United States Department of State

Department Press Briefing – May 25, 2023

1:21 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy almost-holiday weekend. I don’t have any opening comments, so let’s jump right in.

Matt.

QUESTION: I don’t either, or questions. I might later, but not right now, so I’ll defer to my colleague.

MR MILLER: Okay. Anyone else?

QUESTION: I’ll shoot, yeah.

MR MILLER: Yes.

QUESTION: Sudan. I know you don’t preview sanctions, as you’ll often say, but are we edging any closer to sanctions in Sudan given the situation that, three days into the new ceasefire, there’s no ceasefire, still no access for the humanitarian corridors? What’s the next step?

MR MILLER: Why don’t I speak to that, first give you an update on what we’ve seen on the ground as a way of answering your question, which I will answer. So the ceasefire monitoring mechanism that we put in place with the agreement that was signed over the weekend detected possible breaches of the agreement on May 24th. These included observed use of artillery and military aircraft and drones, credible reports of airstrikes, sustained fighting in the heart of the Khartoum industrial area, as well as clashes in Zalingei in Central Darfur. So we have continued to see violations of the ceasefire.

We have continued private engagement with both sides through the Ceasefire Monitoring and Coordination Committee. We are monitoring the conflict, including compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. We are, number one, pressing parties on alleged violations, but as we have said and as the Secretary said in a statement that we released earlier this week, we retain our sanctions authority and, if appropriate, we will not hesitate to use that authority.

QUESTION: But you’re not ready to do it now?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to make any announcements from the podium, but we do have that authority and will use it if and when it’s appropriate to do so.

QUESTION: Because it seems that the generals really – a lot of analysts have said this – don’t have really any incentive to stop the fighting, and each one thinks it can win. So this ceasefire – I mean, how – on and off, and more off than on – how long is that going to last before you ramp up the rhetoric and potentially sanctions?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to preview any sanctions activities from here, but you’re right in that we have seen violations of the ceasefire. We along with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reiterate our commitment to the Sudanese people. We demand that the parties fully abide by their commitments. We do not believe – and we have made clear to both generals – that there is not a military solution to this conflict. We will continue to both engage with them privately to press them on the situation, we’ll engage with our partners in the region, and, as I said, we will not hesitate to use all of the tools available to us to hold them accountable if necessary.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. So you sort of are not making announcements about breaches of the ceasefire. Is this the – this is now the mechanism or the channel that the ceasefire monitoring mechanism will speak through?

MR MILLER: Not necessarily. We may have further announcements to talk – I don’t want to say that I – I am – the international monitoring mechanism, of course, is comprised of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and both parties, so I don’t speak for all the parties for the monitoring mechanism, but this is the conclusion of the United States based on what we’ve seen in the past several days.

QUESTION: And you call the —

MR MILLER: The monitoring mechanism may have eventual statements to make —

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: — or other statements to make, I should say.

QUESTION: And you’re calling them possible breaches if you – if the U.S. confirms that these are breaches and confirms that a particular side is in breach of the ceasefire agreements, what happens next?

MR MILLER: So we will make public statements about it to call attention to it. We will press both sides to the conflict. We will engage with our partners in the region. And if necessary, we will take further actions to hold them accountable.

Yeah.

QUESTION: How concerned is the U.S. about the Chinese state-sponsored hacking group Volt Typhoon’s recent cyber-attack targeting U.S. infrastructure? Does the U.S. believe that despite going after communication systems in Guam that Taiwan is the real target?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to the last part. What I will say is that we are aware of recent activity by a People’s Republic of China-sponsored cyber actor to develop a presence in digital networks across the U.S. critical infrastructure sector. The U.S. Government and close allies have released a joint cyber security advisory to help defenders identify and mitigate any such activity on their networks. And the U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that China almost certainly is capable of launching cyber-attacks that could disrupt critical infrastructure services within the United States, including against oil and gas pipelines and rail systems.

It’s vital for government network defenders and the public to stay vigilant. It’s why the U.S. Government, in a whole-of-government action, has worked with the private sector to prepare for defenses and we – prepare private sector defenses. And we will continue to work with our allies and partners to address this critical issue.

Yeah.

QUESTION: May I follow up on my colleague?

MR MILLER: Of course.

QUESTION: How do you think, if at all, this could affect the resumption of commercial and trade talks at the very high level of Secretary Raimondo and USTR Katherine Tai leading to the international talks in Detroit this weekend?

MR MILLER: So I will say that we have always believed that the United States should have the ability to engage with China on issues where we believe we ought to work together as well as raise concerns that we have with actions by the PRC. So we will – we, in fact, think it’s important to have these conversations with the Chinese Government so we can raise directly our concerns that we also raise publicly. So the timing and tempo and participants of those talks – we continue to not have any announcements other than the ones that you referenced that are taking place today and tomorrow, but we do intend to use our conversations with the Chinese Government to press on areas where we have concerns.

QUESTION: And are you at all concerned about some of the negative comments from the new ambassador when he arrived at New York for his posting here in D.C.?

MR MILLER: No, I would say that we understand. We obviously see comments from Chinese Government officials directed at various actions taken by the United States, both from the new ambassador and from other government officials. We understand their need to make those comments, but we look forward to engaging with the new ambassador as we engage with other Chinese Government officials.

QUESTION: Do you think that his presence in the talks on the commercial side here could lead to rescheduling visits, including the Secretary of State, Secretary Raimondo, Secretary Yellen to Beijing?

MR MILLER: We believe expanded diplomatic communication between the United States and China is always important. That, of course, at one level is with the new ambassador to the United States, but we – the Secretary does look forward to rescheduling that trip when conditions allow. We think it’s important for talks to take place at a number of levels between the United States Government and the PRC, not just from the State Department but from the Treasury Department and others. But for the timing and tempo of those talks, who may have the next meeting and when it will occur and where it will occur continue to be issues that we are working through, and I don’t have any further announcements.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, the United Arab Emirates has become a key trade hub for Russian gold since the West imposed sanctions on Moscow. The records show that the UAE imported 75.7 tons of Russian gold and China and Türkiye were the next biggest destinations after the UAE. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MILLER: I have seen those reports. I don’t have any specific comment on it. With respect to the sanctions questions, I’d refer you to the Treasury Department.

QUESTION: One more on Iran: They tested a ballistic missile today with the potential of 2,000-kilometer range. Any reaction to that?

MR MILLER: Sure. So we are aware of those reports. We’ve seen them, obviously. As we have made clear, Iran’s development and proliferation of ballistic missiles poses a serious threat to regional and international security and remains a significant nonproliferation challenge. We continue to use a variety of nonproliferation tools, including sanctions, to counter the further advancement of Iran’s ballistic missile program and its ability to proliferate missiles and related technology to others.

I would say that despite the restrictions on Iran’s missile-related activities under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, Iran continues to seek a range of missile technologies from foreign suppliers and to conduct ballistic missile tests in defiance of the resolution. And as we’ve said before, an Iran with a nuclear weapon would likely act even more provocatively, and that’s why we are so committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Guita. Yeah.

QUESTION: On Iran, Matt. Thank you. On the JCPOA, today the Iranian foreign minister said that messages – indirect messages have been exchanged during the past few weeks. And when he says indirect, that – he means the United States. He says that there’s been good progress and – so can you confirm that there have been messages exchanged in this regard?

MR MILLER: So I would say that we’re not going to respond to purported leaks of diplomatic conversations or rumors about diplomatic conversations, many of which have been false in the past and continue to be false. But that said, we have always said that we maintain the ability to communicate with Iran and deliver messages to them when it is in the United States best interest to do so. We’re never going to detail the contents or the – of those messages or the means of their delivery, but we do continue to believe that diplomacy is the best way to verifiably and durably ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: Is the comment today by the foreign – Iranian foreign minister another false one?

MR MILLER: As I said, we’re not going to comment on every purported rumor, every purported conversation other than to say what I just said, which is we do have the ability to send messages to Iran when it’s in the best interests of the United States.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. You have also said in the past that now you are not focused on JCPOA due to protests and Iran’s violating human rights inside the country. Is that period gone?

MR MILLER: I will say that we continue to believe that diplomacy is the best way, as I just said, to verifiably and durably ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, and it is a priority of this administration to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. We’re going to – we believe diplomacy is the best way to accomplish that, but I don’t have any further conversations to announce.

QUESTION: Let me ask it a different way. Has there been any change since earlier this year? I mean, you had a clear position.

MR MILLER: Is there what?

QUESTION: Has there been any change on this front since earlier this year? You had pretty much clear position on this earlier this year.

MR MILLER: No.

QUESTION: No, okay. May I move to Russia and Belarus, if I may?

MR MILLER: Sure.

QUESTION: Does the department have a position on the latest agreement between Russia and Belarus on nuclear – moving tactical nukes, and have you seen any evidence that it’s being materialized?

