum to North Korea. So any refined oil import limit is 500- barrels. Kirby said 165,000 barrels transactions was over the limit. 165,000 is less than the actual import limit of 500,000 barrels. What is the North Korea’s actual annual limit on the refined petroleum imports?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that – that number. I will just say that the United States will continue to impose sanctions against those working to facilitate arms and refined petroleum transfers between Russia and the DPRK. We are currently working with our partners, including Australia, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom to announce new coordinated sanctions designations this month.QUESTION: Do you think Kirby made &#8212;MR MILLER: I think I just violated one of my own rules. How many times have – I say I’m not going to preview sanctions actions? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Please &#8212;MR MILLER: Always an exception to every rule.QUESTION: And do you think Kirby made a little mistake about numbers? Because &#8212;MR MILLER: I will defer to him to comment on his remarks.QUESTION: And one more quick, regarding terrorist threat alert. South Korea’s national intelligence services reported that North Korea is searching for terrorist attacks targeting diplomatic missions and officers abroad. Can you give us some comment, or are there any terrorist threat alert for U.S. diplomatic missions or abroad?MR MILLER: The safety and security of our personnel is our first – is our number one priority. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer, but we are constantly monitoring the situations around the world and adjusting to events, as is appropriate and necessary.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shannon.QUESTION: Thank you. I know these cases have been addressed from the podium before, but I wanted to ask about Bryan Hagerich and Ryan Watson, the two Americans who are facing more than a decade behind bars in Turks and Caicos potentially for carrying a relatively small amount of hunting ammunition in the country. Do you have any updates on their cases or assistance that the State Department might be offering?MR MILLER: So the safety and security of United States citizens is our first priority, and as you know, oftentimes we are limited in what we can say about some of these cases. There are times when there’s much that I’d like to say from the podium that I’m not able for privacy reasons. But we are aware of the arrests of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested overseas, we stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance, and we do that in every case where we can.QUESTION: And just as more generally speaking, there have been a spate of high-profile cases involving U.S. citizens who are facing very serious punishments for carrying what would be considered domestically innocuous items into foreign countries. Is the State Department considering any action to either warn Americans, or address the issue by perhaps coordinating with TSA to stop them from carrying these items overseas?MR MILLER: Well, presumably, if you make it through an – you shouldn’t be able to make it through an airport with ammunition in the first place, but we constantly update our Travel Alerts to make sure or to warn people that they are of course subject to local laws when they travel overseas. That’s true – we expect – when citizens of other countries come to the United States, we expect them to abide by United States law, and we hold them accountable if they don’t. And that is true for people traveling overseas.In Turks and Caicos, firearms, ammunitions, or other weapons are prohibited. Our Travel Alert for the Turks and Caicos makes that clear so people are aware of that before they travel. And I would once again, as we always do, urge every American to check State Department Travel Alerts before they travel to a country. We’ve put them out for every country in the world so they can see what the local rules, what the local laws are, and it’s very important they follow those laws so they aren’t put in this position.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. As far as these demonstrations are concerned across the U.S. cities and colleges, before my question, if I say one thing – that when I used to go to college and university in Chandigarh in India, my mother told me you are going there to study, not create any troubles for yourself and for others. My question is now here that – who is behind these demonstration and how the U.S. diplomacy with other countries around the globe, who also have many students from across other nations also in these higher universities and colleges there studies are also affecting? Because I’m getting many calls from the Indian American community and their parents also. So how the relations affecting as far as these demonstrations are concerned? Violations are going on and breakings and all the – we never heard in the U.S. as far as students in colleges and university except during Vietnam War, because there was a cause, because America was in war in the – U.S. in Vietnam War, but America is not in war as far as these – what’s going on in Palestine and other places.MR MILLER: So the President spoke to this earlier today, and I don’t have much to add to his remarks. And but the thing that he made very clear is that one of the things that makes this country great is the right to free expression and free speech, and we welcome free speech and we welcome free expression even when it’s about – even when it is people protesting in opposition to policies that we have promulgated in this administration. But it’s also true that we expect people to follow the law, and law enforcement has a right and responsibility to enforce the law when people don’t. I’ll leave it – leave it at that.QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: One more?QUESTION: My other question, please. Thank you so much. These are in connection with that – in one side, India’s largest democracy is going on elections, like more than 700 million people are going elections. In Pakistan, other side, in the parliament of Pakistan, they are saying that U.S. and IMF and other countries should not give any aid to Pakistan because it’s not reaching to the basics people are needing today, and parliamentarians are saying that Pakistan is now going bankrupt. And Pakistan’s prime minister is going in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia and IMF and all there – because otherwise Pakistan will break down and will be filing bankruptcy and all them.My question is: People of Pakistan are telling me and saying that U.S. and other international institutions give aid to the basics and people for the development of Pakistan’s, and at the same time recently State Department held four companies in China and Belarus – held – and that they were supplying ballistic missile parts to Pakistan.So in the one hand they are saying in Pakistan, Pakistan is spending all this money on the ballistic missile parts and others have done – not on the people of Pakistan. What they are saying finally, look at India today and look at Pakistan today, and both countries got freedom on the same day, and today India is the – one of the largest trading partner with the United States. So where do we stand as far &#8212;MR MILLER: I was waiting for the question. (Laughter.) That was a lot. I was wondering what the question was going to be.QUESTION: So what message do we have for Pakistan from the Secretary of State &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; that basics – that Pakistan can be uplifted like India in the future and their people?MR MILLER: So a couple things. First, when it – as it relates to the ballistic missile program, we’ve made quite clear our position on that, including through the actions that we take – we took last month that you referenced. But when it comes to efforts to stabilize its economy, including through reaching an agreement with the IMF, we support those efforts. We support the progress that Pakistan has made to stabilize its economy and manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges, and our support for Pakistan’s economic success is unwavering and we will continue to engage with them through technical engagements as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. Excuse me. Is the administration looking to admit into the United States refugees from Gaza? If so, how would the administration ensure there is no Hamas infiltration?MR MILLER: So since the beginning of the conflict, we have helped more than 1,800 American citizens and their families leave Gaza, many of whom have come to the United States. At President Biden’s direction, we have also helped and will continue to help some particularly vulnerable individuals, such as children with serious health problems and children who are receiving treatment for cancer get out of harm’s way and receive care at nearby hospitals in the region. And Palestinians may be eligible for a variety of existing pathways to enter the United States, such as immigrant or nonimmigrant visas. We are constantly evaluating policy proposals to further support Palestinians who are family members of American citizens and may want to join them in the United States. I don’t have any potential changes to preview at this time, but as is true everywhere in the world, we have strict vetting whenever we admit people to the United States.QUESTION: And Republicans have called for the administration to revoke visas of students on American college and university campuses who express support for Hamas. What’s the administration’s reaction to those calls? Would the administration do such a thing?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that.QUESTION: And one more thing.MR MILLER: Go – yeah.QUESTION: What is the administration doing regarding Qatari funding of America’s college and universities that critics have said have contributed to Israelis &#8212;MR MILLER: Has there been – hold on – wait, is the evidence of that?QUESTION: That Qatar is the largest donor – foreign donor of the American college university campuses? Yes.MR MILLER: No, but I mean of – if they are supporting the protests. I’ve heard that claim but I’m just asking before I comment on – whether there’s evidence that you can put forward to substantiate it.QUESTION: Well, I mean, like, not – not just these protests, but, like, the protests on American college university campuses regarding Israel, like, even before October 7th – there have been critics who have said that Qatari money has contributed to this &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; like through funding, like, university programs.MR MILLER: So what – what critics – just what critics, specifically, so I know what I’m responding to?QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the critics, yeah.MR MILLER: No, no, but who?QUESTION: Like conservatives, foreign policy folks, like scholars.MR MILLER: I just – before I respond to something in general, I’d like to see a piece of evidence or &#8212;QUESTION: Like folks that are &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; or a specific – a specific – I would just – I would love to see a specific charge or a piece of evidence before I respond to something that may or may not be true.QUESTION: I can send.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last week that Ukraine and the United States are working on a new bilateral agreement on security and have already begun discussing a specific text of this agreement. Do you have any comments, confirmation?MR MILLER: So I’m not going speak to it in specific – other than to say that we have made clear that we are working on ways to provide long-term support for Ukraine’s security. Obviously we provide significant assistance to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s aggression, and we have been working on long-term security arrangements. That’s something that the President made public around the time of the last NATO summit. Those discussions continue but I’m not going to speak to them in any detail.QUESTION: One more question. Polish media reported last week that Poland has made a formal request to the U.S. to deploy American nuclear weapons in the country. Is the United States discussing this with them?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I just want to get back to the protests and ask if there’s any concern in the State Department about these protests reflecting a spread of the conflict that you been expressing fears about earlier? And secondly, have these protests at the universities featured in any of the conversations that the Secretary had on his recent trip?MR MILLER: So when we speak to being concerned about the spread of the conflict, we’re worried about kinetic conflict in the region. We’re not talking about free speech on United States campuses. So I’m not sure I understand what the linkage is between the two? But &#8212;QUESTION: Well, it is a spread of conflict regardless, in many people’s eyes, that there is a conflict emerging on U.S. campuses as a direct result of Israel’s actions in Gaza.MR MILLER: Okay, it’s a very different thing than what we’re talking about when we talk about diplomatic efforts, which are by nature overseas, to address the spread of the conflict between Israel and other terrorist organizations, between Israel and other countries in the region. That’s specifically what we’re referring to. It’s in no way related to, I think, the actions you’ve seen on United States campuses.And then the second question, remind me again, was?QUESTION: Was it the – did it come up in any of the conversations?MR MILLER: Oh, did it come up. Yeah, it did come up somewhat in conversations, as you would expect. It’s been all over TV. People around the world watch American television, and so of course it’s come up in conversations, but not in any substantive or serious way.Go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Follow-up on that – is Israel seeing these protests, and is it a concern about the – losing the messaging war? And then conversely, are there any concerns that Hamas is seeing these protests in his feeling emboldened by the anti-Israel sentiment of them?MR MILLER: So I will let Israel speak for itself, and I’m not going to speak for Hamas either.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. The world’s largest election has begun in India. However, there has been significant increase in intimidation, harassment. Prime Minister Modi’s inflammatory rhetoric against the Muslim community has heightened fear and uncertainty within the 200 Muslim community in India. At the same time, major social media platform like Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Meta are removing critical content and blocking channels at the request of the Indian authority, raising concern about the censorship and the impact on free speech. What steps are being taken to protect these U.S.-based social media platforms and ensure that the right to free expression is upheld?MR MILLER: So let me take that one back – regards to any specific actions, not – which is not to say there are any. But of course we support freedom of expression all around the world, in every country in the world.QUESTION: One more – just I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Can I draw your attention one of my colleague was asking a question about India, and it is very difficult, someone asking questions and facing harassment. I also have faced even life threat sometimes in my social media message and texts that I’m receiving. So – and they are questioning about the ethnicity. Is that a matter that someone is asking questions – he has to be – or he or she has to be the – that ethnicity or from that country’s background in this briefing room?MR MILLER: So I don’t even know where to go with that question. Obviously, we welcome people from all over the world, of any ethnicity, from countries all over the world, to ask whatever questions they want to ask us. Unfortunately, one of the sad features of social media is that people make all sorts of inappropriate comments and threats and intimidation. I see that on social media; I’m sure you do too. It doesn’t make it acceptable in anyway.Go ahead.QUESTION: Except for &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the student protests in the U.S., have you find any sign of foreign intervention, be it social media campaigns, funding, et cetera?MR MILLER: It’s not the kind of assessment we make here at the State Department, but, no, we’ve not that made that – any – that assessment.QUESTION: Are you going to look for it or it’s not part of &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s just not – it’s not the kind of thing that we do here at the State Department.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We are – so no.QUESTION: And on the bilateral agreement you have with Saudi Arabia, I got a bit confused there when you were answering at the beginning. So the disagreement that you’re going to have with Saudi Arabia, is it tied to the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, because you said it’s a package?MR MILLER: Yeah, so I realized as I was going through it it was probably a bit confusing. So in the normalization agreement, the potential normalization agreement that we are talking about with Saudi Arabia, there are several components. One component is a package of agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Another component is normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And another package would be a path to two states for the Palestinian people. All of them are linked together; none go forward without the others.QUESTION: So obviously you are not going to have a final package to present to Senate to give the approval, to get Senate’s approval. So my question is that a few of these components – like the AI or nuclear or the security agreement, all of that – can they be executed before the other components even being finalized or achieved or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would say this is a package deal, but we are also putting the cart before the horse a little bit here and getting too much into the details, and that’s because, as I said, one of the things that Saudi Arabia has made clear is a prerequisite for them agreeing to any normalization deal in the first place is calm in Gaza, which of course we don’t have right now. And it’s not the reason why we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire – we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire with the release of hostages for its own sake and the benefits it would bring – but it is absolutely one of the things that we would try to push forward should we achieve that ceasefire that includes the release of hostages.QUESTION: But you’re going to go ahead with the nuclear agreement regardless of what is happening with &#8212;MR MILLER: No, as I just said, it is a package deal.And Guita go ahead, and we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions on Iran. You may have seen that the BBC World has obtained some documents which seem to be minutes of a hearing in Iran on the reason – on the how and when and who caused the death of Nika Shakarami, one of the – a teenage protestor a couple years ago.MR MILLER: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: The UN spokesperson suggested that if this document – if these documents were presented to the UN Human Rights Council that they could start a proceeding, look into it, those conversations that outline how she was killed. As a member of the UNHCR, would the United States encourage presentation of these documents to hold the people responsible for the death of Nika Shakarami?MR MILLER: So let me just apologize. I haven’t seen that actual report. I’ve been on the road a little bit, as I spoke about at the beginning of the briefing, but let me take that back and get you an answer to it.QUESTION: Okay. It’s kind of follow-up, but it can go separately, I think.MR MILLER: Yeah, I’ll get – I – yeah, I’ll get you an answer. If you have a follow-up, we can get an answer to that too. So &#8212;QUESTION: Well, the follow-up could be – I mean, it’s not dependent necessarily.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: So the Iranian constitution – the constitution of the Islamic Republic, actually. It says that the supreme leader sets the policies and is – the ultimate decision maker in the country. So as such, does the State Department believe that Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader, is responsible for the suppression of demonstrators and death of a high number of people two years ago and general suppression of the public?MR MILLER: He is absolutely responsible for the actions that government has taken. With that, we’ll end for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Syria																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 30, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024																																																					April 30, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Let’s see. I have – I don’t have anything off the top, so Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that Israel will carry out an operation against Hamas in Rafah regardless of whether or not &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, regardless of whether or not a ceasefire and hostage release deal is reached. Is it still the case that the U.S. hasn’t seen a credible plan for entering Rafah? And what will you do if they go ahead, as Netanyahu is warning?MR PATEL: That is correct. We – it continues to be the case that we have not seen a credible plan that would address the varying areas of concerns that you’ve heard me talk about a number of times from up here and others, primarily the ability to address the serious humanitarian concerns surrounding – again, Rafah is a region with more than 1 million people seeking refuge, so that an area that continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals. And so any kind of operation that’s – that does not address some of these key concerns would certainly be opposed by us.I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals, but this is something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. Conversations continue to be happening at all levels, and we continue to press forward on those conversations and asking for what their plans may or may not be as it pertains to Rafah.QUESTION: And are you concerned that this warning that they would go ahead with whether or not a ceasefire and hostage deal is reached could derail hostage talks?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that. What I can say, Daphne, is that we remain committed to reaching a deal for the immediate – for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows for additional steps to be taken in terms of surging humanitarian aid, and something that we hope will help bolster the protection of civilians as well.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Israel’s track record in heeding to the U.S. statements or calls could be arguably not great. What gives you confidence or what makes you think that Israel would, in fact, listen and hear your calls not to go into Rafah?MR PATEL: I’d dispute, though, the premise of that a little bit, Leon. Over the course of this conflict, there have been a number of endeavors in which the United States has pressed for that we have seen our partners in Israel undertake, dating back to the beginning of this conflict even in the early days of this conversation that we were having around humanitarian aid. We also continue to see steps being taken as it relates to their cooperation on a number of other lines of effort in the humanitarian aid space.But both – look, when it comes to humanitarian aid, when it comes to the protection of civilians, and when it comes to a potential operation in Rafah, our answer continues to be we need to see more, we need to see more steps being taken. And as it relates to an operation in Rafah, we have yet to see a credible plan that would address the underlying concerns that I laid out to Daphne.