MR MILLER: I won’t speak to any evidence or assessments that we might have. I would say that we strongly condemn the arrangement. It’s the latest example of irresponsible behavior that we have seen from Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine over a year ago. As we have made clear, the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in this conflict would be met with severe consequences. But in response to this report, I will just add we have seen no reason to adjust our strategic nuclear posture or any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thanks. Liam Cosgrove with Epoch Times. So this was a couple weeks ago, but I haven’t seen an official statement on it. A U.S. citizen who is residing in Ukraine has been arrested and that he was a California-born man; he was in the past like a business insider contributor, and he had a YouTube channel. He was an outspoken critic of Zelenskyy’s regime. The Ukrainian SBU released a press release saying he was arrested for justifying Putin’s invasion. So ultimately, it added up to speech. And I spoke with Congressman Ted Lieu, a Democrat, and he said he urges the State Department to engage its authorities to work out some sort of negotiation to get him released. So are you guys aware of this? How do we feel about our allies detaining U.S. citizens for speech abroad?

MR MILLER: So I will say in general that we’re aware of the report. We obviously support the exercise of freedom of speech anywhere in the world, and I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: So you guys aren’t working to get him released?

MR MILLER: I’m going to leave my comments where I just left them.

Kylie.

QUESTION: Just kind of pivoting to the broader conversation in Washington surrounding the debt ceiling negotiations, can you bring us up to speed as to if there’s anything going on in this building to prepare for if the U.S. does default on its debt?

MR MILLER: So I will say that I think it is best for me on questions regarding the debt ceiling to defer to the White House. And with regards to any planning for a possible default, that it would be best to direct those questions to OMB.

QUESTION: So OMB would make decisions that would have implications for this building if that were to happen? It would —

MR MILLER: I would say I would direct you for any questions about how the U.S. might be – how the U.S. Government might be positioning itself for a possible default, any kind of details about that I would direct you to OMB.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just I would like to follow up on Russia and Belarus agreement on deploying tactical nuclear weapon. Do you think if it could breach NPT or not?

MR MILLER: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Do you think if it could breach Nonproliferation Treaty?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any further assessment. We’ve just seen the announcement today, so I – we have not had the opportunity to make a full assessment at this time.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And do you have any comments on reports that Rick Waters is stepping down as deputy assistant for China – secretary of China?

MR MILLER: I do. So I’ll say Rick Waters, as was reported yesterday, will rotate out of leadership of China House and the Office of Taiwan Coordination on June 23rd as part of the department’s normal summer transition process. As I said in a statement yesterday, the Secretary values Rich Waters’ leadership in standing up to China House and the busy two years of work he did to stand it up and improve the department’s coordination on this issue. And we, of course, wish him best of luck in his next position within the department.

QUESTION: Can I just —

QUESTION: Sorry. Standing up to China House?

MR MILLER: Standing up China House. If I said “standing up to” that was an added syllable.

QUESTION: Yeah. He wasn’t like actively trying to —

MR MILLER: I don’t believe he was standing up to himself, no. I meant to say standing up China House. He was the first leader. Thank you for flagging that.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? I mean, we have Rick Waters who’s going to be leaving pretty soon, Wendy Sherman who’s also leaving pretty soon. Can you just discuss who in this department is going to step up and kind of be the leading diplomatic voices shaping the Biden administration’s foreign policy vis-à-vis China, given how influential these two people have been to that policy at this point?

MR MILLER: So I will say that Secretary Blinken is responsible for the department’s strategy as it relates to China and for the execution of the strategy, and he will continue to lead that. Obviously, we will have, at some point, a new nominee for deputy secretary of state who will be involved as well, as well as a new leader of China House. But ultimately, the responsibility is with the Secretary, and he will continue to engage. As you know, he has been very engaged on this question, spoken to it publicly a number of times and will continue to do so.

QUESTION: Do you expect the person to replace Rick Waters to be a career or – a diplomat or someone from the outside?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make at this time about who it will be.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of Bangladesh that you have made a very clear and loud message for the people of Bangladesh. The reason I said “loud and clear,” before you made this announcement from this room, Honorable Secretary of State tweeted, and after you made the announcement, Assistant Secretary Donald Lu also appeared in Bangladesh, a very popular talk show, and he made it very clear that – what you have said and where you stand.

So as you also stated, that it’s for – it’s responsibility for everyone, for the government, opposition, and everyone else. So would you urge the opposition also take part to the upcoming election, which we are expecting probably end of this year or probably beginning of the next year?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what any political party within Bangladesh should or should not do. I will say that the United States’ interest in this question is in support of free and fair and peaceful elections. That’s why we announced the new policy that we did yesterday.

I will say that we were heartened by the announcement from the government yesterday that welcomed the steps that we took. We believe that democracy is the most enduring means to advance peace, prosperity, and security. It’s why we made the announcement today, and we look forward to working with the Bangladeshi Government going forward.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So it seem like that the Russian prime minister arrived at Beijing and meet Xi Jinping there. What is, like, a U.S. view this event? And is there any concern that, like, China and Russia are getting lot closer?

MR MILLER: I’m sorry. Would you mind repeating the question?

QUESTION: Oh, yeah. Sure. So Russian prime minister arrive at Beijing and meet Xi Jinping there. And then what’s the U.S. views this event? And is there any concern China and Russia are getting closer?

MR MILLER: Let me take the question and get you an answer.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Back on Ukraine for a minute. The U.S. has talked this week about starting training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s we’ve sold to other countries that have F-16s to get those to Ukraine in the future. Just to clarify, is the administration’s position on sending American F-16s to Ukraine specifically – has that changed, or is that still not in the cards for the time being?

MR MILLER: So as the President made clear when he made this announcement over the weekend, the first step of the announcement is to start training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s. But then we are going to work with our allies and partners about the provision of those planes, and no decisions have been made yet about where the F-16s would come from. As you know, not just the United States but a number of our allies and partners also have F-16s that they fly, and we’re going to work with them to ensure the delivery of those planes. But we do not yet have any announcements on either the timing or which country – the timing of those deliveries or which countries will be making the deliveries.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you speak to the timing of possibly why this change has come about to open this up? Obviously, Ukraine’s been asking for F-16s for quite a while. And we’ve seen this pattern happen with Patriot systems, with tanks, this pattern of saying we’re not sending Ukraine certain weapon systems and then eventually, months if not a year after Ukraine asked for them, finally switching and deciding to do so. Is there a reason that now is the time you guys are seeing fit to do this?

MR MILLER: There is, actually. So I will say that we have been engaged with our Ukrainian counterparts since before this conflict began about the best security assistance that we could deliver them at the time that they needed. Obviously, the type of security assistance that we have provided them has changed as the nature of the conflict has changed. In the last few months, as Ukraine has prepared for its counteroffensive, we have been delivering them the weapons systems that we deemed, in conversations with our Ukrainian counterparts, were most useful for prosecuting that offensive. And to get them ready for the offensive, we have worked with them to make sure that we could surge equipment into the country, so they were prepared to execute that military operation.

At the same time, we have begun to have discussions with the Ukrainian military and Ukrainian leaders about how best to position Ukraine so it has a strong and durable military presence to defend and deter Russian aggression for the long term, so not just with relation to this upcoming counteroffensive but so that it can continue to defend itself for years to come. And so as part of that conversation, which Secretary Austin has led with defense ministers from other countries and that Secretary Blinken has also been involved in, we have looked at what are the next – what are the next set of capabilities that we can provide them, not just for the conflict that they’re in right now but to defend themselves in the future.

Yeah. Someone who hasn’t – let me go to someone that hasn’t gotten one. Go ahead. If you want to follow – we’ll follow up, and then I’ll come to you.

QUESTION: Ambassador Hogan was on the Hill early this week and he was asked about the U.S. aid and – to Ukraine, whether or not it is meant to help Ukraine to achieve its ‘99 demarked borders, and he said yes. By the way, I appreciate the statement. I just want to give you a chance to expand on that, what that —

MR MILLER: It was to —

QUESTION: To – Ambassador Hogan.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: He was in front of House Foreign Affairs Committee, and he said yes, aid is meant to help Ukraine to achieve its ‘99 demarked borders. Just want to give you a chance to expand on that.

MR MILLER: We believe that Ukraine has the ability and has the right, and we support Ukraine defending its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. That includes the parts of Ukraine that Russia has illegally captured and occupied since its invasion in February of last year. It also includes Crimea, and we’ve made that clear.

I promised.

QUESTION: Yeah. This is a follow-up on the F-16s.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So the most significant amount of them are held in the Middle East. I’m wondering if we’ve had any conversations with Israel, Egypt, UAE, about potentially supplying them to Ukraine.

MR MILLER: We’re going to keep the contents of those conversations private. It is a priority for us to work with our allies and partners around the world to ensure the delivery of those F-16s, but as to where – what country specifically they would come from, we’re working through the details now and I don’t yet have any announcements.

Michel, and then I’ll come back.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the talks with the Syrian regime regarding Austin Tice?

MR MILLER: I don’t, other than to say that we continue to call for the release and return of Austin Tice. It is a priority for us, one that we have worked with our partners in the region on and one that we have pressed continuously over the years, and we will continue to do that. But I don’t have any updates.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just wanted to ask you about the claims that U.S. military equipment have been used in the incursion by groups on the Ukraine-Russia border. And I know officials across the administration have said they’re looking into it, they don’t have any definitive answer yet. But does the lack of definitive answer raise any red flags about tracking gear in Ukraine?

MR MILLER: No, I think it raises the fact that we are looking into it and haven’t yet reached a conclusion. So, no.

QUESTION: South Caucasus?

MR MILLER: Go.

QUESTION: It’s my turn. Thank you. I’m sure you know that Türkiye and now the Hungary are against Sweden joining NATO. As I understand, because of that, the Swedish Government has contemplated now to change the objective of joining NATO from the July summit in Vilnius to the NATO conference in Washington next April. What is your comment on the block of Sweden from these two NATO countries that, as we understand, at the same time, they cooperate with Putin and Russia? And second, what are you going to do to avoid the possibility from Sweden to withdraw its interest to join NATO?

MR MILLER: So I will say that we continue to strongly support Sweden’s accession to NATO. It’s a move that we have continued to discuss with our Allies in NATO. We think it’s important that Sweden be able to join the Alliance as soon as possible. We continue to believe that will happen, and it’s – we continue to press it with our Allies in the – with our Allies inside NATO. And I don’t have any further updates on timing, but it is a high priority for us.

QUESTION: Can I follow up? Is it okay with you for these two NATO countries to cooperate at the same time with Russia?

MR MILLER: We believe that – I’m – oh, I’m sorry, with – say that again. I thought you were asking about Sweden.

QUESTION: I’m – yeah, I’m asking, is it okay with the United States for these two NATO Allies, Türkiye and Hungary, to cooperate at the same time and put obstacles to NATO – to cooperate with Russia, I mean? Is it okay with you?

MR MILLER: I will say that Hungary and Türkiye are both important NATO Allies of the United States who have been with us in the Alliance to hold Russia accountable, and we are heartened by their efforts, and I don’t have any further comment than that.

Somebody had – oh, yeah, it was Alex. Yeah.

QUESTION: South Caucasus. I have a couple of questions, if you don’t mind. Just wondering if you have any —

MR MILLER: On? A couple questions on what?

QUESTION: On the South Caucasus.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: If you have any update for me on the Karabakh talks that are going on in Moscow. Now that the U.S. is not in the room, just curious if you have your eyes on the ball, just to make sure nobody drops the ball.

MR MILLER: We’re not in the room, as you noted, but this continues to be a priority for us. As you know, the Secretary welcomed the two sides here in Washington several weeks ago. We understand that talks continued after that in Brussels, and we support the talks continuing. As we’ve said, we believe that an agreement is in reach, and we continue to press the two parties to work together to reach an agreement on the issues that remain outstanding.

QUESTION: Is Secretary planning to meet with the sides while he is going to be visiting?

MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what’s that?

QUESTION: Is the Secretary planning to meet with the sides in the coming days or weeks?

MR MILLER: The Secretary did just meet with them several weeks ago. He will continue to stay engaged. But I don’t have any further meetings or announcements to make.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Azerbaijan, today marks one day – exactly one year since the President nominated his ambassador, Ambassador Libby, to Azerbaijan. While some surrounding countries – Georgia, even the pariah country of Putin – got their ambassador approved within days, weeks, ambassador nominee to Azerbaijan hasn’t even received a hearing. I’m just wondering what are the criterias, and if State is doing anything in the background to expedite the process?

MR MILLER: Well, I will say we support the swift confirmation of all of our nominees, and if you have any further questions about it, you should probably direct them to Capitol Hill.

One more question and then I’m going to – go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Taiwan, WHO announced its decision not to invite Taiwan to its annual meeting, WHA. And before that decision, Secretary Blinken released statement urging WHO to invite Taiwan. So how would you evaluate this stance, WHO’s decision? And I’m also wondering if State Department has or will deliver any form of concern or regret to WHO.

MR MILLER: So I will say you are right that we did strongly encourage the WHO to invite Taiwan to participate as an observer at the World Health Assembly so it could lend its expertise to the discussion, as consistent with past practice. We were disappointed that they decided not to do so. We believe that inviting Taiwan as an observer would exemplify the WHO’s commitment to an inclusive health-for-all approach to international health cooperation. And the United States will continue to advocate for Taiwan’s return as an observer at WHA, and moreover, for its meaningful and robust participation throughout the UN system and other international fora.

And with that, I’m going to wrap, but before I do, I want to wish you all a very nice holiday weekend. I hope you have a relaxing and restful time, and I will see you back here soon. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:51 p.m.)

# # #

Department Press Briefing – May 24, 2023

1:18 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Afternoon, everyone. Some brief comments before we get started.

The Secretary has just announced a new visa policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) – known as “3C” – of the Immigration and Nationality Act to support Bangladesh’s goal of holding free, fair, and peaceful national elections. Under this policy, the United States will be able to restrict the issuance of visas for any Bangladeshi individual believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh. This includes current and former Bangladeshi officials, members of pro-government and opposition political parties, and members of law enforcement, the judiciary, and security services.

Actions that undermine the democratic election process include vote rigging, voter intimidation, the use of violence to prevent people from exercising their right to freedoms of association and peaceful assembly, and the use of measures designed to prevent political parties, voters, civil society, or the media from disseminating their views.

The holding of free and fair elections is the responsibility of everyone – voters, political parties, the government, the security forces, civil society, and the media. And our message today to the people of Bangladesh is that we stand behind you, we stand behind free and fair elections, and we are announcing this policy to support democracy in your country.

And with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Well – that’s it? I thought you said you had a couple.

MR MILLER: A couple of comments, not a couple of different sets of comments.

QUESTION: Oh, oh, a couple comments on the same subject. Okay. Well, I don’t –

MR MILLER: I’m going to – I’m going to try as a policy – I won’t promise to not do more than one set of remarks at the beginning of every –

QUESTION: All right. Well, I didn’t really have anything; I was just coming in for the entertainment.

MR MILLER: Leon? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, no, no. Hold on. But since – but since you began with – since we began with this Bangladesh thing, there haven’t been any actual sanctions imposed, right?

MR MILLER: No. This is –

QUESTION: So why do you need this? Can’t you do – can’t you restrict visas anyway?

MR MILLER: The announcement of this 3C policy gives us the authority –

QUESTION: You already had that, but –

MR MILLER: Yes, but it gives us authority under this section of the law to impose visa restrictions.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, but you already had that authority.

MR MILLER: Yes, but this gives us the ability to signal –

QUESTION: Well, I – so –

MR MILLER: No, hold on. I –

QUESTION: You guys do this all over the place, and then you don’t announce any actual sanctions.

MR MILLER: We have not taken any sanctions yet –

QUESTION: No, I know, but you’ve done –

MR MILLER: — but if we see activities that interfere with the election will we do so.

QUESTION: Yeah, but –

MR MILLER: This – let me just – one thing – in addition to allowing us the ability to take action under this section of the law, we think it’s important to send this signal to the people of Bangladesh that we back free and fair elections and are ready to take action.

QUESTION: Okay. So it’s basically a symbolic thing.

MR MILLER: It is.

QUESTION: Because you could – you could revoke visas for – you can revoke visas for anyone at any time for any reason.

MR MILLER: So we believe there is importance in sending the message that we are ready to use the authorities under this section of the law.

QUESTION: All right. But – okay. But there are – okay. But just to make clear, there are no —

MR MILLER: No announcements of – no announcements of sanctions today. Not today.

QUESTION: And when you do, if and when you do, because visa records are confidential, you won’t tell us?

MR MILLER: Correct.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: That’s correct. But we will notify the people.

QUESTION: So – (laughter). So what’s the point? I mean –

MR MILLER: The point is signaling to anyone in Bangladesh who may be considering actions that would interfere with the ability of the Bangladeshi people to make their voices heard that we are watching and –

QUESTION: I’m sure this will be a grand deterrent. But okay.

MR MILLER: We think it’s an important step.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, are you expecting that there will be rigged elections or irregularities, because you’re sort of doing this preemptive strike? Is that in any way a warning or criticism of the government and the prime minister in Bangladesh?

MR MILLER: No, I think it is a signal by our part that we support free, fair, and peaceful elections in Bangladesh, and we have the ability to hold anyone accountable who hinders the – any free, fair election in the country. And it’s – it is a signal –

QUESTION: And usually —

MR MILLER: It is a signal to all members of society, as I mentioned – military security forces, members of judiciary – that we have this ability and that we are paying attention.

QUESTION: Yeah. Usually you impose these visa restrictions or sanctions when there’s proof of irregularities. In this case you’re saying, “Watch out if?”

MR MILLER: Correct. And if there is proof of irregularities, we will impose the appropriate measures.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Matt, hi. Are you able to say anything more on the Kremlin accusation that U.S.-made military hardware by pro-Ukrainian fighters were used on the (inaudible) Russian border region? Kirby talked a little bit about it, but it – I wondered if you got any updates from yesterday (inaudible).