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Olivia, go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Just because the Secretary was also asked about this not long ago. He said that the U.S. views on this were well known. But he didn’t address part of the question that – whether Israel had in fact committed to present a military and humanitarian plan. So absent the plans themselves, has there been a formal commitment from the Israeli Government to present those plans before launching any – an invasion?MR PATEL: I am not going to be a spokesperson for the Government of Israel. Through the Strategic Consultative Group that you have seen National Security Advisor Sullivan and Secretary Blinken undertake their consultations with counterparts in Israel, discussions at those levels and through other interlocutors as part of those engagements, those conversations are ongoing. As the Secretary said, the United States position on this could not be clearer. For how long we’ve been talking about this, we have expressed our serious concern about any kind of operation that does not address some of these key pieces, and we’ll continue to stress and raise these very important issues.QUESTION: Thank you. I mean, I totally appreciate not asking you for the Israeli perspective on this, only whether the U.S. has actually received a commitment from the government to have formal plans presented prior to any invasion.MR PATEL: I am just not going to speak to further specificity about this process.QUESTION: Okay. Two others on the region, if that’s okay.MR PATEL: Mind if I jump to Gillian?QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: And then we can – we’ll – I’m sure we’ll get to everybody. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I’m just wondering if State has any comment or any information, anything today on the anti-Israel protests across the nation now, really going from California all the way to New York. A lot of these student protesters are accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in genocide. Wondering if you – if diplomatically &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; foreign-policy-wise, you guys have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, so I’ve spent a number of the last few daily press briefings talking about this, and I’m happy to reiterate what I said before. First, I will echo what the Secretary said in talking to one of your colleagues on the margins of his trip to Beijing. Demonstrating – demonstrations, I should say, expressing your opinion about any kind of government action, expressing your opinion about foreign policy, exercising your First Amendment right – none of those things are problematic or antisemitic or Islamophobic, in their own right. It is when those things are coupled with the use of certain language, and rhetoric, and insults that we have seen and have been part of some of these demonstrations.Beyond that, those kinds of things of course we would condemn and take issue with. But we believe that every American has every right to express their points of view, to exercise their First Amendment right. When it comes to policies that are – that as it relate to any particular campus, those campus officials are better suited to speak to those policies that they have in place both in terms of dealing with expressions of First Amendment rights or otherwise. I am not in a space to speak to that.But of course, everyone has every right to make their point of view heard, and from our perspective across this administration we’ve made clear that we insist that these happen in a peaceful, nonviolent manner. And any kinds of these demonstrations, when they are paired with or coupled with rhetoric, language that is antisemitic, Islamophobic, essentially insults or target someone for just who they are, that’s deeply problematic.QUESTION: A quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One thing that’s kind of new as far as I’m aware is you’re seeing regimes now like the Iranian regime, China has started to weigh in – the government, and criticize the Biden administration’s response to these protests. We saw overnight the Chinese saying that the way the U.S. Government is responding is violating these students’ rights. Do you have a comment on these adversaries kind of using it as an opportunity to criticize?MR PATEL: Look, the policies and procedures as it relates to demonstrations, protesting, things like that that may or may not exist on a particular college campus, or may or may not exist in a particular town, city, or municipality, it is certainly not in the remit of the State Department so I am not going to even delve into that.QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s other agencies that are better suited to speak to that. But what I can say broadly, we of course support anybody to be able to express themselves and to exercise their First Amendments rights. They should not and cannot become violent, not peaceful. And in those particular circumstances, we believe it is the right of the appropriate law enforcement and – enforcement and security officials to take appropriate actions consistent with the policies of that jurisdiction. Again, we are delving far away from foreign policy and into law enforcement, which is not the remit of this – of this department.QUESTION: No, because what I’m asking really is: Is it not from a foreign policy, foreign relations, diplomacy perspective, isn’t it, I mean, hypocritical of the Chinese and the Iranians, some of the worst human rights violators in the world, to be criticizing the Biden administration’s policy response to America?MR PATEL: I don’t think anybody in this administration is interested in taking a human rights lesson from the Iranian regime, or the People’s Republic of China for that matter. And both of those regimes’ crackdowns on self-expression, on free and fair press, on basic human rights, is clear.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving &#8212;QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on a couple of things.MR PATEL: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving of the United States with the protesters being arrested is not necessarily the one you would want to have.MR PATEL: Leon, there are laws in this country. Again, we are delving away from the topics that are discussed in this department. But if laws are being broken on certain college campuses, in certain municipalities, in certain towns, in certain cities, in certain counties, it is will within the right for the officials of those jurisdictions to enforce whatever laws that are so appropriate as it relates to that region. Beyond that, we fully support anybody’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right and make their opinions as it relates to any action or policy the government may or may not be taking and making their points of view heard.QUESTION: Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you, I just have quick follow-ups and then I have a couple questions of my own.Now, in response to Gillian, you said there are certain things that are being said in these protests that you have issue with. Could you share some of those with us?MR PATEL: I’m not going to repeat them from up here, Said, but &#8212;QUESTION: But you made an assertion that you are obviously in command of. What are these statements?MR PATEL: Said, there have been a number of these demonstrations in which the imagery, in which the language that has been written on some of the poster material, has either been akin to what I would believe to be antisemitism. But we’ve also seen expressions, rhetoric, signage that is akin to Islamophobia and the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans, as well. Of course any kind of language or rhetoric in that space is concerning, troubling, and unacceptable. But again, we fully support people’s ability to peacefully make their – express their First Amendment rights.QUESTION: Now on the statement by the Israeli prime minister on Rafah, I mean, he is saying very plainly that whether there is a deal or there is no deal, I am going storm Rafah. And you don’t have a position on this? I mean, he’s not waiting for a deal to be arrived at.MR PATEL: I think our position on Rafah – I really don’t appreciate you, Said, twisting my words or the words &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not.MR PATEL: &#8212; of the Secretary or other officials up here. We have made our point of view &#8212;QUESTION: I am quoting what the prime minister of Israel said. I’m not &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand. I understand your question. And in response to your question, and Daphne’s question, and the number of times that we have asked – been asked about a potential operation into Rafah from up here, we have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region, when it comes to this region in particular in Gaza being an important conduit for the delivery of humanitarian aid, it being a region in which foreign nationals at least at the beginning of this conflict were able to use, are able to use consistently for safe departure.So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a non-starter for us. And you’ve heard me say this. You’ve heard the Secretary say this. You’ve heard Matt say this; you’ve heard Admiral Kirby, Karine, the President. We have been consistent on this.QUESTION: Yeah. So would it be appropriate for the United States of America to say, whether there is a deal or not a deal, we find that the storming of Rafah is unacceptable?MR PATEL: I – we have been pretty clear about that, Said.QUESTION: Very clear?MR PATEL: We have been very clear that many – any kind of military operation into Rafah that does not address these concerns would be unacceptable to the United States.QUESTION: Right. Now I have a question on the humanitarian situation. Officials at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leaked a – they leaked a document that says that the Israeli Government intently sort of put obstacles in the way of these humanitarian aid convoys or whatever, getting food to Gaza. Now are you aware of that report?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to comment on leaked documents, Said.QUESTION: Why won’t you comment on this document?MR PATEL: I’m not going to comment on leaked documents, on things that continue to exist under a deliberative process. I will just say that the Secretary and the leaders of this administration, they hear a diverse range of views from across this department, from across the interagency. When it comes to processes that are within the deliberative process, we take those points of view into consideration, but beyond that, I am just not going to speak to purportedly leaked documents.QUESTION: Okay. Would you agree that there is a – almost a common opinion among professionals and experts and so on that Israel is in fact – and the prime minister of Israel are in fact – take measures day after day to sort of make these humanitarian aids, including American – large portions of American aid &#8212;MR PATEL: I would disagree with your characterization.Julia.QUESTION: Thank you. I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict. But I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, “Branding Israel’s leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of antisemitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world.”Do you agree with that assessment that it’s antisemitic for the ICC to pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the campus protests?MR PATEL: So fundamentally, at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that’s the crux here. Beyond that, I’d let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments.But at the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work – important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular incident – instance – in this particular instance, I’m sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.QUESTION: If I may, another on Saudi Arabia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There have been reports that Saudi Arabia has decided to normalize relations with Israel but is waiting to determine when they do that based on the U.S. election and the results of the election. What do you make of Saudi Arabia potentially weighing this presidential election so much, when the urgency is now?MR PATEL: So I would – I’d defer to officials in the Saudi Government to speak to their position. I’m not a spokesperson for them. What I can say from the United States is that we also have been unambiguous about how we feel that a greater – a more integrated Middle East region is better for not just the interests of the United States, but it is better for peace and stability in the Middle East region. It is also something that we believe other officials across the Middle East region and Arab world view this as well.We are continuing to work this. We think that Israel’s further integration in the Middle East region can unlock additional benefits. It can offer greater security, which is in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interest of the people of Israel, and it’s also in the interest of other partners as well.But of course, we also are continuing to stress and underline the importance of doing everything we can to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire – one that releases the hostages, one that allows a surge of humanitarian aid into the region as well.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: I don’t know if somebody asked you about this or not, but I want to ask you about the Amnesty International report.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So basically, Amnesty just published its report. I don’t know if you’ve seen it in details. But they say there is a reasonable evidence that Israel has committed war crimes, a gross violation of international – of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law. I’m just wondering – I mean, with something as serious as this from a very reputable organization, that normally use it to talk about rogue states, et cetera, when they finding and they publish their reports – why the State Department still now has not published anything to either contradict or to support other human rights organizations been talking about what’s happening in Gaza? Basically &#8212;MR PATEL: So first, I’ve not seen that specific report, Nadia. But I think you were in the briefing room just about a week and a half ago in which we – when we unveiled the 2024 Human Rights Report, in which there was, in fact, a section outlining Israel and the Palestinian territories.When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza – and I have spent a number of days talking about this – we are continuing to assess what is happening on the ground. We have a number of tools at our disposal to look into what is happening on the ground and, if required, hold appropriate and relevant parties accountable. You’ve heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about Leahy. You have heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about the CHIRG process. We continue to have those options as well as other avenues under the Foreign Assistance Act to look into these things. And as in any conflict zone, Nadia, this work is ongoing and we are feeding into that process in close coordination with not just our embassies and consulates, but also civil society, independent media reporting of such things, and, of course, NGOs as well.QUESTION: Can you just assure us that, actually, you treat Israel the same way as you treat any other country that found in violation of international law? Because what we hear from you is all the statements and some actions, like we see with the settlers, but many believe that when the prime minister of Israel pick up the phone, call the White House, the finding is changed and delayed and pushed, just like we heard about – even the Secretary, we were together in Italy when he assured us that we’re going to hear about this report – about the Leahy report and the violation of using U.S. weapons. But we haven’t heard about it. So I just wanted an assurance from you that actually you’re taking these things seriously.MR PATEL: Well, I spent about 50 percent of the daily press briefing yesterday talking about it, so I would take issue with how you laid that out. There are absolutely – we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold any country with, and that is with – in Gaza, outside of Gaza, anywhere. International law, international humanitarian law needs to be followed, and it needs to be abided by. And when we find violations or when we find issues that are concerning, not only do we raise them with the Israeli Government, we will take appropriate actions consistent with the systems and tools that we have in the United States to take appropriate actions.I spent a great deal of yesterday talking about the Leahy process in which we found five violations of – gross violations of human rights. So when we see issues, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. There is no different standard or different set of rules when it comes to any country on which we have a relationship with.QUESTION: Okay. Just one final clarification.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary said that the offer they gave to Hamas is generous. Who decide what is generosity? Is it the United States and Israel? What is it – is it Arab partners in the Saudi summit that they decided it was generous? I mean, I guess my question: How do you define what is generous and what is (inaudible)?MR PATEL: So Nadia, over the course of this conflict, we have seen Hamas move the goal post, renege on agreements that they have made as it – as relates to part of this deal. And so the Secretary was simply underlining the fact that we are in this position in which Hamas has a generous offer on the table, and it’s imperative for them to move and to act on it as swiftly as possible.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one point of clarification on Leahy, which I know you amply addressed yesterday, but you mentioned yesterday that the process was open-ended, right? It was subject to the MOU that exists between the Israeli Government and the United States. This new information that Israel has provided with regard to the fifth unit, is – can it continuously supply new information with regard to that unit until the U.S. sort of adjudicates in a particular direction? Or is this a finite set of information on whose basis the U.S. will decide whether to take punitive action?MR PATEL: I would say the information is definitive and it is more that, consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have, we are bound by that to consult and engage with officials in Israel on the process, on steps that they may or may not be taking, and we are assessing all of those things to ensure that they are in standard with what is laid out in the Leahy Law. And if not, as I said yesterday, there will, of course, be a resistance of applicable – a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance.QUESTION: Okay. And then a separate question on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary from Jordan earlier mentioned the opening of new crossings into northern Gaza. I was hoping you could just update us on the overall metrics, on the volume of aid that’s going in, and how that compares to what the U.S. believes is necessary.MR PATEL: So look, we are still very much in the same place that we were when David Satterfield came and talked to you all. We have seen some measurable steps in the right direction. Northern crossings including Erez and Zikim are preparing to reopen. We are seeing that routes from Jordan and Ashdod are showing progress, but not fully yet realized. And southern crossings, specifically Kerem Shalom and Rafah, have seen some fluctuating numbers of trucks, but trending in the right direction.This is all to say that we still need to see more. And some metrics that I can offer is that April – on April 25th, approximately 303 trucks entered Gaza according to the UN; 282 trucks via Kerem Shalom, and 21 trucks via Rafah. That is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more. And I know also we spend a lot of time up here talking about trucks and their inflows and outflows, possibly because it might be the most digestible metric out there when talking about this issue.But ultimately, when we talk about humanitarian aid, it is great to see trucks enter Gaza; it is even better when the humanitarian aid that enters Gaza is getting to the Palestinian people, to Palestinian civilians who need it. And we will continue to work closely with the Government of Egypt, Government of Jordan, Government of Israel, and relevant NGO partners, including the United Nations, to ensure that that final step is happening and it’s getting to the places it needs to go.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ve asked several times about the right to defend one’s self for Palestinians, and out of this room we’ve heard that the U.S. does not exhibit any double – double standards. And today in the West Bank there – the Israelis’ occupation forces chased, beat, and threw off a roof a 32-year-old man – Palestinian man, Hassan Mansiya, near – in the Hebron district. Also, the Israeli forces attacked at least two schools with tear gas, two – inside and outside schools in the Hebron and Jenin districts, where students were, and teachers, and some of them experienced some suffocation. Since October 7th, we’ve – I mean, we’ve had, like, what is it, 95 minors that have been killed in the West Bank. I asked before: Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? I’m not talking about rogue individuals. I’m talking about as far as a legal authority to defend Palestinians. Do they – does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right and duty to defend themselves?MR PATEL: So look, I have not seen those reports that you outlined. I’m happy to look into them, and I have no doubt our partners in the IDF may be able to share more. What I can say is that actions like these, if true, they are destabilizing. They contribute to a deteriorating security situation, and they are not in the interest of Israel’s own security. And when we have seen actions like this, when we see actions from – we believe quite strongly that these kinds of activities take us away from a two-state solution, and they feed into further instability.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: That &#8212;QUESTION: But does – does the Palestinian Authority have the right to defend its citizens?MR PATEL: Absolutely it does. Absolutely it does.QUESTION: It does? Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up on the campus protests.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a question. The U.S. Government, everybody from President Biden on down to here at the podium has been quick to call out antisemitism at these protests, but there’s also been an enormous number of examples of Islamophobia and racism from counterprotesters. Why doesn’t the administration denounce that as well, and would you do that here?MR PATEL: I did. You can check the transcript. I did.QUESTION: Well, and let me ask you about Netanyahu’s – the news on Netanyahu today &#8212;MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: &#8212; where he said that even if there’s a hostage deal, they’re still going into Rafah.MR PATEL: Ryan, you’ve got to be on time. You’ve got to come to the briefing on time.QUESTION: Did you get asked about that this morning?MR PATEL: I spoke to that too. Come on, man.