MR MILLER: So I’ll say that we are looking into the reports. We’ve obviously seen the reports by media organizations over the last 24 hours or so. As a general policy matter, we have been clear that we don’t – we don’t support the use of U.S.-made equipment being used for attacks inside of Russia, and we’re looking into the reports. But we have not reached any conclusions at this time.

QUESTION: Do you have – do you anticipate when you might reach conclusions based on what you’ve seen on the investigation so far?

MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to prejudge either the outcome or when we’ll reach that outcome, other than to say we’re looking into it now and don’t yet have any verified conclusions.

QUESTION: Follow on that.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday you articulated some skepticism about this equipment.

MR MILLER: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Does that skepticism remain, or are you sort of more or less inclined in any given direction?

MR MILLER: So what I will say is, again, that we’re looking into the reports. When I made the remarks I did yesterday, they were based on the images that we had seen circulating on social media, some of which we did have a great deal of skepticism about. Since then there have obviously been media reports with additional images. We are looking into those reports. But as I said, we have not yet reached any conclusions about them.

QUESTION: Okay. Apart from the equipment itself, has the U.S. come to an independent conclusion as to who carried out these attacks?

MR MILLER: We have not.

QUESTION: Is that an ongoing process?

MR MILLER: It is. We are looking into it. And I would say, as always, for questions about battlefield updates or updates on the ground, probably best to direct them to the Pentagon.

QUESTION: Okay. And one more. If you can’t comment on this specific instance, can you talk broadly about how the U.S. – what safeguards it has in place to prevent U.S.-supplied material to fall into the hands of, for example, sympathetic militia groups operating in Russia?

MR MILLER: So I will say that – a few things. Number one, the Government of Ukraine has shown that they take the responsibility to safeguard arms seriously. It’s been something that’s been a matter of dialogue between the United States and Ukraine since even before the conflict, when we began to provide them with the assistance they need to defend themselves. We’re going to work to continue to ensure that the assistance we provide them complies with all U.S. laws and other applicable requirements. And we will continue to communicate to the Ukrainians what has been our very clear policy, which is we don’t encourage or enable attacks beyond the borders of Ukraine.

QUESTION: If – last one.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: If it is determined that U.S. equipment was used in this instance, what are the possible repercussions for Ukraine specifically?

MR MILLER: I think what I’ll say is we continue to look into the reports, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to prejudge what the outcome of those – what the outcome would be based on what that – what we ultimately are able to conclude.

QUESTION: Let me put differently, and take it out of the hypothetical realm.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m trying to figure out a way to start this without “if.”

MR MILLER: Without getting into a hypothetical? Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. Should it be determined that U.S. equipment was used, what is the consequence for that? Is there an end use – an end user violation here?

MR MILLER: So that presupposes —

QUESTION: No, it doesn’t. I’m asking —

MR MILLER: Yes.

QUESTION: I won’t ask –

MR MILLER: But – “should” is slightly different than “if,” but I think gets you to the same place, which is we are looking into it and I wouldn’t want to prejudge what the outcome of that is before we reach any conclusions.

QUESTION: Well, that’s fine. But in general, would this be a violation of an end user agreement?

MR MILLER: Again, these are reports that we’ve not yet verified.

QUESTION: I’m not —

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to —

QUESTION: I’m not – in general – in general, forget about this. Let’s say – let’s talk —

MR MILLER: I’d rather talk about specific instances than generalities.

QUESTION: Okay, let’s say that it was – it could have been in, I don’t know, Madagascar.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay? If – and again, all right, there’s an “if.” But if U.S. weapons – U.S.-provided munitions equipment, military equipment, are used in a way that you find not to be compatible with U.S. law or the end user requirements, what is the consequence?

MR MILLER: I will say we have been very —

QUESTION: In general. Forget about this incident.

MR MILLER: I don’t think it’s – I don’t think it is possible to address this in general without my comments being directed at this specific incident. So I will say that we have been clear with our Ukrainian partners, as we have been publicly, that we don’t encourage or enable attacks outside Ukraine. We will continue to have those conversations with them privately. But I do think, as I said, as long as we are looking into this matter, it wouldn’t be appropriate to prejudge what any actions might be before we’ve reached a conclusion about what actually has happened.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on equipment? Not this particular equipment —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — but U.S. equipment and the use. The President announced that they will okay F‑16s for Ukraine. Now, experts say that it takes about 12 months to train already – aviators who are already elsewhere in some other air force. So in the meantime, would the U.S., let’s say, give a green light to, let’s say, volunteers from other countries that may have already trained pilots on the F-16 to go and fly these airplanes?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to the actions of citizens of other countries. What I will say, we obviously have made clear that we are not putting U.S. – the President has made clear from the outset we’re not putting U.S. military boots on the ground. I’ll make clear that we have said that U.S. citizens should not travel to Ukraine.

And then with respect to F-16s themselves, one general comment before I get into the specific policy, and the general comment is that one of the things that we have seen throughout the conflict is that the Ukrainians are a very quick study. So whatever estimates you may be citing about how long it takes —

QUESTION: I mean —

MR MILLER: — let me finish – how long it may take them to get up to speed, I wouldn’t want to verify that assessment through my answer other than to say that they have been very quick at getting up to speed in being able to operate the equipment that we have provided to them.

The second thing I will say, stepping back, is that as the President has made clear, we are going to begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s. We’re going to work with our partners and allies both on the training and then on the ultimate provision of F-16s to the Ukrainian military.

QUESTION: Yeah, but in the interim – yeah, in the interim if, let’s say, Polish volunteers —

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak with respect to volunteers from other countries.

Before we move on, anything else on Russia?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Same region.

MR MILLER: Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Same region. So I —

MR MILLER: Same region. If it’s not Russia-Ukraine, let’s do Russia-Ukraine. I’ll come —

QUESTION: Yes.

MR MILLER: We’ll do elsewhere in the region —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: — before we come back.

QUESTION: Please come back to me later on Caucasus. I have —

MR MILLER: Alex, I could never not come back to you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: Come on.

QUESTION: I mean, I was actually going to ask about Russia-Ukraine.

MR MILLER: Understand. Understand. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So in your comment to the provisions, you said it is – I don’t think it’s possible to address this in general without my comments being directed to the specific incident. So my question is: Are there any provisions on the – are defense articles provided to Ukraine or not?

MR MILLER: We have been very clear with the Ukrainians as we have been publicly that we do not encourage and we do not enable – we do not provide U.S. assistance with the purpose of enabling attacks outside Ukraine.

QUESTION: And then also —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — so the Pentagon has yesterday said they have not authorized Ukrainians to transfer any of the defense articles to any other groups other than the Ukrainian military. And it – it appears that – I know you don’t have a – you don’t have specifics on this specific case, but it appears that there might be some diversions. Are you confident that there are no diversions of the U.S. military assistance in Ukraine?

MR MILLER: I don’t think I want to get into questions of what appears to be true while we’re looking into the specific matter. As I’ve said, we have a number of safeguards in place. I would – to prevent the transfer of equipment from Ukraine – our Ukrainian partners to others. I will leave it to the Pentagon to speak to the specifics of those and again restate our over policy – our overall policy, which is to not encourage or enable attacks outside Ukraine.

Okay. Alex.

QUESTION: Ukraine.

MR MILLER: And I’ll come to you next.

QUESTION: Ukraine.

QUESTION: You guys said that Russia has abducted more children under the false pretext of medical examination. I know we discussed it on different context yesterday. Before I ask that, have you — did you have a chance to develop around what you told us yesterday about Moscow meeting between the UN official and (inaudible)?

MR MILLER: Yeah, I am glad you mentioned – I am glad you mentioned that because yesterday when you asked me, we had seen the reports of the meeting. We had not yet confirmed it ourself. We have now confirmed that meeting in the last 24 hours, and I will say that we are deeply concerned that a senior UN diplomat met with a fugitive subject to an ICC arrest warrant for committing war crimes against children. Such conduct undermines our shared commitment to protecting children in conflict zones.

As we have said before – and Alex, this goes to I think the broader question you were going to ask – Russia is forcibly deporting children from Ukraine. They’re denying parents and legal guardians access to those children, giving away children from – and giving children from Ukraine Russian passports in an attempt to take away a part of their identity. Children are among the most vulnerable groups. They must be protected, especially in times of war. And we continue to account – call for accountability for war crimes.

QUESTION: Thank you. And my second topic on this, the Secretary today spoke with NATO chief and discussed Ukraine, who apparently made headlines early this morning by saying that Ukraine’s membership bid is not on the agenda before the end of the war. I’m just wondering, are you – do you guys share that viewpoint?

MR MILLER: So I will let the NATO secretary general speak for himself. I did see that one of the things he said, which is just an obvious statement of fact, that accession to NATO for any country requires the unanimous consent of all 31 NATO members. That’s an important fact to keep in mind. And with respect to the general question, I will say what we have said for some time, which is we remain committed to NATO’s open door policy. We made that clear before this conflict began. When Russia was very much objecting to open door policy, we stood behind it, said it was an important principle to protect. But our focus right now, today, is giving Ukraine the military it needs to hold Russia accountable, to repel the Russian army from its borders, at the same time taking whatever actions we can to hold Russia accountable for its crimes.

QUESTION: I understand this is not the Secretary’s viewpoint.

MR MILLER: Last one, and then we’ll —

QUESTION: Yeah, just a follow-up. I’m just curious how helpful this is when NATO leadership comes out and signals that we will not accept Ukraine to NATO until or unless Putin stops the war. How do you guys send right signal to Putin? I’m the last person in this room to – to be the advocate of the devil, but do you think Putin will really stop the war if he gets a signal that NATO —

MR MILLER: Again —

QUESTION: — will not accept Ukraine unless he stops the war?

MR MILLER: Again, I’m going to let the NATO secretary general speak for himself, but I think the message we’ve sent to Vladimir Putin since this beginning of this conflict is very clear.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. believe that Prigozhin’s estimates in Bakhmut that 20,000 Wagner Group forces were lost and 50,000 Ukrainian forces are accurate? Does the U.S. have its own estimates on the forces that were lost there?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak for casualties on the Ukrainian side. Prigozhin says a lot of things publicly, some of them true, some of them, I think, not. But I would say that our assessment is that 20,000 would significantly undercount the number of Russian casualties in Bakhmut.

QUESTION: Can you – does the U.S. have their own estimate?

MR MILLER: We have said publicly 100,000 casualties in Bakhmut alone. Now, that is not just dead. That’s both dead and wounded, but – around 100,000 casualties in Bakhmut.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Just still on Ukraine? Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR MILLER: We’ll come – we’ll have plenty of time to come to other stuff.

QUESTION: Thank you. Actually, I have two questions, but I will remain on India later on. As far as Ukraine is concerned, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he met several leaders at the G7 meetings, including President Biden and also, of course, President Zelenskyy and other leaders. You think when he arrives in Washington next month – because he has spoken in the past about the war between Russia and Ukraine that India could be – or Narendra Modi – Prime Minister Narendra Modi could be the one who can break the ice or mediator. You think he can play a role when he comes to Washington after meeting – when he meets with the prime minister – President Biden and of course the Secretary of State and other leaders?

MR MILLER: So I would say – without giving too much of a preview of that trip, which we will do as the state visit gets closer – certainly, the war in Ukraine will be one of the topics that is under discussion. It’s been one of the topics that’s been under discussion in previous meetings with Prime Minister Modi, as it is in just about any conversation we have with a world leader at this time, or has been the case for the past year, so —

QUESTION: May I have one on India, please?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: After almost two years of gap with the U.S. ambassador was not in India, and now finally we have Ambassador Eric Garcetti in, and he’s already almost a household name because visiting many places like Mumbai and Prime Minister Modi’s home state Gujarat and others. Now, my question is that also he’s very much thrilled about the prime minister’s visit to Washington. I’m sure he will be arriving with him here. My question is now: What would be his main mission in India after, as I said – that after two years we didn’t have any U.S. ambassador? And people in India were really worrying that because of the missions in – around the country, including Delhi, visa and immigrant visas and all the people were waiting and still waiting, that maybe ambassador will break the ice as far as visas are concerned.

MR MILLER: Let me say first of all I’ve seen some of the video and other coverage of the reception Ambassador Garcetti has received in India, and we’ve been quite heartened by it. I will say generally that our partnership with India is one of our most consequential relationships. We work with India closely on our most vital priorities and we expect Ambassador Garcetti to be able to deepen the relationship between our countries and work on these matters of shared concern.

And then I will just say specifically with request – as it pertains to the visa issue, which you pointed out, that our consular teams – we obviously recognize that it’s an area of concern, and our consular teams have been making a huge push to process as many visa applications as possible in India, including those in visa categories that are a key to the bilateral relationship. It is a top priority for our government and I know it’s a top priority for our embassy in the country.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew, sir.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: One question on Pakistan and one on Afghanistan.

On Pakistan, Elon Musk satellite company, Starlink, is trying to get the rights for landing rights of satellite. Does the State Department is aware of that? And if you could inform us what is the State Department position on these satellite companies giving connection to, like, locals? Like, is there —

MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that one back. I’m not aware.

QUESTION: Okay. One other question on Afghanistan which I’ve been continuously raising, without any agenda behind it, is I asked State Department official through email several times but they seem to not understand my question, so I’m going to try you now: Out of the 100,000 Afghans that the U.S. has brought to the U.S. after the withdrawal, how many of them are detained? By detained I mean how many of them, despite having the translator permission and stuff like – how many of them are being investigated or their applications are being – like under review, like continuous review?

MR MILLER: I would refer you to the Department of Homeland Security for that question.

QUESTION: And —

MR MILLER: Go – let me —

QUESTION: One similar question.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What would be the status of those people if there are —

MR MILLER: Again, for questions about people who have arrived inside of the United States as it – as it pertains to their immigration status, it’s really a question for the Department of Homeland Security.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m little late. I apologize.

MR MILLER: I was looking for you. I smiled when you came walking in the door. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m little late. I don’t know if any of my colleague asked that question. Thank you for this announcement for —

MR MILLER: They did, but please go ahead.

QUESTION: — for a neutral election in Bangladesh. We feel incredible obviously. So all Bangladeshi political parties, civil society groups, everybody is asking for a election under a neutral caretaker government, which was in Bangladesh in – but this government is – they amended constitution unconstitutionally. So I’m wondering if U.S. is urging for – go for a neutral caretaker government to holding a free, fair election.

MR MILLER: I think what we will say is Prime Minister Hasina has committed to supporting free and fair elections. We share his^[1] support for free and fair elections, and the policy that we announced today is designed to support those efforts, as well as the efforts of the Bangladeshi people to having elections where the Bangladeshi people can choose their leaders. And I will say lastly, as friends, we have expressed our concerns where we see actions that undermine democracy and human rights in Bangladesh.

You got to take – you got to let someone else take a turn. Said, yeah.

QUESTION: Same region.

MR MILLER: Said.

QUESTION: Change of topic – Israel.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Very – two quick questions. The Israeli prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu, vowed that he will have the broadest possible coalition supporting the judicial reforms and so on. I know there has been a stated position in this administration that is not in favor of such reforms. Would the U.S. go along if there’s a broad-based coalition that agrees to these reforms?

MR MILLER: Well, what we have said before, both privately and publicly, is that fundamental reforms like this do require a broad basis of support to be durable and sustained. The President has been clear with Prime Minister Netanyahu that he hopes that he will work to find a genuine compromise, and the genius of both American democracy and Israeli democracy is they are built on strong institutions, on checks and balances, and on an independent judiciary. But ultimately, it is up for Israelis to find the best path forward.

QUESTION: And until such an issue is resolved, we are not likely to see Mr. Netanyahu come to Washington?

MR MILLER: I – we will continue to state our principles, and I don’t have any comment beyond that.

QUESTION: One really quick one. I don’t know if you know much about this, but it is alleged that next Sunday they’re going to – the – a coalition will be endorsing levying 65 percent tax on Palestinian – and Israeli, as a matter of fact – Palestinian and Israeli NGOs and so on. Many of those are actually financed or supported by the United States. Do you have any comment on that, if this comes to pass?

MR MILLER: I won’t speculate on things that might come to pass. I will just say as a general matter, the United States supports the essential role of NGOs as part of civil society. We believe they’re critical to democratic and responsive, transparent government. And we firmly believe that civil society should have the opportunity and space to operate and raise resources around the world.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Matt, thank you very much. Again, what is the State Department position regarding the newest reports showcasing illegal surveillance of human rights defenders, journalists, and even government officials in Mexico? Yesterday the report was front-page news in The New York Times. Today the story is in The Washington Post.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: One of your closest allies is using a spyware that the U.S. has condemned.

MR MILLER: So for specific requests – questions about this, I would refer to – refer you to the Government of Mexico. However, let me state in general our position on spyware, which the President has taken action on. As you may be aware, in March the President signed an executive order that prohibits, for the first time, the use by the U.S. Government of commercial spyware that poses a risk to national security or has been misused by foreign actors to perpetrate human rights abuses around the world.

We’ve also joined nine other governments in a statement on efforts to counter the proliferation and misuse of commercial spyware. In 2021, the United States Government added four foreign companies to the Department of Commerce Entity List to stem the proliferation and misuse of tools used for repression. And finally, the U.S. Government add NSO Group, the producer of Pegasus, to the Entity List because of its spyware, which some foreign governments have used to maliciously target government officials, journalists, businesspeople, activists, academics, and embassy staff.

QUESTION: Understood. Thank you.

MR MILLER: So – I’m going to come back to you at the end, Alex. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Mr. Miller. One question on Afghanistan. Some Republican lawmakers and also – yeah, recently they said that the U.S. aid to Afghan people get to the hands of the Taliban, and they referred that to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, or SIGAR’s, report that indicates that some of these aids that the United States sent to Afghan people ended up to the hands of the Taliban. Would you please clarify that?