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today photos of pier in Gaza were published. My question: Will the Palestinian Authority, PA, be the one who will control this pier?MR PATEL: Sorry, you &#8212;QUESTION: The port.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Today I – there is photos of this port published. I wonder if the PA, the Palestinian Authority, will control this port in Gaza.MR PATEL: I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has a role in the maritime corridor, but I am happy to defer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department and USAID to speak to this process in a little bit more specificity.QUESTION: Don’t – just one – don’t you think this port will build over the Palestinian territories, and should Palestinian people have the authority over this port?MR PATEL: So broadly, when we are talking about the future of Gaza and the future of a two-state solution and ensuring that Gaza is no longer a launch pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, part of that for us, of course, includes a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority. But as it relates to this maritime corridor, I do not believe that they have a specific role. But that being said, my colleagues at the Pentagon and USAID may be in a better place to speak to some of the more logistical components of this.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I just wanted to ask about the Erez border crossing.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: It’s also reopening in the north weeks after POTUS’s call with Netanyahu. What should we read into the timing of this opening considering that Blinken is now there to request more aid, and also this ceasefire deal hangs in the balance?MR PATEL: I would not read anything into the timing of this beyond us just stressing, again, that all of these things need to happen as swiftly as possible. But we also fully understand that there may be steps that need to be taken in when factoring in vetting, safety, other things as it relates to crossings that are used for the inflow of aid. We are not naive to the fact that this is a process, but look, we have been clear that we need this to happen as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And I just want to touch on some of the other questions as well.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Was it the U.S.’s aim to try to beat the clock on a Rafah invasion by getting the ceasefire deal in place beforehand? And if so, have Netanyahu’s comments this morning altered that at all?MR PATEL: It’s not about beating any clock. We – if you go back and look at the history and trajectory of this conflict, there have been a number of instances in which we have been hoping, encouraging, working tirelessly for a deal that would release the hostages that we hope would be partnered with some kind of ceasefire. That has been our position for quite some time. And simultaneously, as it relates to Rafah, it has also been our position for quite some time that any kind of operation that does not address the sort of various components of humanitarian concern that we have would be unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Any comment on John Bass’ trip to Doha and Islamabad? Was the meeting with Taliban official in his schedule?MR PATEL: So, as you so noted, acting Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass is on travel to Doha and Islamabad. In Doha he’ll meet with senior Qatari officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and other shared security interests in the region, and in Islamabad we expect him to meet with senior Pakistani officials and discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as well.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Go ahead next. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know the State Department already talked about the Kurdistan Region’s local elections &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; some time ago, as it has been scheduled for June 10th. So now there’s a discussion that should be postponed for at least three months, so what’s your comment?MR PATEL: So we understand that President Barzani and various Iraqi authorities and other political parties are actively considering next steps. From our point of view, we would encourage them to schedule free, fair, and timely elections, and we hope that process takes place, but I don’t have anything to offer beyond that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on two separate topics.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: At the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, the President called on Putin to release RFE/RL journalist Alsu Kurmasheva. I was wondering if the State Department is following up her case into seeing whether she’s been – she can be identified as wrongfully detained.MR PATEL: So first, let me just say we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in the case of Alsu Kurmasheva, we remain deeply concerned about her detention in Russia. And to echo the President, we believe she should be released, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and other civil society actors.In terms of a wrongful detention designation, I’m just not going to get ahead of our process. There is a deliberative and fact-driven process underway. That process continues to be ongoing, and we constantly review circumstances surrounding detentions of U.S. nationals, so I don’t have anything to offer there.QUESTION: How often – can you tell us how often you may review cases?MR PATEL: I – we – I am not going to speak to the specifics of this process.QUESTION: Okay, another one on Burkina Faso.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Voice of America and BBC have been banned there. I was wondering if the State Department is doing anything in that regard.MR PATEL: So we are very alarmed that Burkina Faso’s Superior Council of Communication has suspended multiple independent outlets, including Voice of America and BBC, for covering the Human Rights Watch report about some recent massacres. You’ve heard the Secretary say, and including from this very podium, that far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, particularly against journalists and media organizations, for simply doing their jobs. Freedom of expression, particularly for media, is critical for accountable and transparent governance.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: You should allow more journalists as well, Mr. Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: I mean, one is – when you talk about free journalism, are you going to give a chance (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: You’re interrupting your colleague, Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: This is my third time and you have not given me a chance. Is this free journalism?MR PATEL: You’re – I’m happy to come to you – I’m happy to come to you after.QUESTION: Please.MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Can you please clear up – either validate or keep alive – some of the reports claiming that the U.S. has eased some of the sanctions on Russian banks, including central bank, to allow some energy-related operations? Why?MR PATEL: I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred. And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.QUESTION: So there is no shift at all in that policy?MR PATEL: There is no policy shift at all.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Poland, Poland today handed official request to United States to host nuclear weapons in Poland. Do you have any reaction?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment for you on that. I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that greater.QUESTION: Sure, thank you. And final topic on Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with both leaders over the weekend. Any reason to why he called this – any, like, intel or any concern did he want to convey? And separately on Azerbaijan and human rights, a portion of the discussion was about human rights, but hours after that call Azerbaijan arrested another civil society leader. So how much is it the reflection of functional relationship?MR PATEL: So first let me just say, Alex, it should come to no surprise to you that this is an area of the world that the Secretary himself is personally deeply engaged on. And over the course of his time as Secretary, he has had regular engagements at regular intervals with both of these countries. And our engagements with both of them are ongoing, and we continue to believe that a peace and – is possible here. And that’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.On the second question that you raised, we are deeply troubled by the continuing arrests of members of Azerbaijani civil society, most recently Anar Mammadli. And we urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Vedant, and thank you very much, State Department, for bearing with me these nine years. Just one question, and then if you’ll allow me, I’ll ask another question.How do you feel – when journalists here are friends with the same podium people from the U.S. since last two decades, and you guys – this administration since last two years – if a journalist doesn’t agree – agree with you, you just ignore them. I mean, this is the beauty of this newsroom. This is the beauty of this press room. Why you guys like – you guys not feel bad to be treating somebody like this? Like, what’s the reason?MR PATEL: I’m sorry. Who are we treating in what way?QUESTION: I’m talking about this gentleman right here. Since last two years &#8212;MR PATEL: Did something happen to you?QUESTION: Sir, I feel very ignored. I ask one question, and you pass me, you are &#8212;MR PATEL: First of all, it is never a guarantee that everyone gets a question every day. We try our best to get to everybody, but sometimes we’re dealing with the confines of time. And I will just say, Jalil, in my time up here and Matt’s time and Ned’s time, we have taken questions from you pretty regularly.QUESTION: I don’t agree. But anyway, thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: I just have a question about &#8212;MR PATEL: You just used your one question, so I’m going to move – I’m going to move on now. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir, I had a follow-up question on Kabul expansionism.MR PATEL: That’s fine.QUESTION: Under secretary is going there. The region has terrorism going on.MR PATEL: Then you should ask that question, Jalil.QUESTION: Half of the country is &#8212;MR PATEL: Then you should &#8212;QUESTION: Half of Afghanistan is under no education for girls. The under secretary is going. How do you feel talking to a nation where terrorism is once again growing up? Today in Kabul, six people were killed. Every week there is terrorism. Why is the under secretary holdings talks with the Taliban if the girls do not have education and what’s your interest there?MR PATEL: So let me just say a couple things. First, I will just – since you’ve gotten us way off topic, if you have a question, you should ask a question, not waste your colleagues’ time about other things.Secondly, I’m not aware of any travel to Afghanistan by any undersecretary, but let me just say that when it comes to our engagements with the Taliban, we engage when it is in the United States interest to do so. This is the best way to not just protect U.S. national interests but also support the Afghan people. Engagement allows us to speak directly with the Taliban, and it’s an opportunity for us to continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan including those who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. We’ll also use those opportunities to directly talk about the Taliban’s commitments to counterterrorism, and of course, as always, human rights is also on the agenda.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much.QUESTION: A quick one: Do you have anything on the talks between Türkiye and the U.S. – U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil? A Turkish energy minister said that they are interested in diversifying Türkiye’s national gas supplies. What is your comment on this? And was this a topic of discussion between the two countries?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any more specifics to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagement with Foreign Minister Fidan, but let me just say I’ve seen those public reports, and I’m not going to offer anything additional on potential commercial negotiations, but from our vantage point we would encourage any country to diversify its energy supply and curb dependence on Russian energy. And to just broaden the aperture a little bit, Türkiye has played a very important role as the host of the Southern Gas Corridor in helping diversify European energy supplies and European gas supplies away from dependence on Russia, and as the host of multiple LNG liquification facilities which have received a lot of American LNG since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine.QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Middle East?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Hamas and Fatah leaders meeting in Beijing at the invitation of China? What is your comment on dialogue between Hamas and Fatah?MR PATEL: So our message on this has been what it was since October 7th. If any country purports to have influence or relationships with Hamas, the message is quite clear: release every single hostage and it can no longer be business as usual. They should call on Hamas to lay down their arms, and that is the best and fastest way to get us where we need to be.Taka, go ahead.QUESTION: So the family of the Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea met State official this morning. Do you have any detail about the meeting? Who met the families? How do you describe the meeting?MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check if there’s any specific officials that we can share, but the U.S. stands with the long-suffering relatives of Japanese abductees, and we continue to urge the DPRK to right this historic wrong and provide full accounting of those that remain missing. And we don’t have any other meetings on this to announce at this time.QUESTION: Details?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check some more specifics but I don’t have anything for you at the – go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You talked about the Kurdistan Region’s election &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but I need a clarification on that. What do you mean when you say that you encourage them to schedule a free and fair election? Because it’s already been scheduled for June 10. Does the U.S. support rescheduling that election?MR PATEL: Our understanding is that President Barzani and various other authorities are actively considering next steps, and we will let that process play out before commenting further.QUESTION: Do you support rescheduling this election?MR PATEL: That’s not for us to decide. What we would encourage is for these elections to be scheduled and for them to be free, fair, and credible. But beyond that, our understanding is that President Barzani and various other entities are actively discussing additional next steps.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Pakistani ambassador in Washington, D.C., (inaudible) Masood Khan, recently talked about the importance of Pakistan-U.S. security cooperation and the need to bolster Pakistan’s defense capabilities due to regional challenges. Do you have any – something to tell us, what kind of strategy or initiative both of our countries are working on to enhance security cooperation?MR PATEL: Yeah. So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. And we support Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of its citizens in a manner that promotes the rule of law and protection of human rights. Our partnership with Pakistan on security issues includes, of course, a high-level counterterrorism dialogue, funding robust counterterrorism capacity, and building programs and supporting a series of U.S. and Pakistan military-to-military engagements.QUESTION: Sir, The Washington Post’s latest article revealed that Indian Prime Minister Modi inner circle, including spy chief Samant Goel and even the national security advisor, were aware of the assassination plot on a Sikh activist in New York. So how concerning is this for you?MR PATEL: So we continue to expect accountability from the Government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work, and we are regularly working with them and enquiring for additional updates. We’ll also continue to raise our concerns directly with the Indian Government at senior levels, but beyond that I’m not going to parse into this further and will defer to the Department of Justice.Julia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Sudan, I had a follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the UN Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s comments calling it a – the potential for a large-scale massacre. And she also said that the U.S. is appealing to countries, including the UAE, to stop support for the warring parties. Has any progress been made with the UAE and other countries, and what is the U.S. doing to try to prevent this catastrophe?MR PATEL: So to put it bluntly, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday, this – we certainly do not view this as conjecture, and we are seeing the possibility of history repeating itself in Darfur in the worst possible way. There are credible reports that the RSF and its allied militias have razed multiple villages west of El Fasher and are planning an imminent attack on El Fasher, putting 500,000 internally-displaced persons at risk on top of the 2 million Sudanese who call El Fasher home. We also know, as the ambassador said, that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts. And we’ve directly raised our concerns about reports of UAE support to the RSF with our Emirati partners, and we have made clear that the provision of arms to either side only deepens and prolongs the conflict.Go ahead, Daphne, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You said all – you said you’d take everybody’s questions.MR PATEL: That’s not what I said. I said I would get to as many people as I &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t even &#8212;MR PATEL: I said I’d get to as many as I can.QUESTION: That’s not what you said.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: The Philippines today said a coast guard ship and a fisheries vessel were damaged by water cannons used by Chinese coast guard ships. This comes right after Blinken’s trip to China. Do you have any comment on this, concerns?MR PATEL: So the repeated harassment of Philippine vessels near Scarborough Reef is detrimental to regional peace and stability, and our belief is that the Chinese coast guard installation of these barriers also endangers Philippine fisherfolk’s livelihoods and prevents them from exercising their legal rights to fish in those waters. These are rights that were set out in 2016 in a final and legally binding judgment in the Philippines-China arbitration brought to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and consistently – and this is something that the Secretary made clear on his travels as well – is that we urge the PRC to respect the navigational rights and freedoms guaranteed to all states under international law.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Burkina Faso																								China																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Japan																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Qatar																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								Sudan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 25, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024																																																					April 25, 2024																																																								1:19 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: How is everyone doing? I don’t have any comments at the top. Olivia, would you like to start us off?QUESTION: Sure. It’s lonely up here today.MR PATEL: I know.QUESTION: I’ll start you off with something &#8212;MR PATEL: Your colleagues in the wire services must be – like, there must be a great food truck out there or something, wherever they are. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I wanted to start with – so tomorrow will mark one week since Secretary Blinken said that he had made determinations regarding a review of potential Leahy Law violations by Israeli military units before October 7th. He said at the time that we would see the result in the coming days, and I’m just wondering if you have an update on the timing of such an announcement or unveiling.MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates for you on timing. What I can say – and you’ve heard me say this before – is that we take extensive steps to fully implement the Leahy Law for all countries that receive – that receive applicable U.S. assistance. That, of course, includes Israel, with whom we have a longstanding security relationship. The Leahy Law also has clear legal standards, and the department applies those to all countries.In terms of process, you saw the Secretary address this not just in Capri, but when he was here in the briefing room on Monday, that we will have more to share, I’m sure, in the time ahead, but I don’t have anything for you beyond that.QUESTION: Okay. When the National Security Advisor was asked yesterday about reports in the Israeli media that the U.S. may reverse course and not actually issue any punitive action in association with these determinations, he deferred to this building. So I wanted to present the question to you, and whether you have any response to those reports in Israeli media that the U.S. may not actually take punitive action.MR PATEL: Look, we – in any country in which we have a security relationship, we will apply the tenets of the Leahy Law fully. The law is pretty clear in terms of what those standards are, and those standards are applied across the board to every country in which we have a security relationship with. That will be the case anywhere where we find there to be action or activity that is in violation of the Leahy Law. I’m not going to speak specifically about any particular country, as that would be very much before the process, but we have every intention to fully enforce and implement this law where it is applicable.QUESTION: Okay. I have two questions on the region, and then one on Africa.MR PATEL: Why don’t you start with – stick with the region, and then we’ll work the room and then come back to other parts of the world.QUESTION: Sounds good.MR PATEL: I will get to you Said, just as I have done every day that I’ve been up here. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, which we understand was being reviewed by the FBI yesterday, I’m just wondering if you can say today whether that video was authenticated or any new information derived from that review.MR PATEL: I imagine the FBI is still undertaking their analysis and undertaking whatever steps that they – are involved with them, in close coordination with the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. What I will use this opportunity to do is just echo again that it is high time that every hostage be released. There has been a deal on the table that Hamas continues to move the goalposts for. And so we would stress the dire circumstance and the dire importance for this to be done, and to be done so immediately. The fact – going back to October 7th, we have been clear and clear-eyed about the fact that every hostage needs to be released.But on this specific video, this is deeply troubling, horrific, but I don’t have any other specifics on the circumstances around the video or the individual, beyond saying that Hersh should be home, he should be with his family, and he should be released.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: And the last one is on Rafah. And there’s this swirling commentary and developments, again, overseas as to whether something is imminent or not. I’m wondering whether you’ve gotten any clarity from Israeli officials about the plan, whether an actual plan for humanitarian or military operations has been presented; and if not, is there one on the books in the foreseeable future?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on our engagements, specific engagements with the Israeli Government. You saw last week the Strategic Consultative Group had a meeting with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and others. These conversations will continue to be ongoing. I – my understanding is that subject matter and technical experts will continue to have meetings at their level. But beyond that, we continue to not hesitate about being clear-eyed about any opposition that we have as it relates to a military operation in Rafah that does not address for the very serious humanitarian concerns that we have, that you’ve heard me talk about, you’ve heard Matt talk about, Ambassador Satterfield just the other day as well.QUESTION: Thank you. One more if – when you can.MR PATEL: Yeah. Nadia, go ahead.QUESTION: I want to ask you about a colleague of yours, Hala Rharrit, who was the most senior spokesperson in the region and a diplomat who served the State Department for 18 years in different places – Hong Kong, Yemen, South Africa. She resigned, and basically she said that she’s been calling the administration to restricting in arms to Israel. She’s resigning in protest about your policy towards Israel. And she warned of that this policy will endanger diplomats like herself and U.S. troops in the region; it’s against U.S. interests in the region.So what’s your message to somebody like her, and many in the State Department, that the normal channel that you give them to express their opposition and their views is not going anywhere? It’s basically they’re just allowing them to speak but there is no change of policy.MR PATEL: So let me say a couple of things there, Nadia. First and foremost, we’re talking about a personnel matter, so I’m not going to delve into the specifics.QUESTION: But this person, she’s an official.MR PATEL: We’re talking about a personnel matter, and so this is something that I’m not going to speak about specifically. I have seen the reports. On someone’s decision to remain working for the U.S. Government or not, that is ultimately &#8212;(Video plays in background.)MR PATEL: Do you want to turn that off, whoever’s got this briefing on speaker?QUESTION: Apologies.MR PATEL: Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I lost my train of thought.QUESTION: It’s okay, you can start again.MR PATEL: As it relates to this personnel matter, I’m not going to speak to the specifics. But look, firstly, we have been – there is a process, there are channels that we’ve spent a lot of time in this briefing room talking about for which our workforce can share their points of view when they disagree with a certain policy or a certain action that the U.S. Government is taking. You’ve heard us talk about the dissent channel; that option, that channel continues to be in place. The Secretary reads every single one of those dissent channel cables and dissenting viewpoints from across the administration. We continue to welcome them and we think that it helps lead to stronger, more robust policy making. And the Secretary wants to hear differing points of views. He believes it makes him a better, stronger leader of this department, and a better and stronger policy maker.Ultimately, anybody’s decision on whether they want to continue to be – remain employed somewhere or not, that is ultimately a decision for them to make. That’s not anything for us to speak to. That’s a very personal process.What I can say that when we’re talking about the region: We are very clear-eyed about our goals and what we want. We want to see the hostages released. We want to see a ceasefire that is coupled with the release of hostages and the influx of humanitarian aid to continue to help alleviate the ongoing crisis that is in Gaza. We also want to see Hamas defeated. We want to ensure that Gaza can no longer be a launching pad for terrorism against the Israeli people. All of these things we want to see happen, and we are working tirelessly day in, day out to achieve this goal.And lastly, I’ll just say, Nadia, when it comes to the safety and security of our diplomats, this Secretary has no higher priority than that, and that is factored into our decision making when it comes to any kind of foreign policy that we pursue, whether it be in the Middle East or whether it be in other corners of the world.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday the Israeli prime minister called for a crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters in the United States of America. Do you find this to be a gross, I mean, a galling interference in American affairs, especially from a leader of a country that had just received $26 billion of American taxpayer money? Do you find that to be annoying or in any way interfering in the affairs of the American public and criticizing their right to demonstrate?MR PATEL: Well, Said, I will leave it to the prime minister’s office to offer any clarification on his comments, but I don’t believe he called for a crackdown. Let me just say, though, that &#8212;QUESTION: He literally called for a – he literally called for a crackdown.MR PATEL: Let’s be – let’s be real about the facts, Said &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: &#8212; which is that in the aftermath of October 7th, we are very much seeing a surge in antisemitism across the world.QUESTION: Right. I’m not trying to &#8212;MR PATEL: And its tragedy demands action.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Beyond that, though, we of course support the right of anybody to peacefully protest, to demonstrate, to make their voices heard, to express themselves in a peaceful and nonviolent way.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: However, we also believe that harmful rhetoric – rhetoric whether it be rooted in antisemitism, Islamophobia – is incredibly problematic &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: &#8212; and needs to be condemned and called out against. But beyond that, as it relates to the individual policies that are being pursued in dealing with these demonstrations on individual college campuses, I would defer to the local jurisdictions to speak to that.QUESTION: I understand everything that you said, but I am asking you – there’s a foreign leader who’s saying that American law enforcement, including the National Guard, ought to crack down on Americans exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I’m asking you on this particular issue – not on October 7, not on all this that happened. I’m asking you: Do you find this to be appalling by a foreign leader in direct interference in the way Americans conduct themselves?MR PATEL: A leader can call on whatever they’d like, Said, but it’s – no one is naïve to the fact that utilization of the National Guard is ultimately a decision up to individual governors.QUESTION: I understand, but &#8212;MR PATEL: And so beyond that, the prime minister is welcome to make whatever comments he’d like. When it comes to what is happening in this country, we’re going to remain focused on that.And specifically on some of the spread of antisemitism that we’re seeing, this is something that this President takes incredibly seriously, and that’s why he has implemented the first-ever national strategy to combat antisemitism. Other kinds of harmful, hurtful rhetoric that we have been seeing as well in the aftermath of October 7th, rooted in Islamophobia, rooted in stigmatism around Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans – that is also equally problematic and needs to be condemned as well.QUESTION: Yes. I &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up &#8212;QUESTION: No, no. Hold it. Please, I am not done. I’m not done. I am not done.QUESTION: I wanted a quick follow-up.QUESTION: Hey, I’m not done. Please, I’m not done. I want to ask you – I understand. I understand the need to combat the despicable antisemitism and so on. I understand what the President is doing. I’m asking you: Do you reject the fact that a foreign leader is saying that the demonstrations ought to be put out – ought to be cracked down upon? That’s what I’m asking you. Do you reject that?MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, you reject people – I mean, you reject the U.S. Government cracking down on peaceful demonstrators, correct? Correct? You reject that?MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, this is part of what America is all about. I’m asking you, do you reject the interference of a foreign leader calling for the crackdown on full American citizens exercising their basic rights, their First Amendment right, to demonstrate? That’s what I’m asking you.MR PATEL: Look, the prime minister was commenting on something happening in this country.QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: I will say over the course of this &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not asking what the prime minister said. I’m asking you. You are here, representing the Government of the United States of America. And I’m asking you, you as an officer of this government, of this administration: Do you reject the interference of a foreign leader saying that you must crack down on Americans exercising their right to demonstrate? It’s a very simple question.MR PATEL: I wouldn’t equate that to interfering, Said. It is someone saying something. Ultimately, anybody who has a modicum of basic understanding of how the National Guard and how local law enforcement works, that ultimately – and since we’re talking about the National Guard, that that is a decision up to individual governments. Just like you all ask me about things that are happening in countries around the world &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; you ask the Secretary; you ask the President about events that are happening in countries around the world. We’re seeing leaders from around the world offer their comments on things that are happening in the United States. But when it comes to the actioning on those items, there are procedures in place. Ultimately these individual campuses can speak to what safety protocols that they have in place to ensure that students, faculty, and others are kept safe.What I am saying in a broad sense is that rhetoric that is rooted in antisemitism, rhetoric that is rooted in Islamophobia, rhetoric that is rooted in targeting individuals for – simply for just who they are is unacceptable. And we have seen that in some of these demonstrations. There is no doubting that fact either, Said.QUESTION: Right. Well &#8212;MR PATEL: Now I’ve taken a couple of questions on this. You’ve got a bunch of colleagues &#8212;QUESTION: No, I have a couple more questions. But I have one last comment. Don’t you feel offended by the fact that a foreign leader is trying to fan the flames against Palestinian Americans in this country? That’s exactly what he’s doing. You don’t feel offended by that?MR PATEL: Said, that is not how I would interpret the prime minister’s comments, and I defer you to his office to offer any clarification about what he said.QUESTION: Hold on. What about &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So on Monday, you released – a follow up on this – you released the human rights violations report, listing human rights violations in other countries, including violence against journalists, violations of like freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. But yesterday, in this country, at Texas University – we saw the footage circulated on social media showing violence against a journalist. There were also violence against protestors. Do you think that this undermines your human rights message in other parts of the world, in other countries?MR PATEL: So let’s just be pretty clear about what the Human Rights Report is and what it isn’t. It’s a congressionally mandated, statutorily required report that this department is required to put out on an assessment of human rights conditions set out around the world. It’s an assessment of the human rights conditions in other countries. There are a variety of other entities – please don’t interrupt me – there are a variety of other entities out there within this government whose job is to look at policies and procedures as they relate domestically. That is not the remit of this department.What I can say about the incident in Texas is that the administration is still learning more about these events. Of course, you’ve heard me say that peaceful protests are, of course, acceptable, and we fully appreciate and encourage Americans expressing their First Amendment rights and making their opinions heard in a peaceful, nonviolent way. But hate speech, violent rhetoric, including antisemitic or Islamophobic remarks targeting people for who they are is unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Do you think the U.S. should set an example to other countries when it is preparing Human Rights Reports every year?MR PATEL: We do not hold any country to a standard that we would not hold ourselves to. And that has – we feel that firmly and adamantly. And let me just say that we had this – iteration of this conversation a lot, dating back to October 7th. When it comes to the diplomacy that Secretary Blinken has been undertaking, having gone to the region now seven times, it is no surprise that there are countries and regional partners out there that might have a slightly different opinion on the policy that is being pursued as it relates to Gaza, that might have a different opinion on certain actions that the Government of Israel may or may not be taking. But in every single one of those countries, what they continue to stress to us is the indispensability of American engagement and American leadership. They want us at the table. They want us engaged. They want us part of the conversation when it comes to finding, determining a durable solution that’s going to bring greater peace and security into the region.Willy, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Appreciate it. Back to the protests, is this – you’re just a few blocks away from here of the consequences of what happens in this building, of the – of U.S. foreign policy are being played out on the campus of George Washington University. Is there a sense within this department that there is – some people are – and this might be perhaps too far a reach, but this is a Vietnam moment among this younger generation of Americans directly related to U.S. foreign policy. Is there any kind of influence that’s happening on these streets that’s – are their voices reaching the Secretary? Are they reaching people here inside this building?MR PATEL: Absolutely. When it comes to the voices within this workforce who may have dissenting or differing points of view, the Secretary is interested in that kind of feedback; he’s interested in their points of view. And I will just say that since October 7th, this department has engaged in a number of different ways with the various components of our workforce, with various components of our employee groups, for those who may be in the Foreign Service or Civil Service, including those who might be appointees. We have prioritized not just engaging with these various subsectors of our workforce, but also unlocking and showcasing and prioritizing resources that might be available for these various – for our workforce to help cope with and deal with what we all know and find to be a very deeply troubling and challenging time in the world.As it relates to what is happening on college campuses, of course, we see what’s happening there too. But we’re also not naïve to the fact that when it comes to any of the foreign policy that we pursue, a hundred percent of the population is not going to agree with what we’re trying to accomplish. But we are clear-eyed in the fact that what we’re trying to pursue is in the best interest for the American people, and it is in the best interest of the national security of the American people. The things that we’re talking about – the defeat of Hamas, a two-state solution, increased humanitarian aid, further regional peace and stability when it comes to the Middle East – all of these things are in the interest of the American people, and we are continuing to pursue those lines of efforts. That is why the Secretary has been going back and forth between the region, meeting with partners in other parts of the world to talk about these very challenging issues and how we are going to work collectively to find a solution. That’s what all of this is about.Go ahead, with the glasses.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: The Gaza civil service today held a press conference this morning, which was televised, and they said that evidence showed that many of those pulled out from the three mass graves that they found, including children, were tortured before being killed. Some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity that they accused Israeli forces of. They called for an independent forensic investigation. This administration repeatedly says that it asked Israel – the Israeli Government – to investigate itself.As a mediator for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, how does it ever make sense that the United States asked the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust? What’s wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation? I mean, if there – if the results of such an independent investigation prove the accusations to be baseless, then that would be in Israel’s favor, wouldn’t it?MR PATEL: So as it relates to the continued reporting about – we’re seeing about these mass graves, first, National Security Advisor Sullivan spoke a little bit about this yesterday, but we continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that’s why yesterday you saw the National Security Advisor call for this to be thoroughly investigated. We want to see these facts looked into. And simultaneously, we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. The IDF has spoken to this in some sense already, but we are continuing to press them for additional information.QUESTION: But why not have an independent, forensic scientific – which the Palestinians are calling for?MR PATEL: We think this does need to be thoroughly investigated, but in terms of the modality, we continue to want to see some additional information from the Government of Israel before we make other assessments.QUESTION: But you’re asking the accused to investigate itself.MR PATEL: We believe that through a thorough investigation, we can get some additional answers. We’re also hoping to continue to get more information from the Government of Israel on this.QUESTION: But to his &#8212;MR PATEL: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: On the humanitarian side of this subject, is there a vetted – a list of vetted NGOs that can deliver aid through the – via the Mediterranean route right now? And the reason I’m asking is because apparently the Freedom Flotilla was delayed for a few days over there, although apparently now they do have a date to deliver their aid, and it was said that the delay was due to U.S. and Israeli and also German pressure.MR PATEL: So first, when it comes to humanitarian partners in the region, there are a number of those that have been operating there already and have a full sense of the scope of the situation on the ground, whether it be bodies within the UN, World Food Program, et cetera. As it relates to the Freedom Flotilla, look, we welcome any country or any entity wanting to do more to help alleviate the suffering in Gaza. We just believe that this kind of assistance that is ultimately destined for Gaza, it needs to be transmitted through the legitimate crossings and established channels. That is the best way to ensure the safety and security of not just the aid but also the safety and security of the workers who are involved in the implementation of this delivery and ensuring that the aid gets to the places that it needs to go.Michael, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. First, I want to thank you and your staff for putting together a great Take Your Child to Work Day program this morning. It was really appreciated by a lot of people.MR PATEL: Our pleasure.QUESTION: And with your indulgence and as we discussed, I have a question for you and then we’ll have a second question from over here.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: My question is that yesterday, House Speaker Johnson said on a talk radio show that he had received an emailed written assurance from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan regarding an assurance that U.S. aid that had been passed by Congress in the supplemental would not be restricted from an Israeli battalion that is reportedly being considered for penalty under the Leahy Law. So my question to you is: Has there been any assurance by the White House that would restrict the terms of any Leahy Law finding that the department might reach about that particular unit?MR PATEL: Sure. So, first, I’m just not going to speak to the specifics about our correspondence with members of Congress and congressional leadership. What I can say about the Leahy Law and how it works is that it is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a particular country. What it is – when something is found to be in violation of the Leahy Law, what it is is a restriction of the provision of applicable U.S. assistance on that particular unit or component under the umbrella of that security apparatus. So whatever may or may not happen is not – does not have bearing on the longstanding security relationship we may have with that country. It would be – if we are to find a violation, it would be a restriction on a particular unit or component.I think your junior advisor might have a question.QUESTION: Thank you. Yeah, with the indulgence of my colleagues – Calvin, do you want to ask a question?QUESTION: I know we’re talking about Gaza right now, but what, like, kind of weapons – do they have like – does Ukraine have enough weapons to, like, defend themself for, like, right now?MR PATEL: That’s such a great question. That’s such a great question, and I’m so glad you asked that, Calvin. I think your dad missed the daily press briefing yesterday, but that’s all right – (laughter) – where we announced this, but we were really happy on the heels of &#8212;QUESTION: I was watching online, Vedant. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: I think we’re – we were really happy that on the heels of the national security supplemental that President Biden signed, that we were the same day able to announce $1 billion for Ukraine, additional security assistance that included arms, training, and other kinds of military assistance around – related to these drawdowns. Some examples of what were part of that package included Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and additional rounds, high-mobility artillery rocket systems, 105mm artillery rounds, and 60mm mortar rounds. All of these things, Calvin, are part of our longstanding effort that has been in place since February of 2022 to continue supporting our Ukrainian partners as they defend themselves against Russia’s incursion on their territorial integrity and sovereignty.Go ahead. Next – yeah. Yes, you.QUESTION: Thanks. On Georgia – so today, the European &#8212;MR PATEL: Oh, can we – I think we’ve got a couple requests to stay in the Middle East, and then we’ll come right &#8212;QUESTION: I have four more questions on Israel. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: All right – go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: On the Mideast, just two things I’m trying to get an answer for. One of the thing is this country prides itself on the First Amendment right, which is the freedom of expression, and in this – what we see now in this polarization and the protest movement in the universities – how can the State Department send a clear message that people have the right to protest peacefully and criticize Israel legitimately but not being labeled as antisemitic? Because this antisemitic things have been used loosely for anybody who criticize Israel, considering that most of – a large number of the demonstrators are Jewish. The Jewish voices for peace are demonstrating in universities, whether it’s in Columbia, in D.C., or elsewhere. So this is a message that have been used by lawmakers in Congress and also when – other people here, whether you hear it on TV or in American media. So how can you send a message to say that it is legitimate to criticize Israel, but it’s not, obviously, everybody condemn antisemitism or Islamophobia as it stands? This is – it’s not even open for question. This is we know – this is a message that’s been repeated over and over again. But how can you separate the two? That’s what I want to get to the bottom of.MR PATEL: Well, Nadia, we believe that the two issues are incredibly separate. Let me just say, though, that what you’re asking about is not totally or necessarily in the remit of the State Department. I certainly understand your question, and in answering yours and your colleagues’ questions about the demonstrations and protests that we’re seeing, I’m certainly not implying that any kind of criticism or critique of any kind of policy that a particular government is pursuing or not pursuing is equitable to antisemitism or Islamophobia or anything like that.But it is true also, Nadia, that as part of these demonstrations happening on various college campuses, happening in various places, we have seen rhetoric, language, commentary that is incendiary, that is offensive, that is rooted in antisemitism. And we’ve also seen things in the same place that is rooted in Islamophobia or the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans. That’s not hyperbole, that is – I needn’t point you any further than the public reporting of what we’re seeing at – as these demonstrations.It is totally fair and on the level for anybody to use their First Amendment rights to express their point of view peacefully on a particular foreign policy that the United States might be pursuing, that any government on the face of this planet might be pursuing. But it is also a moral imperative to ensure that in the midst of those demonstrations and in part of that process, charged, offensive language does not become part of that discourse.QUESTION: Sure. And finally, how can you avoid being accused of double standard if you condemn the Iranian regime for cracking down on peaceful demonstrators and you refuse to condemn another leader – in this case, a friend, an ally, Israel – who is calling on you to crack down on – the U.S. crack down on peaceful demonstrators?MR PATEL: Look, Nadia, again, as it relates to these calls for use of the National Guard, whether it be from a foreign leader or from others within the U.S. Government &#8212;QUESTION: Or the Speaker of the House.MR PATEL: &#8212; these are ultimate decisions for individual governors to make. It’s not really something that we would have a role in from the Executive Branch. Beyond that, as it relates to the National Guard, also I’m sure my colleagues at the Defense Department can speak to some of this specifically.I will also say that there is not any moral equivalency, Nadia, between what we see the Iranian regime do – they are one of the biggest abusers and perpetrators of violations of human rights going back decades – versus a foreign leader opining on things that may or may not be happening in a country, which is something I do from up here, the Secretary does, the President does, Matt does. All the spokespeople in this administration who speak on topics of foreign policy are asked about topics happening in other parts of the world.QUESTION: Can I follow up &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Sure. Sure.QUESTION: Okay. David Satterfield, Envoy David – in his last appearance warned that there is a strong possibility of famine in the north of Gaza. Yesterday Gian Carlo Cirri, the head of the WFP, he says we are six weeks away from famine. Are you aware of these reports, and what is the position of the United States in terms of having some sort of urgent plan to deal with this?MR PATEL: Well, Said, I’m pretty sure I’m aware of these reports because I was standing right there when David Satterfield said them.QUESTION: Right. Right.MR PATEL: You saw the ambassador speak pretty clearly about the positive steps that we are seeing on the humanitarian ecosystem, things that we believe are moving in the right direction – some gates opening up, some ports opening up, some additional flows of trucks. But I cannot stress this enough – and I’m sure if the ambassador was here with me, he would not – he would say the same thing – more needs to be done. Absolutely more needs to be done to avert this pending crisis in Gaza. We need more deconfliction mechanisms in place; we need aid entering at a higher rate. We need all of these things to happen, and we’ll continue to push our partners in Israel, we’ll continue to push other partners and other humanitarian actors to do so.I will also just use this opportunity that – to note that just this morning we announced Lisa Grande as our new special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues. She has more than three decades of experience on working on these kinds of challenging, large-scale, complex operations. She’s done so for the United Nations. She joins us just coming from the U.S. Institute of Peace. We’re very eager for her to get started immediately. I believe today was her first day, and I know she will continue to build on the foundation that Ambassador Satterfield and his team laid.QUESTION: Will she be contacting WFP on this very issue?MR PATEL: I have no doubt that she will be engaging directly and immediately with the variety of humanitarian partners that we work with on this.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. So a few months ago we were told that the United States is waiting for the internal investigation report by Indian Government on assassination attempt of Gurpatwant Singh Pannum New York. Now when this report is out, India admits the involvement of their agents in that assassination attempt, but we don’t have – we don’t see any trial or punishments. So what is your comment on this report, and how would you make Indian Government accountable of these crimes?MR PATEL: So I’m not aware of the report that you’re referencing. But look, we have – this is ultimately a Department of Justice matter, and I will defer to them and let them speak to this.QUESTION: Sir, Australian journalist says she is being pushed out of India. Avani Dias said that she had been denied a visa renewal for weeks because of her reporting on Sikh separatist movement. Do you have any comment on the free speech in India?MR PATEL: So look, the Government of India can speak to its own visa policy. That’s not something I’m going to opine on from here. Broadly, we have been clear with countries around the world the integral role that a free press plays in the fabric of democracy. That’s why we come up here and take questions regularly. But I will let the officials in India speak to the specific &#8212;QUESTION: So my last question, if you allow me.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Sir, after these sanctions on suppliers to Pakistan ballistic missile program, we can see some kind of tensions in both the countries. We have seen some, like, very harsh statements from Pakistani Government officials. Is there something going on between U.S. and Pakistan right now?MR PATEL: Absolutely not. You’ve heard me say this before: Pakistan continues to be one of our most important partners in the region. There continues to be a lot of cooperation that we have with the Government of Pakistan, especially in the security space, especially in the trade sector. Azi, I think it was you that asked about a week and a half ago about the finance minister who was here holding consultations with members of the State Department. This is a robust relationship and we’ll look to continue strengthening it.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple things for you on Russia and the region, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Before that on housekeeping. The department’s Global Engagement Center, its funding didn’t make it through the supplemental. What is the Secretary’s view on that? Are you guys trying to reauthorize it, or where’s the policy?MR PATEL: So the – first, the Global Engagement Center, my understanding is that it is another congressionally mandated entity of the State Department. They continue to do important work, especially in the face of combatting disinformation and misinformation in other parts of the world. As it relates to additional congressional engagements about funding levels for programs within the State Department, I just don’t – I don’t have that level of technical breakdown for you.QUESTION: Please take it for me if &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: And what level of concern on potential Russian attempts to disrupt European elections? We just recently had the Czech Republic uncovering Russian operation inside Czech Republic and targeting elections across Europe. Now elections are coming up. Any concern on your end?MR PATEL: This is something that we have engaged directly on with our partners in Europe on, particularly our partners in the EU, about being clear-eyed about when it comes to any kind of potential election interference from adversarial actors like the Russian Federation. I don’t have a specific assessment to offer for you, Alex, but this is something that both we and our partners in Europe have been engaged on directly.QUESTION: Thank you. Picking up off on Calvin’s question on supplemental &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure. Let me finish Alex, then I’ll come to you, and then we’ve probably got to wrap shortly after that. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Yeah, on supplemental that Calvin asked about.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Portion of it is about frozen assets, and you already probably have heard about Russian deputy foreign minister today threaten the United States by saying that if you follow through that law, then we’re going to shut down our embassy in Washington, D.C. If they want to leave, is it time for the U.S. to say “be my guest?”MR PATEL: I appreciate you giving that opportunity, Alex, but let me just say that when it comes to sovereign assets, these are things that we’re continuing to pursue through our partners in the G7. And we are assessing what options and avenues are feasibly possible in the various legal and judicial systems that exist in the various countries that make up our coalition, and I just don’t want to get ahead of the process. We’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Israel?MR PATEL: Georgia. Go ahead.QUESTION: Georgia. Thank you. Today the European Parliament voted to reject opening EU accession talks with Georgia while the Russian draft law is in place, and also urged the EU and all its partners to consider sanctions. As I have information, there is a serious discussion in Congress on how to react to the actions of the Georgian Government as well. Can you confirm that, or do you have any close and real serious discussion with the Congress on this matter?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to comment on any consultations on Congress. But look, we’ve spent a number of weeks now talking about this draft law, and I will echo what you’ve heard me say before: We find the contents of this legislation incredibly troubling. It is akin to the kinds of legislation that we see in the Kremlin and in other countries in the world who have a track record of cracking down on media organizations, cracking down on civil society actors, cracking down on nonprofits. We think that this kind of legislation is inconsistent with the EU’s own stated goals, which is something aspirationally Georgia itself has stated it’s interested in.QUESTION: Israel.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, thanks.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: How has the signing of the law yesterday, which included the TikTok measure, changed the Secretary and State Department officials’ conversations in China, or has it?MR PATEL: I would say it’s not. The – it’s not changed, because this has been a longstanding position of not just this President but also Secretary Blinken, the contents – or the specific legislative contours of that provision. We’ve been clear about the substance of our national security concerns, and I just want to reiterate: This is not about the American people using TikTok; it is about ownership of TikTok by the People’s Republic of China. And that is why we agreed with this call for divestment because it’s clear that we have to ensure that the data, the privacy of the American people is not owned by an adversarial actor that could potentially use it against us.But look, behavior and actions like this from the PRC have always been part of our conversations in our ongoing relationship with them, and I have no doubt that these things will continue to come up. But this has been a longstanding position for – you – I’m pretty sure you saw the President came out almost very quickly after this provision was first introduced, basically saying that he would sign this should it pass, which he obviously did.Yeah.QUESTION: And does the U.S. think that the PRC’s position or objections to the potential of banning an app somewhat – somewhat hypocritical?MR PATEL: I’m not going to opine on it or categorize it from here, but our view is that there’s some clear runway here on what TikTok is – should be able to do. It provides for 270 days for a qualified divestment with a potential extension for another 90. And as it relates to the PRC’s claims that they wouldn’t allow something like this to happen, we believe that it should and we believe that this divestment should move forward.Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Follow-up on this. As far as TikTok is concerned, India has banned already two years ago. Why it’s taking so long for the United States when everybody knows that this is a national security threat? And if anybody from the department have spoken with the Chinese Communist Party or Chinese leaders about this, and what’s behind – there’s a lobby or somebody is benefiting from this and that’s why they don’t care about the national security issues in the U.S.?MR PATEL: So I will leave it to our partners in India to speak to their own efforts, but what I can say about the United States is that legislation is not the only sort of safeguard measure that we have when it comes to protecting things like our privacy and cyber security. I will just say when it comes to government devices and government assets, there has been a longstanding policy of the inability to use TikTok on those kinds of devices to ensure safety in the cyber security and tech space. So there’s a number of things like that in place to make sure that we’re protected.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Second question, sir.MR PATEL: I’m going to – I’m going to work the room, right &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL:  &#8212; and then Olivia, and then we probably have to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: So there are reports that U.S. military personnel are expected to leave Chad in the coming days, possibly as soon as this weekend. Can you say whether there are any diplomatic efforts underway to stop that from happening? And then more broadly, is the department working at all on an urgent basis to quell what appears to be this swell of pro-Russian, anti-American sentiment coursing throughout significant counterterrorism partners like Chad?MR PATEL: Yeah, let me – let me address that in two parts. So first, our military deployments anywhere around the world, they operate at the invitation and with the support and partnership of host nations. U.S. forces in Chad have supported regional and international counterterrorism operations against violent extremism in the Sahel and the Lake Chad region for years now. We are in ongoing conversations with Chadian officials about our security partnership. Our understanding is that Chad is focused on preparing for its upcoming presidential elections on May 6th, and so we anticipate these consultations and the parameters and discussions around our security cooperation will continue and grow in the ensuing time after those presidential elections.And as it relates to your broader question, we have been clear that the U.S. has a deep commitment to expand our partnerships with – between the United States and African countries, African institutions, and the people of Africa. This was a key pillar of the African Leaders Summit that was held about a year and a half ago. One of the key things that we continue to remain focused on, especially in the West African and Sahel region, is the security partnership, a focus on counterterrorism, and again, our military deployments there are at the invitation and in the support and partnership of these host countries. And we’re going to remain focused on working with additional partners, seeking out additional partnerships, and doing what we can to focus on these issues of security as well as overcoming economic and other development challenges as well.QUESTION: Is there any redoubling or intensification of efforts just given recent developments?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific engagements to read out. What I can say is that Deputy Secretary Campbell I expect to travel to the region in the coming months, specifically in the context of Niger, to continue to have these kinds of conversations and to continue to strengthen our relationships there.All right. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Chad																								China																								Czech Republic																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund  HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund 				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund 																																		Media Note																														April 22, 2024																																							Secretary Blinken congratulates the winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative (GDI) Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund.&nbsp; This year’s winners have gone above and beyond and showcase innovative and impactful initiatives in support of White House, Congressional, and Department mandates, including Executive Orders 14008 and 14057 and the Federal Sustainability Plan.For over a decade, GDI has catalyzed climate solutions within the U.S. Department of State’s management and operations to help conserve natural and financial resources, build climate resilience, and showcase U.S. innovation.&nbsp; Every year, GDI honors teams and initiatives that exemplify sustainable principles and practices in operations and public engagement.&nbsp;Winners of the annual GDI Awards, including the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) sponsored Resilience Innovation Fund, were announced at the Department of State’s Earth Day event.&nbsp; Acting Chief Sustainability Officer Caroline D’Angelo, OBO Director William Moser, and the Office of Management Strategy and Solutions Director Danny Stoian participated in the awards ceremony highlighting the Department of State’s sustainability and climate action achievements.The GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability Performance recognizes achievements of groups or teams within posts, offices, and bureaus.&nbsp; The winners are selected by an intra-agency committee made up of representatives from the policy, functional, and regional bureaus, as well as senior leadership and former GDI winners.&nbsp; The People’s Choice Award winner is selected by a vote open to all Department of State employees; nominations consist of all the submissions for the GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability.Winners of the GDI Awards:U.S. Embassy Islamabad is the overseas winner of the 2024 GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability Performance. In 2023, U.S. Embassy Islamabad implemented initiatives to reduce energy use by 312,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy, saving $400,000 and reducing the Embassy’s annual carbon footprint by 250 tons.  The team replaced over 1,000 filters to increase the efficiency of the HVAC system, increased wastewater recycling by 6.57 million gallons, reduced gas consumption by 4 percent, reduced fertilizer use by 200 kilograms per year, replaced plastic take-out containers for recyclable aluminum at an average of 2,000 dishes per week, and planted a citrus grove to act as a carbon sink.  Additionally, U.S. Embassy Islamabad partnered with several organizations such as the U.S. National Parks Service and Duke University to host events focusing on conservation, wildlife protection, air quality improvement, and other relevant climate topics.  In the past year, sections across U.S. Embassy Islamabad contributed more than $150 million in foreign assistance to help mitigate the effects of climate change.  $72.8 million in grant financing were secured for USAID’s Recharge Pakistan Project to improve water systems and expand green infrastructure.U.S. Embassy Bogota is the runner-up for the 2024 GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability Performance. U.S. Embassy Bogota sponsored the Carrera Verde de Bogota (Bogota’s Green Race) and led multiple collaborative initiatives to generate buzz for the race.  This included a “launch event” where the DCM spoke in front of media outlets with other race sponsors and a partnership between the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the National Police to showcase how U.S. Embassy Bogota helps Colombia address environmental crimes related to wildlife and timber trafficking.  The race ultimately saw over 6,500 participants fund the planting of 20,000 trees in a preserve near Bogota.  U.S. Embassy Bogota also purchased six electric vehicles (EV), which entered the fleet at the end of 2023.U.S. Embassy New Delhi is the winner of the 2024 People’s Choice Award for Team Sustainability Performance. With over 1,200 of votes casted, U.S. Embassy New Delhi emerged as the employee favorite.  U.S. Embassy New Delhi’s Resource Conservation Unit (RCU) championed the on-compound waste management program in 2020 and has expanded it in the past year to include project work debris from residential make-ready and renovations.  By selling the recyclable material, U.S. Embassy New Delhi reduced the inhouse labor cost and time required for storage and transportation.  The program diverted the waste going into landfills and reduced the U.S. Embassy New Delhi trash disposal cost by 70 percent, saving over $40,000 every year.  This endeavor also generated over $300,000 in revenue for U.S. Embassy New Delhi with the sale of over 430 tons of material, which accounts for 10 percent of the total city waste produced in a year.  U.S. Embassy New Delhi found ways to save time, money, and carbon emissions by upgrading the primary crew transportation from a pick-up truck to EV motor bikes (scooters).  By investing in over a dozen EV scooters, FAC staff saved on commuting time and labor hours since motor pool drivers were not required.  To reduce the environmental impact, the FAC/RCU team installed a solar charging station for the EV scooters and golf carts. Now in its sixth year, the Resilience Innovation Fund, sponsored by OBO, provides up to $1 million for innovative projects at posts that advance the Department of State’s resilience and sustainability in its operations and facilities.&nbsp; This year, 16 U.S. embassies and consulates will receive funding for a wide array of projects, including the installation of residential insulation, EV charging stations, irrigation systems, rainwater harvesting systems, low power consumption light upgrades, bicycle storage, and flood fortifications.Winners of the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund:U.S. Embassy LilongweU.S. Embassy BernU.S. Embassy WindhoekU.S. Embassy BeijingU.S. Embassy La PazU.S. Embassy Dar Es SalaamU.S. Embassy SofiaU.S. Embassy IslamabadU.S. Embassy KigaliU.S. Embassy AstanaU.S. Embassy RomeU.S. Embassy BudapestU.S. Embassy Santo DomingoU.S. Embassy BridgetownU.S. Consulate MonterreyThe American Institute of TaiwanThe Greening Diplomacy Initiative is managed by the Office of Management Strategy and Solutions (M/SS).  For more information on the Department of State’s sustainability efforts, GDI, or M/SS, please contact stategdi@state.gov or visit Sustainability at the U.S. Department of State.						Tags																					Colombia																																Embassies and Consulates																																							Greening Diplomacy Initiative																															India																								Office of Management Strategy and Solutions																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations																								Pakistan
- Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices HomeOffice of the SpokespersonBriefings&#8230;Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices																																		Special Briefing																														April 22, 2024																																							AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Good afternoon to you all, and I express my thanks to Secretary Blinken and to Spokesperson Matt Miller for their great remarks and for the introduction.&nbsp; My name is Robert Gilchrist, Ambassador Robert Gilchrist, and I am the Senior Bureau Official in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.&nbsp; I am honored to be here with you all today to release the&nbsp;48th Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which was submitted to Congress earlier today. &nbsp;This congressionally mandated report, colloquially known as the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, has been a flagship effort of the DRL Bureau since 1977.&nbsp; It is completed only through the significant expertise and effort brought by the State Department’s dedicated public servants in U.S. missions abroad and in Washington, for which I and the Department of State are grateful.&nbsp; Human rights belong to everyone, and this report is one way we demonstrate our commitment to these universal rights.  &nbsp;Even though our human rights are universal, they are far from universally respected, and the United States recognizes that standing up for these rights is often dangerous.&nbsp; Human rights defenders and civil society leaders around the world often work at great personal risk to improve the lives of all.  That is especially the case for those whose work includes protecting women and girls; members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups; LGBTQI+; and persons with disabilities.&nbsp; Members of these groups – and those who press for the protection of human rights – are often targeted with threats and harassment, arrest, and violence. The brave individuals across the globe who risk their own life and freedom to champion the human rights and dignity of others deserve our deep thanks. &nbsp;In the nearly 50 years since the United States first rolled out the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, we have seen significant changes in respect for human rights around the world.&nbsp; There have been tragedies, but also triumphs.&nbsp; There have been times when U.S. leadership on human rights has been heralded, and times when it has been questioned.&nbsp; But as we look to the future, just a few months after the 75th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one thing is clear:&nbsp; U.S. global leadership in defense and support of human rights is as necessary as ever.&nbsp; This is not a responsibility we take lightly or for granted; we know leadership is earned.  The report – unparalleled by any government in its comprehensive approach to human rights worldwide – is one of the tools towards that end.&nbsp;The&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;does not seek to catalog every human rights abuse or violation throughout the year, nor does it reach legal conclusions.&nbsp; What it does, uniquely, is present for each country a credible, carefully vetted report that provides the world with a clear window into the human rights conditions in every corner of the globe. &nbsp;This objective reporting is more essential than ever in a world where we increasingly see facts smeared as lies, lies presented as facts, and information manipulated to disturbing ends by autocrats and other malign actors.&nbsp; By shining a light on the human rights conditions of our adversaries and our partners equally, and by lifting up the selfless efforts of human rights defenders and civil society groups working to improve respect for those rights, the United States is helping contribute to a world where those rights are better protected for everyone.&nbsp;Although the report documents human rights conditions in countries around the world, the Biden-Harris Administration has made clear that human rights must be safeguarded at home as well. &nbsp;The administration has emphasized since taking office in 2021 that U.S. credibility and standing on human rights internationally depend on how well we are living up to our own obligations and commitments to advance human rights domestically. &nbsp;So we speak of the need to protect and respect human rights for everyone – and when we say that, we mean everyone. &nbsp;At the conclusion of this briefing, the State Department’s website will have the&nbsp;2023 Human Rights Report&nbsp;available for the public.&nbsp; I very much appreciate your attendance today, and I am happy also to take a few questions. &nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Guita.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Hello, Guita Aryan from Voice of America.&nbsp; I have a question on Iran.&nbsp; The Islamic Republic of Iran has cracked down on women’s compulsory hijab since late March and on, and as of the day it attacked Israel, it has even intensified that crackdown.&nbsp; At the same time, there is legislation on Capitol Hill mandating that the administration sanction higher leadership officials – the supreme leader, the president.&nbsp;Now with this report, which this report is about last year 2023, and this year there is – I’m sure there’s a lot more you may have.&nbsp; Isn’t it not time to sanction the higher officials, and would you be able – should the legislation pass and become an act, it requires its – the first report within 90 days.&nbsp; Would you be able to fulfill that?&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I guess there are a few things to respond – in my response.&nbsp; First of all, with regard to any legislation, of course, the department remains committed to fully implementing every law that is passed by Congress.&nbsp; And so there is certainly a commitment by the department to fulfilling the law.As you pointed out, this report refers to 2023.&nbsp; However, in 2023, Iran’s dismal human rights record continued to deteriorate.&nbsp; The regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists.&nbsp; And as you pointed out, the situation with regard to women continued to deteriorate as well.&nbsp; Iranian women faced increased discrimination through expanded application of punishments against people who violated the mandatory dress code, as you pointed out, leading to protests and widespread acts of civil disobedience.&nbsp;And many women and human rights activists received additional prison sentences for their activism, and they remain behind bars.&nbsp; The authorities continue to detain, sentence, and execute people in an effort to suppress the peaceful protests that began after the Mahsa Jina Amini’s September 22 death while in custody of the morality police.&nbsp; So the United States also continues to work in multinational arena.&nbsp;With regard to sanctions, we have applied sanctions.&nbsp; With regard to any future sanctions, I can’t provide and I’m not going to speculate about what may happen in the future.&nbsp; But the department has already actively used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 riots.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Said.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; The last three reports have shown steadily declining human rights conditions for the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.&nbsp; I want to – and on all aspects.&nbsp; I want to ask you about one aspect, which is administrative detention.&nbsp; The Israelis have put in practice since 1967 something called administrative detention, where they arrest people without charges.&nbsp; They keep them in prison for months, years, sometimes decades, without ever charging them, including children.&nbsp; I want to ask you:&nbsp; Is that a violation of international human rights, in your view?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I’ll refer you to the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;in terms of what we say on that specific issue.&nbsp; With regard to Israel, again, we have been clear with Israel on the moral obligations and strategic imperative it has to protect civilians and the human rights of civilians.&nbsp; And in addition, we’ve been firm in stating that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law, investigate allegations of wrongdoing, including wrongful detentions, and ensure accountability.&nbsp; And that remains the U.S. commitment.QUESTION:&nbsp; So is it, in the view of the United States, that the administrative detention practiced by Israel – as practiced by Israel – are a violation of the international human rights?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I said with regard to the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports, the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports&nbsp;do not trigger any sanctions, do not provide any analysis, but rather provide an assessment of the facts on the ground as they are reported to our embassy.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Missy Ryan.QUESTION:&nbsp; Hi, Missy Ryan from&nbsp;The Washington Post.&nbsp; I wanted to ask you a little bit more about the assessment regarding Israel’s response to alleged human rights abuses by members of the government or the security forces.&nbsp; In the 2022 report, it says that the Israeli military and civilian justice systems have rarely found members of the security forces to have committed abuses, and then it says that some steps were taken.&nbsp; In the ‘23 report, it just says that some credible steps were taken to identify and punish.&nbsp; Is the U.S. assessment no longer that Israel rarely takes action against the security forces?&nbsp; Could you somehow provide &#8212;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think regarding that specific language &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; &#8212; I don’t have details with regard to that.&nbsp; But we can certainly get back to you with that.QUESTION:&nbsp; Could you give us some sort of assessment of the – to what extent – some steps were taken.&nbsp; To what extent were those steps taken?&nbsp; Was it occasionally?&nbsp; Do you feel like – how far did it go to what you feel like would be an adequate standard?&nbsp; If you could provide any context there.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think in the framework of the reports we don’t provide sort of a qualitative assessment of a particular situation or how things have evolved regarding that language.&nbsp; I can see if we have additional details I can provide you with it.&nbsp; I can say that, as I’ve said – as I just said, that we raise these issues with the Israeli Government continuously, and including at the highest levels, with the firm belief that Israel has a moral obligation and an imperative to protect civilians and the rights of individuals in Israel and the occupied territories.&nbsp; But I don’t have any further specifics with regard to that language.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Janne.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; On China, regarding the Chinese Government labor exploitation of North Korean defectors and their repatriation to North Korea, have you discussed this measure – I mean this matter with China, and what measures is the United States currently taking on this?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, as has been announced, the Secretary will soon be traveling to the PRC this week, and he will, as he does in all of his engagements with the PRC, raise human rights at the highest levels and in the clearest way.&nbsp; And that means with regard to the full array of concerns that we have with the PRC.&nbsp; I won’t go into details with regard to specific conversations, but of course this is an issue that remains of concern and is one that we raise with our Chinese counterparts.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Humeyra.QUESTION:&nbsp; Just one thing on the numbers that you’ve used.&nbsp; In this report you have more than 21,000 Palestinians.&nbsp; That’s obviously – I understand you had a cutoff at the end of the year 2023.&nbsp; What are those – what is the source for that number?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Our embassy and the U.S. Government used diverse sources.&nbsp; With regard to that specific source, that’s something we can get back to you.&nbsp; But we rely on – we rely on a range of sources for the information that we’re able to pull together for the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.QUESTION:&nbsp; And within those range of sources, do you use Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I – with regard to that specific number, I would say that we use a broad range of sources, including from local authorities, as well as from international organizations and NGOs.QUESTION:&nbsp; So it does include Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I can’t – I’m not saying that specifically.&nbsp; I’m providing a broader answer.QUESTION:&nbsp; You said local authorities, though.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; But I’m providing a broader assessment in terms of where the numbers come from for our&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; On Bangladesh – thank you for doing this – given the significant human rights abuse highlighted in your reports, including arbitrary killings, torture, and political imprisonment, particularly with reference to the case of former prime minister and leader of the opposition – as you mentioned, this is a political ploy to remove her from the political process.&nbsp; So how do you ensure these reports lead to tangible changes and that the regime responsible faces – face consequences for their extreme human rights violations?AMBASSADOR&nbsp;GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I think &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; And one more on India.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think ensuring anything will happen can be challenging.&nbsp; Certainly our hope with the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;is by shining a light on specific issues and specific human rights concerns, we’re able to help facilitate a change by governments and regimes in a positive direction.With regard to Bangladesh, we had the visa restriction policy that was announced in May 2023, implemented before the elections with the hope of reducing violence to deter actions that could undermine the democratic election process.&nbsp; I have nothing new to announce at this time, but as is our longstanding practice, we don’t often preview actions with regard to policy or with regard to visas.&nbsp; But we have repeatedly expressed concern about the efforts by the government to repress freedom of expression – including from members of the press – freedom of association, and other fundamental freedoms and human rights, and that remains a continued concern of the United States.QUESTION:&nbsp; So one more on India.&nbsp; Your report’s finding significant human rights issues, including credible reports of arbitrary unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings and the attack of the press.&nbsp; And you mentioned that the government took minimum – “minimal credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who may – ” – “who have committed human rights abuses.”&nbsp; I am quoting from your report.&nbsp;So what action you are taking to make the government accountable, as India is your very strategic partner of the United States?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; What I will say is the U.S. and India regularly consult at the highest levels on democracy and human rights issues.&nbsp; We strongly encourage, urge India to uphold its human rights obligations and commitments.&nbsp; We also regularly meet with civil society representatives, both in the U.S. and India, to hear their perspectives, and those sorts of perspectives inform the&nbsp;Human Rights Report.&nbsp; And we encourage the Government of India to consult and meet regularly with civil society organizations representing a diversity of people.&nbsp;So there are a number of steps.&nbsp; It remains a key component of our – not just our dialogue but in terms of our engagement with India.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Nadia?QUESTION:&nbsp; I just have a technical question, actually.&nbsp; Do you – when you said you have multiple sources of gathering information, do you rely on Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, especially B’Tselem?&nbsp; And does the embassy in Jerusalem have some kind of a final say on if – do they omit information, do they block certain information, or is the State Department basically the one who makes the final decision?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I would say, I mean, well, our embassy in Jerusalem is part of the State Department.&nbsp; So certainly the reports are pulled together in the field with information that’s compiled from our embassy but also in Washington, and in the end what this represents is the voice of the entire State Department.&nbsp; So – and it comes from a multitude of – we pull from a multitude of sources, including from within government and outside of government.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Alex.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thanks so much.&nbsp; Moving to South Caucasus, I have two questions.&nbsp; One is on Georgia.&nbsp; The report reflects last year Georgian Government’s attempt – failed attempt – to push a foreign agent law.&nbsp; Can you just put it in the context given the current events going on in the country?&nbsp; Why was it wrong back then, in your opinion, and why is it wrong right now?And second, on Azerbaijan, the Secretary last year spoke with President Aliyev and he raised human rights concerns in the country multiple times, but yet we see the report reflects 254 political prisoners in the country.&nbsp; Is it a reflection of the fact that you guys don’t have enough tools to move the needle?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Well, with regard to the foreign agents law in Georgia, the U.S. remains deeply concerned that, if enacted, this draft legislation would harm civil society and civil society organizations that are working to improve the lives of Georgian citizens, and will derail Georgia from its European path.&nbsp; We are equally concerned this draft legislation would impede independent media organizations working to provide access for Georgian citizens to high-quality information.&nbsp;With regard to Azerbaijan, the – we have significant concerns, as pointed out in the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, regarding credible reports of significant human rights abuses, including torture and other physical abuses, political prisoners, and a lack of independent judiciary.&nbsp; Further, law enforcement officials arrested an unprecedented number of people for having alleged links to Iran.&nbsp; The United States promotes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms when meeting with Azerbaijani officials at all levels, and through U.S. Government statements, statements of international organizations, and meetings with human rights advocates.For example, we continue to call publicly for the expeditious release of all unjustly detained political prisoners and detainees, including independent journalists, civil society activists, and government critics.&nbsp; We also employ social media – for example, the department’s Without Just Cause campaign to release unjustly detained political prisoners, including an Azerbaijani individual, until he was released during the year.&nbsp; So this remains, of course, something that we’re engaged on.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Okay, we’ll take one more in the back.QUESTION:&nbsp; Me?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, thank you very much for this opportunity.&nbsp; How do we describe human rights situation in Iran, especially in Kurdistan and Baluchistan regions, after Jina Amini’s revelations?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, let’s see.&nbsp; Well, thank you for your question.&nbsp; Well, I’ll say it bluntly:&nbsp; Iran’s dismal human rights record further deteriorated in 2023, as the regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists with intimidation, arrests, lengthy prison sentences, and used sexual violence and torture against prisoners and detainees.&nbsp; The Iranian regime, as I said earlier, expanded its discriminatory measures against women and increased its use of the death penalty, which was often applied after sham trials against defendants who lacked legal counsel.&nbsp; And this was disproportionately applied against members of the Baluchi and Kurdish ethnic minorities.&nbsp;The Iranian regime continued to project its repression abroad, intimidating, harassing, and silencing perceived dissidents beyond its border.&nbsp; The State Department used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iran’s authorities – Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We have taken action to restrict visas or impose sanctions on over 100 Iranian entities and individuals connected to human rights abuses, including the violent suppression of peaceful assembly.&nbsp;We provided support to help Iranians connect internet with anti-censorship tools, with 30 million Iranians used at the height – which they used this internet that we were able to help with at the height of the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We issued General License D-2, allowing U.S. companies to offer new internet services to Iranians.&nbsp; In the multilateral arena, the U.S. continued to support the fact-finding mission at the UN Human Rights Council that we helped stand up in November 2022.&nbsp; We were also instrumental in working with allies and partners to kick Iran off the UN Commission on the Status of Women.&nbsp;And regarding transnational repression, we worked across the U.S. Government to share information and coordinate action, collaborated with likeminded governments and international organizations, conducted outreach to affected individuals and communities, and raised TNR in international fora.&nbsp; So I would say we’ve been quite engaged.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Thank you, Ambassador.&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, thank you.						Tags																					Azerbaijan																								Bangladesh																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								China																								Georgia																																														Human Rights and Democracy																																							Human Rights Report																															India																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								West Bank