MR MILLER: So a couple things. Number one, the State Department supports inspector – the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan’s vital mandate to audit funds expended on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. We believe their audits are an important part of Afghanistan-related oversight. We have provided SIGAR with written responses to dozens of questions as well as thousands of pages of responsive documents, analyses, spreadsheets, on and on, about the programs that were part of the U.S. Government’s reconstruction in Afghanistan.

And then as we have stated before, more broadly on the issue, we could not be more clear on this: The United States does not provide funding to the Taliban. The State Department and USAID continue to work with the World Bank, with the UN, with NGOs, and other implementing partners and likeminded governments to provide humanitarian and basic needs assistance to the people of Afghanistan, not to the Taliban. And we require all of our partners that we work with to have safeguards in place to assure the assistance reaches those who need it. We have robust monitoring and reporting requirements from NGOs that implement any programs, including in unstable and unfriendly environments. And I would say we have – there are several examples in which we have suspended operations where we suspected Taliban interference with the humanitarian efforts.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So can you make – so can you – can you give some details about those specific aids that were suspended?

MR MILLER: Were suspended?

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR MILLER: Sure. We have suspended operations in Ghor Province following evidence of continued attempts by the Taliban to prevent – to divert assistance. The World Food Program has halted distributions in two districts of Ghazni Province from January to April, when local officials attempted to interfere in distribution. In April, another U.S. Government partner suspended activities in Uruzgan Province after the Taliban issued demands to provide transportation support to Taliban representatives and otherwise interfered in staff recruitment processes. So we have been very clear: We do not provide funding for the Taliban, and we have very strict monitoring and compliance processes in place for the partners with which we do work.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. You might have seen the reports of Wall Street Journal that South Korea is proceeding the plan with United States to transfer artillery rounds for Ukraine with – by United States. So do you have anything to provide to us about this ongoing diplomatic discussion between United States and South Korea?

MR MILLER: As usual, we will keep the subject of private diplomatic conversations private. But the United States has led a worldwide effort since before even the onset of this conflict to secure assistance from our partners and allies around the world to support the Ukrainian military and support the Ukrainian people in defending themselves. It’s been a top priority for this, but I – for us, but I wouldn’t want to speak to our conversations with any one country.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. United States and Brazil just signed a joint statement on a joint action to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination. Ambassador Brian Nichols, he is in Brazil, where he met with Brazilian officials, including the Minister for Racial Equality Anielle Franco. How United States and Brazil effectively can work together in this joint action to eliminate racial discrimination —

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: — if you could address that?

MR MILLER: So I will say that the long-term strategic relationship between our two countries is vitally important to us. We work together on a number of important issues: climate change, safeguarding food security, social inclusion and democracy, tackling disinformation. But promoting racial equity and justice is one of those shared priorities, and we look forward to continuing to work with our Brazilian partners on it.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up, this joint statement was released just days after a case of racial discrimination involving a famous Brazilian soccer player, Vinícius Jr., in a match last weekend in Spain. Today a high commissioner in United Nations – for human rights – he asked for a joint effort to fight racists in sports. So in addition to this joint action among US and Brazil, what can be done collectively to fight racial discrimination globally?

MR MILLER: So let me just say that I saw the chants directed at Vinícius Jr. They were obviously horrific. I know that the Spanish authorities, I believe, have taken action against them. Obviously, we condemn racism around the country – around the world wherever it takes place, including in sports, and applaud any efforts to ferret out – ferret it out and fight against it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. China’s Commerce Minister Wang Wentao is expected to meet Secretary Raimondo on Thursday, then with U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai on the sidelines of the APEC trade ministers’ meeting. Do you see either of these meetings as helping warm relations with China? And how will the recent Micron ban play into this?

MR MILLER: So with respect to the Micron ban, we will raise our – the concerns that we have directly with officials in the Chinese Government. We have made – I have made clear from this podium the concerns we have about that specific action. I will leave it to the Departments of Commerce and, of course, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office to comment specifically on any meetings that their offices hold. But I will say in general, we have never – we have always made clear that we think it’s important to maintain dialogue with Chinese Government officials, both from the State Department and from other offices and – inside the United States Government. And we will continue to do so.

Yeah, Abbie.

QUESTION: Different topic but also in China. Does the U.S. have any reaction to the new wave of COVID that is going across China right now? Authorities are estimating 65 million people a week would be infected by the end of June. It’s mostly the XBB variant; as I understand, it’s been in the U.S. as well.

MR MILLER: So we continue to monitor the reports of a second wave of COVID-19 cases in the PRC. We’ve been having discussions about them with our allies and partners. We don’t want to see people anywhere, obviously, suffering from COVID-19. The U.S. Government remains committed to working with the PRC on transnational challenges, including on global health matters, and maintaining open lines of communication. And in conjunction with the CDC, we are monitoring the situation but don’t have any updates at this time.

QUESTION: In those discussions with your allies and partners, is there any discussion of travel restrictions coming up again?

MR MILLER: We continue to monitor the situation and – in conjunction with the CDC, who we consult with before updating our travel guidelines. But I don’t have any announcements to make at this time.

Go, yeah.

QUESTION: Welcome to the podium, Matthew.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: I know yesterday you’ve been asked this question about the central bank governor in Lebanon. But he’s been – he’s been investigated now from six European countries, and this is the second warrant arrest from Germany after France. What’s your position on this, not on the election of the new governor? Do you support his extradition? You’ve been advocating for reforms in Lebanon, and the investigation is for money laundering and other things. I’m not saying he’s charged with this, but he’s under investigation. What’s the U.S. position on this?

MR MILLER: I would say that extradition matters that pertain to the governments of France and the governments of Germany, we will leave to the governments of France and Germany to talk about. I will say, in general, we understand that the central bank governor has announced that he will not extend his position when it expires on July 31st. And it is for the Lebanese Government to determine who serves in his position after that time, and the United States will work with whoever the designated governor is in his or her official capacity. But with respect to any extradition matters, I think it’s appropriate for me to leave it to comment to the countries directly involved.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: On this?

MR MILLER: Go ahead – no, no – I’ll come to you next. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Me? Thank you. I have a question on Ukraine and one in Georgia. Former NATO Policy Chief Fabrice Pothier said in an interview recently that the United States can become the main guarantor for all these security agreements on Ukraine following the conflict. Is the U.S. ready to become the guarantor?

MR MILLER: I don’t think it’s appropriate to speculate about the end of this conflict while the Ukrainians continue to defend themselves against horrific Russian attacks against Ukrainian schools, against Ukrainian hospitals. As long as the Russian Government continues to wage this brutal war against the Ukrainian people, we’re going to support them in defending themselves and attempting to repel the Russian Government from their borders rather than speculate about what may or may not happen down the road.

QUESTION: And another question on Georgia. Can you explain why is the United States so concerned about direct flights between Russia and Georgia and not concerned about direct flights between, for example, Russia and Armenia or Russia and Azerbaijan? Thank you.

MR MILLER: So I will say that many Western countries, including the United States, prohibit Russian aircraft from entering their airspace. That was a direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And we think that the – given that the entire Western community has distanced itself from the – this brutal regime for its actions in Ukraine, that now is not the time to increase engagement with Russia.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Can you just update us, please, on the latest state of affairs about the Afghanistan dissent channel cable? I understand the chairman and the ranking member reviewed it yesterday. The chairman would still like access to be granted to the full committee. Is that a compromise that the State Department is willing to strike?

MR MILLER: So the chairman and the ranking member did come in yesterday and review the cables. You may have seen that – both the cable and Secretary Blinken’s response to the dissent cable. You may have seen that Ranking Member Meeks confirmed publicly what we have said all along, which is the summary and the briefing that we had given the committee beforehand accurately represented the contents of the underlying cable. We obviously have seen the chairman’s public remarks. We will continue to engage with him privately, but we think it was an extraordinary accommodation, as I said yesterday, to provide them with access to this dissent cable, something that the State Department has never before done. We do believe it’s important that we continue to protect this channel, which State Department employees use to provide candid feedback to our leaders. But we will continue to work with the committee and hope to, as I said yesterday, reach an ultimate resolution.

QUESTION: Have State Department employees expressed concern about this precedent that you’ve set now?

MR MILLER: I’m going to keep – certainly there has been concern expressed in the building. I do think State Department employees value the candid feedback that they can give in this channel. We have thought it’s important that we protect their ability to continue to do so without fear that their comments be made public or that there be retribution against them. But given the concerns that Congress has expressed and given the need to accommodate their oversight function, which is a legitimate responsibility that they have, we did provide them with this extraordinary resolution that we think should have resolved the matter; but we will continue to engage directly with them.

Alex. And this will be the last question.

QUESTION: Yeah – last three, if you don’t mind on the South Caucasus.

MR MILLER: Always. Always.

QUESTION: I had one actually on Armenia-Azerbaijan, but just wanted to follow up on the question that was asked by a gentleman from Russia. Has there been any clear communication between Washington and Tbilisi over your concerns? But this has been around for a long time.

MR MILLER: I’m going to keep those – any conversations we might have private.

QUESTION: Okay. Have you conveyed your concern over Lavrov’s —

MR MILLER: We —

QUESTION: — sanctioned daughter being invited to Tbilisi?

MR MILLER: I will keep any conversations that we may or may not have had private.

QUESTION: Okay. So it’s my understanding that senior advisor on Caucasus negotiation issues, Mr. Louis Bono, is currently in the region. Do you have a readout on his trip? And where is – where is he going after Baku?

MR MILLER: I don’t, other than to say that we continue to engage in discussions. We welcome the reports that the parties are continuing to engage in discussions themselves. We reiterate our conviction, as Secretary Blinken made clear last week, that peace is within reach, that direct dialogue is key to resolving issues and reaching a lasting peace, and we will continue to support the parties in this endeavor, including by engaging with them directly.

Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: And just to – just to clarify. It was about Armenia and Azerbaijan. The leaders are invited to Moscow tomorrow to meet with Putin. Is it your understanding that this time things might be different?

MR MILLER: I will say about that, we support direct talks between the two parties. We believe that direct talks are important to achieving an ultimate lasting resolution, which we do believe is within reach if the two parties are able to come to agreement to bridge their differences. And we support those talks taking place whether they be in Washington, as they were last month, whether they be in Brussels, as they were a couple weeks ago, or really anywhere in the world. The important thing is that these two parties continue to talk to each other.

Thank you all.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:59 p.m.)

# # #

…her… ↑

Department Press Briefing – May 23, 2023

1:18 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.

QUESTION: Welcome.

MR MILLER: I was informed I’m apparently expected to do this every day. (Laughter.) Let the record reflect I’m on time today, which I say not to pat myself – ah, well, Matt.

QUESTION: No, no, no. Hold on. You’re actually 10 minutes late. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: We – let me – and if you want exact detail what happened, we gave the two-minute warning, I sat in the room and noticed that not everyone was in here, so I waited for the august representative from the Associated Press to make an appearance before I walked in. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, thank you. I appreciate that. You might not, but I’ll see. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: I don’t have any opening comments, so Matt, do you want to kick us off?

QUESTION: Can I ask you about what your understanding is of the hearing that Evan Gershkovich had in Russia today?

MR MILLER: Sure. So we understand the hearing took place and that Russia extended the pretrial detention of Evan Gershkovich by an additional three months. We once again call on Russia to comply with their obligation to provide consular access to him. As we said – as I discussed yesterday, on Friday they rejected our second request for consular access to them. The claims against Evan are baseless, and we continue to call for his immediate release as well as for the immediate release of Paul Whelan.

QUESTION: Okay. But you have gotten consular access to him once, right? Or no?

MR MILLER: No. No. They have rejected —

QUESTION: Oh.

MR MILLER: They have rejected consular access.

QUESTION: So you haven’t gotten any?

MR MILLER: Correct.

QUESTION: But there were people in the court today? —

MR MILLER: We did have representatives from the embassy in the court today.

QUESTION: But they weren’t able to speak to him privately or —

MR MILLER: I don’t know. I haven’t – I don’t have an update on whether – I know they were there. I haven’t – I don’t have an update on whether they were able to speak with him.

QUESTION: Okay. And per – but per the people who were in there, you don’t have any better understanding of the charges against him?

MR MILLER: I think that – my understanding of the hearing today was that it was a hearing on whether to continue to detain him, and they extended that detention by three months. I believe the embassy in Moscow will have a statement coming out. I thought it would be out before the briefing, but if it’s not out, it’ll be out in the next few minutes with any more details. But I don’t have any more details from what happened inside the court.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: May I follow up?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Evan’s parents were also in attendance at the court. Did the U.S. help arrange their visit to Moscow? Do you approve of this visit? Anything, any comment?

MR MILLER: We were aware that they visited Moscow. As I think we’ve said before, we have been in close contact with Evan’s parents since immediately after his detention. We did not help arrange their travel.

I will just say personally I can only imagine how difficult it must be to see your child detained overseas, especially to be detained wrongfully. And so I’m certainly not going to criticize any parent for wanting to see their child. But that being said, we do have a Level Four Travel Advisory for Russia, and just speaking generally, we don’t – we do not advise that U.S. citizens travel to Russia.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that?

MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to clarify, just so we have clear understanding of how your pressing on – still pressing for consular access, at what level? Have you invited the Russian ambassador to the State Department to express your concern about the latest development?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the details of back-and-forth conversations. But we have expressed our concern from the minister level. Secretary Blinken had a conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov about Evan Gershkovich’s detention already this year. We’ve engaged with him at a number of levels. Our embassy in Moscow has engaged with them. We’ve engaged with them here. And I’m not going to get into the specifics of those conversations.

As I said yesterday, we’ve found that oftentimes when it comes to wrongful detentions it’s unproductive to the release that we seek to talk about all of the conversations we have publicly. But we have consistently pressed the case that, number one, they need to – Russia needs to fulfill its consular obligations; and number two, they need to immediately release him as well as Paul Whelan.

QUESTION: Have you exhausted your leverages at this point?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to any of the details of how we are trying to secure his release, other than to say that it is an ongoing priority for the Secretary, it is an ongoing priority for the President. And I will say that even speaking more broadly than the case of Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan, the wrongful detention of Americans is one of the top priorities for this department. As you are aware, we have secured the return of more than two dozen wrongfully detained Americans since the beginning of this administration. It continues to be our top priority, and we’ll continue to work on it with all the tools available to us.

QUESTION: And a final follow-up on this. The administration earlier this month sanctioned FSB for its action particularly in going after American citizens, but it stopped short. You guys did not sanction the Russian foreign minister which is refusing the consular access. Is it on the table as an option?

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to preview any specific sanction action. I will say that, as always, we look at all the tools that are available to us and we use them when we think they are most effective. But if you look at our record not just with respect with wrongful detentions but our record with respect with Moscow and Russian Government officials and other Russian elites going back to more than a year now, we have not hesitated to use our sanctions authorities to go after any number of officials in that government, including the most senior officials.

Shaun.

QUESTION: Thanks. I know lots of us are concerned about Evan. But let me move to another topic, Sudan.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The ceasefire that is supposed to have taken place, that did come into force. What’s your assessment of whether it’s holding and where things stand right now?

MR MILLER: So today in Jeddah, representatives of the Ceasefire Monitoring Coordination Committee that we announced over the weekend engaged in discussions on humanitarian assistance deliveries. And they also had discussions with their respective chain of command, so that would be the Saudi officials on that group discussing it with the officials in the Saudi Government, Ambassador Godfrey, who leads our representation on the Monitoring Committee having conversations with officials in our government.

Regarding allegations of ceasefire violations, we’ve obviously seen the reports. The officials on the Monitoring Mechanism are looking into those reports and continuing to monitor, and we have the ability to, when we see violations of the ceasefire, make those known publicly as well as engaged with direct – directly with both sides to the conflict.

QUESTION: Can I just pursue that?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You said the Monitoring Mechanism, and of course the Secretary spoke to that as well. How do you see that coming – how do you see that working? I mean, do you think that’s going to have a shaping effect, if you will, to reduce the violations? Is this just more of a reporting mechanism? How do you see that going?

MR MILLER: So what I’d say is the Monitoring Mechanism is made up of 12 individuals: three officials from the U.S. Government – Ambassador Godfrey is our lead and there will be two other officials as well; three officials from the Saudi Government; as well as three officials each from the SAF and the RSF.

The way we see the Monitoring Mechanism is – and what it can achieve is a couple of different things: one, to identify violations of the ceasefire; two, to publicly hold accountable the parties for the violations of the ceasefire; and then three, so we have evidence that we can use to privately press the parties. We have had conversations at a number of levels inside this department, both with the top generals and other officials in the SAF and the RSF from the beginning of this conflict, and we’ll continue to do that to press them to stop the violence when we see violations of the ceasefire, and also to have conversations with our partners in the region.

And then the last thing I will add is that we do have additional tools available to us and we will not hesitate to use those tools if and when it’s appropriate to do so.

QUESTION: So how —

QUESTION: Go ahead, go ahead.

QUESTION: How do you hold the violators accountable? How will you do that? I know you said you have some tools and so on.

MR MILLER: I don’t want to preview any specific action. Obviously, this is a – continues to be a very delicate situation, where we are involved in intense diplomatic conversations both directly with the two parties and with partners in the region. But we have a number of tools available to us. We – and we will not hesitate to use those tools if and when it’s appropriate to do so.

Anything else on Sudan before I – Sudan? Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: You announced the 245 million towards humanitarian aid for civilians today. But since there’s not a civilian government in place, how exactly is that going to be distributed?

MR MILLER: So let me note, first of all, that the United States remains the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance in Sudan and we will continue our support for the vulnerable population in Sudan.

The assistance that we announced today is not just for people in Sudan but for neighboring countries that are experiencing the impacts of the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Specifically with respect to how that will be distributed, it will be distributed through the State Department’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration, as well as additional humanitarian assistance from USAID.

So we have the ability to directly provide humanitarian assistance and then also engage with multilateral organizations in the region.

Yeah, Said. Michel.