- Department Press Briefing – April 18, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 18, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 18, 2024																																																					April 18, 2024																																																								1:23 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: I do not have anything off the top, Matt, so if you would like to kick us off.QUESTION: Yeah. Before we get into what’s going on at the UN and then with Iran and this other kind of thing, can you clear up – either to kill or keep alive – these persistent reports that you guys have told the Israelis that you’re okay with them going ahead with the Rafah operation as long as they don’t attack Iran?MR PATEL: So we’ve been pretty clear, Matt, that any kind of operation into Rafah requires some pretty serious planning, because of the three main components that you’ve heard me, Matt, the Secretary outline pretty seriously before: first and foremost, of course, the more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; the region itself continuing to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid and an important conduit for the safe departure of foreign nationals. So any kind of operation into Rafah would require serious planning, and we would seriously oppose anything that is done without factoring in those various pieces when considering how to conduct a military operation into Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. That’s an excellent answer to a question that I don&#8217;t think I asked. I asked you whether or not the U.S. has told the Israelis that you’re okay with a Rafah operation as long as they limit or don’t attack Iran in response to what happened over the weekend.MR PATEL: So Matt, I don&#8217;t want to – the devil is in the details here. It would require what kind of operation into Rafah we’re talking about. If it is one that is reflective of these three very serious concerns that we have – I’m not going to preview or get into hypotheticals, but those are some serious areas of concerns that our continued engagement with our partners in Israel continues to be that when it comes to Rafah, these three things need to be addressed and you need to have a plan for them.QUESTION: Okay. Well &#8212;MR PATEL: And so that’s going to continue to be our message. And that is separate from our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and their self-defense and their ability to defend themselves.QUESTION: All right. So regardless of whether Israel does anything with – in response to the Iranian attack over the weekend, you still would oppose a Rafah operation, unless what you’ve just mentioned are – so why can’t you just say, no, that it is not true that you have &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not true. It’s not true. But I’m speaking – it’s not &#8212;QUESTION: Well, why couldn’t you have just said that at the beginning instead of going on for &#8212;MR PATEL: Because you’re – I am &#8212;QUESTION: I thought the question was pretty clear.MR PATEL: It wasn’t that clear. I’m trying to be specific. And I’m trying to be specific in response to your question.QUESTION: All right. And then as it relates to Rafah, this call today – is it over?MR PATEL: The White – our colleagues at the White House will have a readout later in the afternoon. I don&#8217;t have a sense on the status, but Admiral Kirby spoke briefly about this on Air Force One.QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: National Security Advisor Sullivan is going to be conducting this meeting happening today. We will have participants from the State Department tuned in and joined for that conversation. But I will leave it to colleagues at the White House to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. But as far as you know, the call is not over? Or has it even started?MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have a sense on timing.QUESTION: All right. Last one. At the UN right now, I think the Security Council is voting or about to vote on this Palestinian recognition resolution. How are you guys going to vote?MR PATEL: So Matt, since October 7th, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed. And it remains our view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in the report of the admission committee, there was not unanimity among the committee members as to whether the applicant met the criteria of membership set forth in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to whether the applicant can meet criteria to be considered as a state.And Matt, as you also know, we’ve long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas, which is – as you all know – a terrorist organization, is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution. And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution.QUESTION: Okay. Again, you buried the lead again.MR PATEL: As an expert of the UN, Matt, I will also just so note that, due to statutory requirements, such an admission of statehood would also require the United States to cease its funding to the United Nations. But the U.S. is committed to intensifying its engagement on this issue with the Palestinians and the rest of the region, not only to address the current crisis in Gaza, but to advance a political settlement here that we think can create a path to Palestinian statehood and membership in the United Nations.QUESTION: All right. And then you said the most – you believe, the U.S. believes that the most expeditious way to statehood is through direct negotiations. So just to make sure, I just kind of – I just googled “expeditious”: “Marked by or acting with prompt efficiency.” How many years has it been since Oslo?MR PATEL: It’s been &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t the most expeditious way to Palestinian statehood to have a – have some kind of an announcement or a determination by the UN? Unless you’re not &#8212;MR PATEL: We don’t think so.QUESTION: Unless you don’t really mean expeditious, because expeditious means fast.MR PATEL: We do mean expeditious, and we do not believe that the pathway through New York and the United Nations is the best path forward. And as I so noted, such action through the United Nations would statutorily require the United States to cease its funding to the UN. That’s certainly not something we’re interested in doing either.I take your point on the number of years it has been Oslo, but this is something that we will continue to pursue, because we so firmly believe that it is in – not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but it is a key tenet of establishing peace and security for the people of Israel as well.QUESTION: Thanks.MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, so what is the U.S. alternative and the expeditious path to two-state solution, then, if you guys have blocked this?MR PATEL: You’ve heard us talk about this pretty clearly, Humeyra. We’re continuing to press for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages, one that is coupled with the influx of additional humanitarian aid, and one that we hope can create additional conditions for broader diplomatic conversations that we think can lead to greater peace and stability in the region. This is a process. I will note that “expeditious” does not mean easy, but it is a process, and we’re going to &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but it does mean fast.MR PATEL: But it is one that we’re going to continue to work at.QUESTION: Right. But you see, you have – you’re pursuing this mega-deal in the Middle East, like Saudi-Israel normalization, and then tied to that is PA reform and the creation of a two-state solution, and let’s assume for a moment that all of that would go swimmingly. Netanyahu has to agree to that, and he has repeatedly rejected to the creation of a Palestinian statehood. So can you explain how your alternative approach is going to prevail, expeditiously or not?MR PATEL: Well, officials in Israel also know that further integration into the Middle East region can reap benefits for them and for the people of Israel, and so they recognize the work that is at hand and what is at stake. So we’re going to continue to work at this, and in every conversation with our partners in Israel and other partners in the region who share a convergence on this idea, we’ll continue to engage on this.QUESTION: One last thing on this.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, do you think that the creation – like, the path for a Palestinian state at the UN – U.S. would veto this regardless of the timing? If this would come up again in three months’ time, you would still veto it, or does it have anything to do with this particular moment in time?MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our actions on Security Council resolutions down the line or get into hypotheticals. I think that would be pretty irresponsible. Speaking in the context of the text and the iteration that was on the table today – but again, I would echo what we have said pretty consistently, is that we do not think that actions in New York, even if they are the most well-intentioned, are the best, appropriate path. We think the best path forward is direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, supported by the United States and other regional partners.QUESTION: And the final thing is on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So over the last couple of days, both you and Matt this week have talked about an improvement on the overall humanitarian aid picture from Gaza, but Guterres and other UN officials have been still talking about limited progress. They are giving pretty specific examples – for example, one is, like, Israeli authorities have cleared more aid convoys, but apparently those clearances are often granted when it’s too late in the day to make the deliveries and return safely. They don’t want their personnel to operate in darkness in a war zone littered with unexploded ordnance. So are you aware of these difficulties? Because it does sound like, while you guys are talking about improvement, on the ground that improvement doesn’t seem to be happening.MR PATEL: I’m not sure you caught the totality of Matt and mine’s briefings, because both of us were &#8212;QUESTION: How? I’ve been here.MR PATEL: I don’t know about that. Both of us have been incredibly clear on two fronts. There has been some measurable progress that we’ve seen when it comes to humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, but the circumstances within Gaza continue to be dire, and more absolutely needs to be done. The crisis that we’re seeing demands rapid expansion of these efforts. We are talking about making sure additional aid gets into Gaza, making sure additional steps and measures are taken towards deconfliction and appropriate humanitarian access. We’ll continue to work at these and push for these kinds of things, but we have talked about both of these issues, Humeyra, that we are seeing steps taken, steps that we believe are in the right direction, but both things can be true. We can see positive steps, but we can also feel sincerely and strongly that more absolutely needs to be done.And again – I talked a little bit about this yesterday – it’s why we’ve so unequivocally supported a multiplicity of modalities of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, whether it be land routes, whether it be air drops, whether it also be the maritime corridor that President Biden spoke about at the State of the Union as well.Go ahead. I’ll come to you after.QUESTION: So – thanks, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: To that point, Secretary Blinken and others said earlier this month if we don’t see changes that are – that we need to see, there will be changes in our policy. And this is referring to Israel and their operations in Gaza and not doing more for humanitarian aid. So should we expect any changes in policy? And if not, why not? How soon would we see those changes in policy if Israel doesn’t do more, as you said, at such a dire situation?And then also on – second question – on Rafah, we’re hearing from Israel that they have a plan; that it involves tents in central Gaza. They are trying to do more to address the civilian need there. Is that plan satisfactory to the U.S.?MR PATEL: Let me – let me answer the second first. I think we have been clear about this since October 7th, is that any kind of forced relocation or displacement of the Palestinian people within Gaza cannot and should not be part of any plan for an operation. That has been one of the principles that Secretary Blinken has been fairly clear about since the onset of October 7th.But dating back to your – going back to your first question, the Secretary and the President were very clear about – it was about a week and a half ago when the Secretary spoke to this in Brussels, is that we expect there to be changes, otherwise there will be changes when it comes to our policy within Gaza. Like I said, there have been measurable and important, positive steps in the right direction, but important work continues to be – needs to be done. Not just in the context of additional humanitarian aid, but also when we talk about deconfliction and the protection of civilians as well.So I don’t have a timeline or an assessment to preview on this, but the President and the Secretary spoke quite clearly – and this is something we’ll continue to be clear about with Israeli officials as well.Kylie, go ahead.QUESTION: Just sticking in the region &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Qatar said today – the prime minister said that they’re considering – what’s the exact phrasing here? Sorry. They’re considering basically pulling out of their role of mediating between Israel and Hamas, saying that they have been subject to political exploitation because of that role. What’s the U.S. response to that? Are you guys encouraging them to stay as mediators, or allowing them to walk away if they want to?MR PATEL: So ultimately I would refer to the Government of Qatar and let them speak to their own decisions. But let me just say that in our viewpoint, Qatar has been an indispensable mediator. When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza, the prime minister in specific has had an immeasurable role in the ongoing effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire, release hostages, safeguard civilians, and ensure the delivery of appropriate humanitarian aid.We also were very clear with our partners, including Qatar, that after October 7th it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas. But in terms of any decisions that the government makes, I will defer to them.QUESTION: But you’re saying that they’re indispensable in their role; it sounds like you don’t want them to walk away from &#8212;MR PATEL: This is a decision for – this is a decision for the Government of Qatar to make. I am simply speaking to the role that they have played thus far in the broader region. Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. And then ProPublica had a report out today that I wanted to ask you about, saying that the State Department – a panel – the Leahy Vetting Forum – recommended months ago that Blinken disqualify multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving U.S. aid after allegations that they committed serious human rights abuses. Is that accurate?MR PATEL: So the department takes the requirements under the Leahy Law very seriously, and we have taken extensive steps to implement the Leahy Law, and – for all countries in which this is applicable, not just Israel; all countries where this is applicable as it relates to U.S. assistance. Any Israeli security force that has been nominated as a potential recipient of U.S. assistance is subject to Leahy vetting via the normal process. There is a deliberative process in place; I am not going to get ahead of our process as it relates to these ongoing determinations and decisions. And I will just leave it at that.QUESTION: But typically – I mean, you don’t want to have to get into the specifics of this allegation, but can you just walk us through how long it would typically take for an allegation like this to be reviewed and then to be acted upon if it was presented in this forum?MR PATEL: So I don’t have a specific metric to offer, Kylie, but what we are talking about is a official policy and legal determination made on a specific unit or component of any particular state that is a recipient of a U.S. assistance. So these are processes that can take time, especially in ensuring that we’re reviewing all appropriate facts, we’re reviewing all appropriate details, and we’re also reviewing the various components exist that under the various tools that we have at our disposal. In this instance, we’re talking about Leahy, but there are, of course, other levers that we have as well. And these are deliberative processes, and we want to make sure that we’re doing the work appropriately. And so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Okay. But – so it would be normal for this process to take months, even if it could have impact on an ongoing crisis on the ground right now?MR PATEL: What I can say unequivocally is that units in Israel are subject to the normal vetting process that is consistent with the application of the Leahy Law. I’m – again, I’m not going to offer a metric on how long these processes take because various countries are different and various circumstances even within countries can be and are different. So I will just leave it at that.QUESTION: Iran. Iran.MR PATEL: I’m going to stick to the – I’m going to make – go – and I’ll come to you. Go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m not sure if you saw the – Iraqi prime minister’s comment about the Iranian attack to Israel. He denied if any drones or missiles were launched from the Iraqi territory during the Iranian attack. And the U.S. Government, including the President Biden statement, they said that there were attacks on Israel from Iraq. How did you get to that conclusion, and have you shared these facts with the Iraqi Government?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the details of our assessments from up here, but the vast majority of Iran’s attacks on Israel were launched from Iran. They were unprecedented and reckless, and we condemn them in the strongest terms. We agree with our partners in Iraq that it is critical to avoid regional escalation, and it’s something that we’re continuing to work on with our Iraqi partners. It’s also why we’ve urged the Iraqi Government to continue to take action against militants and weapons that are outside of their control. Over the past few days, the President and Secretary Blinken have had a number of consultations with partners in the region and around the world, and we’ll continue to push this engagement forward with world leaders on a way forward in the face of Iran’s destabilizing and malign behavior.QUESTION: And one more question. During the last few days, you met the Iraqi prime minister and Iraqi delegation from different levels. So the Iraqi is looking to get some sanctions relief from the U.S. Government, especially, they said we meet the requirements and we did some change and we removed some things from the banks and the companies. But as I learned from the Iraqi sources, that the U.S. has rejected their requests. Are you going to consider the Iraqi request to give them some sanction waivering or lifting some sanctions and removing some Iraqi banks or companies from the sanctions?MR PATEL: So I’m just going to defer to my colleagues at the Treasury Department to speak to information regarding specific sanction issues and any petitions that may or may not be in place for de-listing. Go ahead.QUESTION: So yesterday Israel attacked south Lebanon, specifically Hiram, along with 100 strikes, including phosphorous. And this is not the first time or second or tenth time; phosphorous has been used in Lebanon much more. And we know that this is like – it’s banned against civilians. So do you have any comment on that? Do you condemn that?MR PATEL: I’d refer to the IDF to speak to any particular operation that they are conducting.QUESTION: Have you seen these reports about the use of white phosphorous?MR PATEL: I – so I have seen the reports, but I will defer to our partners in the IDF to speak to specific operations. We have been incredibly clear with our partners in Israel and others about the need to avoid regional escalation as it continues to conduct operations in its self-defense.QUESTION: Yeah, but it has been used more and more. So do you condemn the use of that? And I have another question.MR PATEL: Again, I don’t have any specifics to offer as it relates to this report.QUESTION: Okay. One more question.MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: So the Jerusalem court ordered the eviction of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah on Monday. You always talk about a long-lasting peace in the region and a two-state solution. How do you see these evictions working towards a peace?MR PATEL: So I’m not familiar with the specifics as it relates to this circumstance, but broadly we have been very clear that these are the kinds of actions that we think incite tensions and cause escalation and further take us away from the two-state solution that we started this daily press briefing talking about. But again, I don’t have the specifics on this case to comment specifically.Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Assistant Secretary, Mr. Donald Lu and Elizabeth Horst met with the Pakistani finance minister. Could you share some details? And what kind of support Pakistan is asking from U.S. in terms of investments in economic growth?MR PATEL: So I will let the Government of Pakistan speak to any issues or topics that they may have raised in their engagement. But to take a step back, the minister of finance is in the United States for a part of a series of engagements with – not just within the U.S. Government interagency, but also engaging in – with non-governmental organizations. And he met with senior State Department officials here. During the meetings from our end, we encouraged Pakistan to prioritize and expand economic reforms, to address its own economic challenges.QUESTION: The Saudi foreign minister was in Pakistan and now Iranian president coming to Islamabad next week, and the leadership of all these countries – Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – are calling for a ceasefire and agreed for joint efforts to bring peace in the region. How you see these trips of Iranian and Saudi relationship with Pakistan and their joint efforts for the peace in the region?MR PATEL: Well, to – first let’s just talk about Iran in that context. I’m pretty confident in saying that unleashing hundreds and hundreds of UAVs and ballistic missiles on Israel is certainly not any kind of action that is actually in the interest and in the – for the benefit of the Palestinian people.But look, as it relates to any visits that other foreign ministers or leaders might have, I will let their governments comment on that specifically. Broadly, we are – continue to remain focused on de-escalation. And as it relates specifically to the crisis in Gaza, we have continued to call for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages and the additional serious influx of humanitarian aid.QUESTION: But what would you say about the joint efforts of these other countries, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia?MR PATEL: I will let them speak to any joint efforts that they might have. I think it’s – from our vantage point, we remain fairly skeptical about Iran’s intentions given its continued and ongoing destabilizing and malign behavior as recently as just this past weekend.QUESTION: In the region?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Wait, sorry, what? Did you want to &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m going to a new topic.MR PATEL: Okay. All right. Go ahead.QUESTION: Let me ask on Georgia.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: Your statements are becoming more and more pointed and clear towards the Georgian officials. If I may ask you one more, clearly, do you – I mean, partners – have a feeling that today the Georgian Government is acting in favor of Russia’s interests in Georgia?MR PATEL: Well, if you’re talking about specific legislation – and let’s just talk about the foreign agents draft law for a moment – our viewpoint is that similar legislation has been used by the Kremlin and elsewhere to stigmatize and repress civil society organizations, media organizations, and so such kind of legislative activity, it’s not appropriate if your intended goal is to foster transparency.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Jalil, and then I’ll come to you, Michele. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Patel. Only two questions. As my friend mentioned, the Iranian president is coming to Pakistan. Yesterday a former Pakistan intelligence very popular officer, Major Amir, on a TV interview stated that in the ‘80s they had report that Israel was going to attack Pakistan nuclear weapons. Finance minister is here, as you mentioned. Imran Khan is in jail because when the Ukraine war started he – the day he was there in Ukraine. In all this scenario, what’s your, like – and the finance minister is asking for money here. Do you see Pakistan with any independent policy or do you have any suggestions for them what kind of route they should take?MR PATEL: So first let me just say Pakistan continues to be an important partner in a number of areas. Particularly, it’s a country we have an immense security cooperation with, and we of course are looking to continue to collaborate and work with the Government of Pakistan. As I said to your colleague, they were – the finance minister was here to participate in a number of meetings, not just across the interagency but with NGOs and other outside groups. And from the State Department’s perspective, during our engagements with them we encouraged them to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges.QUESTION: One more, sir.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Yesterday Pakistan’s largest political party, the PTI, one of its parliamentarians said that Pakistan has given bases to the U.S. I have been a journalist 25 years; I do not know whether they have. At the same time, we have this river in Pakistan which is called the Justice Cleansing River where people go and they get corrupt, and then when they come out they get cleansed.Former prime minister who was convicted for corruption charges yesterday got cleansed in that river, so now he’s a clean guy. I’m just trying to understand that – a little senior journalist is confused about the whole situation in the region where you have corrupt rulers coming to power, finance minister begging for financial institutes’ help. Do you see these sort of leader – and state institutions fighting with each other, by the way. Just last &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, Jalil, do you have a question?QUESTION: So are you satisfied that such leadership will make the kind of decisions which are in the interest of the U.S. who are corrupt leaders, basically?MR PATEL: Our partnership with Pakistan – our partnership with any government and with Pakistan – is rooted in what is of course in the interest of the American people and the people of Pakistan, and governments that are committed to working for the people of Pakistan. That’s always been the case.QUESTION: And &#8212;MR PATEL: Michele, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. I’d like to follow up on the decision yesterday on Venezuela.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the U.S. at all worried about the impact of these sanctions on the migration crisis? And secondly, what kind of incentive now do you have? What’s the incentive for Maduro to get back on a transition to democracy?MR PATEL: So first, as it relates to any concerns about migration, I think important to take a step back that in any places where we have sanctions restrictions or export controls, things like that, there is always a space and a carve-out for appropriate humanitarian products and goods – things like food, medicine, water, et cetera. But beyond that, I will just say broadly, of course, the United States is always going to enforce its immigration laws, but any additional steps or preparation that is happening, should that even be the case, I will defer to my colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security to speak about.But on the broader political context, Michele, full implementation of the Barbados Agreement, in our viewpoint, offers the best path to restore democracy that Venezuelans deserve. We think it will help improve economic and humanitarian conditions, and also address the migration crisis. We welcome that Maduro representatives have invited participation of international election observer missions. But we also call on the Maduro representatives to grant those missions the access and other requirements that they need to effectively perform their work.We’re going to continue to support Venezuelans’ aspirations for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous Venezuela, while remaining fully committed to working with all parties interested in competitive elections. We’re also going to continue to coordinate with regional and international partners in support of this Barbados Agreement that we continue to think is key to get Venezuela on a democratic, stable, and prosperous path.QUESTION: And have there – has there been any follow-up with the Venezuelans, with the Maduro government since this decision yesterday by Treasury?MR PATEL: So there was – the White House spoke a little bit about this earlier in the month, but U.S. officials met with Maduro representatives in Mexico City on April 9th to express our concern about Venezuela’s electoral process and the path that it was on. But I’m not – I don’t have any additional updates to offer.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have my own questions, but before that let me quickly press you on Georgia. You just said a good statement, but it – starting the – it still reflects your reaction, not action. I mean, you do recognize that the draft law is Kremlin-inspired. There are some 80-odd parliamentarians who have already voted for that. Where is the beef? Where is the sanction or any action that would discourage the rest from voting for it?MR PATEL: Alex, I spoke pretty forcefully about this yesterday. We continue to remain deeply troubled by this draft law and its passage in the first reading, particularly the way that it targets and stigmatizes civil society organizations and media organizations. We think that they are cornerstones of any democratic system. We are closely monitoring the situation, particularly closely monitoring the protests. And we call on all parties to respect freedom and peaceful assembly, and exercise restraint and avoid any escalatory or violent actions and respect the rule of law.QUESTION: But can you – with due respect, can you imagine any of these Russian parliamentarians who voted for this draft law being able to travel to the United States?MR PATEL: Alex, I’m just not going to speculate on hypotheticals. As it relates to Russia, I believe what I said was that we have seen similar kinds of legislation be used by the Kremlin – not just the Kremlin, but other repressive governments – to stigmatize and systematically repress civil society and media organizations. We don’t think that this kind of legislation is in line with the stated goal of fostering transparency.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Alsu Kurmasheva &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; a Radio Free Europe reporter arrested in Russia six months ago today. Can you update us on where you’re standing in terms of designating her arrest as wrongful? Have you advanced at all?MR PATEL: So we are deeply concerned about Alsu Kurmasheva’s detention, and we are looking closely at her case. We continue to press directly for consular access to Alsu, but I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how we designate wrongful detentions or compare different cases.QUESTION: I mean, imagine being deprived of your basic rights for six months, not being able to talk to your daughters, in jail, not having – there’s poor conditions; she spoke about that herself last month. Should her mistreatment itself be good enough to move forward with her designation? We are talking about an American citizen, Vedant.MR PATEL: So Alex, first of all, in any detention circumstance in – around the world in any country when it happens, whether it is wrongful or not, we are quite clear that those who are detained need to be treated with respect, dignity, and consistent with appropriate humanitarian law. That being said, on the issue of Alsu, we are continuing to look at her case and we’re continuing to press for consular access to her. But I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how these cases are determined. Obviously, to say just broadly, journalism is most certainly not a crime, and certainly no one should be imprisoned for just doing their job.QUESTION: Let me have one more, if I may.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room, Alex, because you’ve gotten, like, three already.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So concerning the issue of the Chinese-owned ByteDance being forced to divest from TikTok, can you share any communications or strategies that the U.S. has been in contact with the Chinese regime, especially in light of this divestiture?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yesterday, Chinese foreign ministry said they welcome Secretary Blinken’s visit to China. I wonder if you can confirm his visit to China next week.MR PATEL: I don’t have any dates or specific travel to preview. Obviously, when President Biden spoke to President Xi a number of weeks ago, they spoke about continued high-level engagement and diplomacy between both sides. You saw Secretary Yellen conduct her trip. And as we said previously, we expect Secretary Blinken to visit again very soon.QUESTION: And as you mentioned, there was a summit and a few high-level exchange between U.S. and China. Do you feel there is more – the groundwork is more solid than he visited China last time?MR PATEL: Well, it’s important to remember that what we are talking about is follow-on visits, diplomacy, actions from the historic summit in San Francisco, or Woodside, rather, in which you saw a number of steps be taken in coordination between our two countries, specifically around mil-mil communication as well as steps being taken to address the fentanyl crisis. So I have no doubt that these are the kinds of things that we are going to continue to press and raise directly with the PRC in the event of any potential forthcoming travel.QUESTION: And lastly, last week during his call with Wang Yi, was it mainly on Middle East? Did they talk other subjects?MR PATEL: I don’t have any other specifics to read out about the call. When it happened, and as Matt spoke about, the primary purpose was to raise with the PRC on any influence it may have with the Iranian regime to not take further actions that we would be viewing as destabilizing or malign.Go ahead, Sam.QUESTION: India (inaudible).QUESTION: China (inaudible).MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Biden has recently said, and he’s said many times in the last year or so, quote, “Were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe.” Isn’t that both false and antithetical to the First Amendment? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whoever, are safe in the United States because of the First Amendment, because of the nature of U.S. society. How can this administration stand behind a remark like that, particularly about a foreign power that itself stands accused of not only genocide but being an apartheid regime? Isn’t that statement – were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe – antithetical to the First Amendment and false?MR PATEL: I don’t have – I’m not sure which – these comments from the President you’re referring to, but I have no issue or reason with the way that those – with how – with what the President said. And I think what we are talking about historically since the founding of the state of Israel as a Jewish state is, I’m sure, what the President was referring to. Of course, we have freedoms within our own country under the First Amendment, but I don’t have anything else to offer on that beyond that.Goyal.QUESTION: Well, I mean, he’s said this several times. It wasn’t a one-off. He said it when he met Netanyahu at the UN, I think last July or August, and he’s said it since then. I think he said it once he arrived in Israel.MR PATEL: It’s &#8212;QUESTION: But it says “in the world.” Jews are safe in the United States and have been safe in the United States way before Israel existed; isn’t that correct?MR PATEL: That is true, but you’re also – I think your comments are essentially forgetting to take into account the deeply troubling and horrific history that the &#8212;QUESTION: Excuse me? Excuse me?MR PATEL: I’m talking about this in the context of the historical.QUESTION: My comments are doing what?MR PATEL: I’m not – Sam, what I am saying is that you are – you are taking the President’s comments out of context, and when it is clear he is speaking about it in a historical context given the very horrific and troubling and terrible history that there has been of the Holocaust.QUESTION: He said it over and over again.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead. Go ahead, Goyal.QUESTION: Two questions on India, sir, please.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. For the last over 75 years India has been conducting largest democratic open elections, and tomorrow India will make another history by going the largest democratic and largest elections on the globe from starting tomorrow through June 1st, and over 600 million Indians will choose a new government in the second week of June. My question is here now that is U.S. sending any observers or any delegation for this election, and what comments do you have on this largest democracy and largest election on the globe?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the United States sending any observers. We generally don’t in the case of advanced democracies like in the case of India. We, of course, are eager to continue to deepen and strengthen our cooperation with our partners in India, and we’re just going to let the election play out. I don’t have any assessment or comment to offer on that.QUESTION: And second question, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: We have so many conflicts going on around the globe and we have UN, we have NATO, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi is very famous among global leaders and they listen to him. Even in the Middle East he’s very famous. My question is that how U.S. or the global community can use his influence to end this war, sir, bring peace in those conflict nations.MR PATEL: Well, Goyal, specifically in the first – in the context of Russia-Ukraine, if any country is interested in using its voice to further deter Russian aggression on the people of Ukraine, we certainly would welcome that. And in the current ongoing context in Gaza, any country that believes that they can play a positive role in helping us get to a release of hostages, helping us get additional humanitarian assistance into Gaza, helping to defeat Hamas, they certainly should and are welcome to play that role.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you so much. A couple of questions. First, as you know Iran’s Foreign Minister Abdollahian is in New York now. So I would like to know which kind of restrictions have been issued on his activities in particular, whether there was any message exchanged between the U.S. and him or his team regarding the latest conflict in the region. And then I have another question.MR PATEL: Okay. So the United States has imposed additional travel restrictions on the delegation of Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who is in New York for meetings at the UN. This restriction permits the delegation to move only within a two-block radius of the UN Headquarter district, between the UN and the Iranian mission to the UN, and the residence of the Iranian permanent representative to the UN and to John F. Kennedy International Airport. We take our obligations as hosts of the UN seriously, along with our continued concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities and support for terrorism.QUESTION: Any message exchange?MR PATEL: We have appropriate ways to send messages to the Iranian regime, and we will continue to be clear to them about the fact for the need to further de-escalate and for them to cease their reckless and destabilizing behavior.QUESTION: Yeah. Another question, sorry.MR PATEL: You just got two questions. Anything else? If not &#8212;QUESTION: A very quick question.MR PATEL: All right. You can do one more, then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Appreciate it, sir.MR PATEL: And then Matt’s got some.QUESTION: So you mentioned about the security cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. So lately there are reports that apparently Pakistan allowed the U.S. to use some military bases inside Pakistan’s territory to launch perhaps some airstrikes against terrorist groups in Afghanistan. There are some reports. I would like to know whether it’s confirmed or not.MR PATEL: I’ll let me colleagues at the Department of Defense speak to any military cooperation that might exist.Matt.QUESTION: So in response to that, the second to last question there, you said that you have imposed additional travel restrictions on the Iranian delegation, the foreign minister and his delegation.MR PATEL: Yep.QUESTION: Yeah. Basically, you’re – you’ve reimposed the Trump administration sanctions, right?MR PATEL: Matt, I can’t &#8212;QUESTION: The ones that you guys lifted and denied that you ever lifted any sanctions against Iran, right? The ones that you lifted back in February or March of 2021?MR PATEL: Are we back into the debate of whether travel restrictions are sanctions or not?QUESTION: Well, yeah. But I want to know, I mean, does this mean that those are in place for good? Or is it just this one time?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate or get ahead of potential further visits. These restrictions are in place for this visit. And as you know, Matt, as the host country, we have at our disposal to add or alleviate any of the parameters that are in place and as it relates to their movement.QUESTION: Okay. And then given that everyone has seen video of him walking off the plane at JFK and speaking at the UN today, are you at least prepared to say that you granted him a visa or you didn’t rescind a visa that he already had?MR PATEL: Well, Matt, I think it’s safe &#8212;QUESTION: Because visa records are confidential.MR PATEL: Visa record are, indeed, confidential.QUESTION: But he didn’t get arrested; he didn’t get detained at the airport. He hasn’t been detained now. So why can you not just say &#8212;MR PATEL: Visa &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; we gave him a visa or we allowed him to keep his existing visa?MR PATEL: Visa records are, indeed, confidential. But I think it’s safe to assume he’s not here by magic.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR PATEL: So &#8212;QUESTION: By magic? No, I don&#8217;t think so.MR PATEL: Thank you, everybody.QUESTION: Hold on. Wait, wait, wait.MR PATEL: No. You have more? (Laughter.)QUESTION: I have one more.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: One more. And that is: Did you ever – did – were you able to find out from L or anyone else if there’s any place in the world that the Geneva Conventions do not – that you do not believe the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: I – to my knowledge, I cannot think of a region or a jurisdiction where we don’t, Matt. Our long viewpoint is that the principles reflected in the Geneva Convention – that those are principles that should be complied with.QUESTION: Everywhere?MR PATEL: Everywhere.QUESTION: So it applies in Gaza?MR PATEL: It – we have said that it’s up to both Israel and Hamas to comply with the international law, including the principles that we believe are laid out in the Geneva Conventions.QUESTION: So is Israel the occupying power in Gaza?MR PATEL: That is not what we believe to be the case. But we have long said it is important that both Israel and Hamas comply with international law, including humanitarian law that’s reflected in the Geneva Convention.QUESTION: So Israel is exempt from &#8212;MR PATEL: All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; the obligations of being an occupying power in Gaza?MR PATEL: Thanks, all.(The briefing was concluded at 2:11 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Venezuela