QUESTION: Are you aware on phone conversations between Israeli prime minister and the Saudi Crown Prince on the normalization between the two countries, and did the U.S. play any role in this regard?

MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports. I would refer you to the two countries to speak to them, any detail. And of course, those are two countries with which we engage regularly, but I’m not going to speak to any private diplomatic conversations.

I will say as a broader measure we, of course, fully support Israel’s integration into the Middle East region, including normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on this real quick?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. It is said that Prime Minister Netanyahu is either speaking or spoke with Saudi Crown Prince MBS on – about flights for the pilgrimage for Hajj, a direct flight for Israel. But it is – also that was reported in the Times of Israel and – but it is alleged that the Saudis are insisting on allowing PA security officers on the compound of Haram Sharif. Are you aware of such talks and would you support the presence of Palestinian PA security in al-Aqsa/ Haram Sharif?

MR MILLER: Again, I think it’s more appropriate for those two governments that were involved in the reported talks to speak to any details about them. I would say as a general matter the United States continues to strongly support the historic status quo on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

QUESTION: Right. But it’s the United States that really trained Palestinian security, supports them, finances them and all these things, so you wield a lot of power of the Palestinian security. Does that factor in in any way?

MR MILLER: I will say, as I just said, we continue to support the longstanding historic status quo. That’s been our policy for some time, and I don’t have any further comment.

QUESTION: A question about Lebanon. Germany issues arrest warrant for Lebanon Central Bank Riad Salameh. This is like the second arrest warrant within one week. The first one came from France and this from Germany. What’s your take on that, since it’s a very kind of sensitive matter for Lebanese economy? It’s crashing right now and this will add more insecurity for the economy that is already clashed.

MR MILLER: So I would say with respect to the specific reports, we would leave that to our German partners to comment on them, just as last week we left it to the Government of France.

I will say in general it is for the Lebanese Government to determine who continues to serve in that position. We work with the designated governor in his or her official capacity. And I will say more broadly, as we’ve said before, it is important that the Lebanese Government respect the established process for appointing a new governor and focus on the task of stabilizing Lebanon’s economy and effecting meaningful change.

QUESTION: Okay. My question about the displaced Syrians – I’m stressing on the word “displaced,” not refugees, because a big number – as reports indicated, big numbers, they go back to Syria and then go back to Lebanon and get paid a salary through UNHCR. So they don’t really have a security problem going back home. Why this administration is not kind of pushing these displaced Syrians to go back home, safe, for good?

MR MILLER: So I will say that we continue to engage with our partners in the region about that issue, about the return of refugees to Syria. But I don’t have anything to add in – specifically.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, my question is about Mexico, and the illegal use of surveillance there. Today The New York Times is publishing a front-page story showing how the Mexican army has been widely using commercial spyware to target a wide array of persons in Mexico. Does the State Department condemn this type of use of commercial spyware? And given the administration has spoken so forcefully against the misuse of surveillance, what does it say that one of your closest allies is encouraging this practice?

MR MILLER: So I have seen those reports. I haven’t even had a chance to read the full story; I don’t have any comment on them in detail, other than to say that the U.S.-Mexico relationship is one of the most important and dynamic in the world. But I don’t have any specific comment on that report in The New York Times.

QUESTION: So the U.S. doesn’t condemn the use of – the misuse of —

MR MILLER: I said I haven’t had a chance to look at that report in detail, and I don’t think it’d be appropriate for me to comment on it in detail until I have done so.

QUESTION: Not even in general, around the world?

MR MILLER: I – I understand what you would like me to say. However, I think with respect to the report in the Times, until I’ve had a chance to read it in detail and talk with my colleagues about it, I don’t think it’d be appropriate for me to make any comment.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Could you provide an update, please, on the State Department’s facilitating access to the Afghanistan dissent cable to the leadership of the House Foreign Affairs Committee?

MR MILLER: Sure. So as we made public last week, we made an offer to the committee that Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks could come here to the State Department to view both the dissent cable – dissent channel cable itself and Secretary Blinken’s response. They accepted that offer, and it’s our understanding that they will visit the department today to review the cable and the response.

QUESTION: Has consideration been made for their – or for the chairman’s sort of counter that access be broadened to other membership of the committee?

MR MILLER: I would say as a general principle we continue to believe it’s important to protect the confidentiality of the dissent channel. We understand the need to give Congress the information it needs to do its job, but we want to protect the ability of State Department employees to do their job. We’ve seen the comments that Chairman McCaul has made about this issue publicly, of extending access to the other members of the committee. We will continue to engage with him on this question. And as we’ve said for some time, we hope to reach some kind of final resolution.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Should we – should the —

MR MILLER: Let me just – let me – one —

QUESTION: — the prospect of the enforcement of that subpoena be resuscitated? You think that you might consider facilitating broader access?

MR MILLER: I think for this point we’ll continue to keep the conversations confidential with the chairman. But we’re – we understand that he and Ranking Member Meeks will view the cable today. And as I said, we hope to achieve some resolution to the matter.

QUESTION: Thank you. On one quick separate topic, if I may.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have a view on the impetus behind the apparent pardoning of Roman Protasevich in Belarus by Lukashenka? Was that – do you have clarity onto the circumstances of that pardon?

MR MILLER: Not clarity into the circumstances. As I think you’re aware, we don’t have a lot of direct conversations with the Lukashenka regime. I will say generally the release of even one political prisoner in Belarus is a positive sign, particularly when the total number of political prisoners continues to grow and now has reached more than 1,500. But that does not excuse the Lukashenka regime’s blatant violation of international civil aviation regulations when it diverted the Ryanair flight two years ago for the sole purpose of arresting – excuse me – Mr. Protasevich. After his arrest, he was unconscionably used as a tool of Belarusian state media. He was paraded in front of TV cameras, coerced into confessing. And while he was pardoned, Ms. Sapega, who was sentenced with him, continues to serve her six-year detention and – today. And we reiterate our call for the regime to unconditionally release all political prisoners unjustly detained in Belarus.

All right, Guita.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Iran, Matt. After months of detention of the two journalists who broke the news on how Mahsa Amini was actually killed, or died, the judiciary has set a date for their trial, which is next week. They have been – one of the charges is collaboration with the United States. Do you have any comments on that? And also anything – any thoughts on the escalation of executions in that country.

MR MILLER: So I will say with respect to that specific question, we reject those charges. They are obviously not true. And I will note that over the course of the protests, Iranian authorities have repeatedly violated Iranians’ human rights, punished them for executing their essential freedoms. This includes not just members of the Iranian public who have – who came forward to protest, but also journalists in the country. Sham trials and executions have been key components of the regime’s attempt to suppress any form of dissent. And we once again, as we have on a number of occasions, call on Iranian authorities to stop their arbitrary detentions, stop their sham trials, and stop denying the Iranian people the fundamental freedoms that they deserve.

QUESTION: And how about on the escalation of executions?

MR MILLER: I will say that we have been concerned about the way the Iranian regime has used executions after, as I said a minute ago, what we believe are sham trials.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more on Iran?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just President Raisi is in Jakarta. He signed some agreements on trade with the Indonesians. Does the United States have any stance on that? You have – the United States has good relations with Indonesia. Do you have any – any position?

MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific comment on their visit. I will say that in general, we do continue to vigorously enforce our sanctions on Iran. We don’t hesitate to take action against sanctions invaders. We’ve taken those actions numerous times in the world, and we regularly engage with countries and strongly discouraging – discourage them from taking steps with respect to Iran that contravene U.S. sanctions.

Alex, you’ve already had, like, four questions. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And do – all right. Yeah.

QUESTION: A couple of different things. Just in a response a minute ago on Syria, you sort of talked about engaging partners in the region about return of refugees. Just to clarify, is that – is the U.S. sort of discussing the possible return of Syrian refugees?

MR MILLER: I don’t think I want to detail – to comment in detail about our conversations with partners in the region.

QUESTION: Right, but there are conversations rather than about the issue of refugees, these are conversations about —

MR MILLER: I probably should – I probably should have said about the issue of refugees, to be – to be more precise.

QUESTION: Sure, okay. And just on the Afghan cable, are you saying it’s possible that as well as the visit today to see the – to view the cable, there will be – this will be extended to all members of the committee? Can you clarify that?

MR MILLER: What I would say is we believe, as we said in the letter that we sent to Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks, that making – making the cable available to the chairman and the ranking member to view in private was an extraordinary accommodation on behalf of the State Department. We believe that ought to satisfy the – our obligation to provide them with the information that they need, but we will continue to engage with them about the overall question.

QUESTION: And just one more separate issue. Sorry to range around. On the sort of cross-border offensive in Russian territory, I know you sort of touched on this briefly yesterday, but – and I know that the policy is that U.S. – American-supplied weapons shouldn’t be used in attacks on Russian soil. But is there – is there any U.S. position on whether you support or would denounce an attack, whether using U.S. weapons or not, but an attack into another country by – I guess the Russians would say this is terrorism. So does the U.S. have, like, a position in any way sort of to the people who did this? And we don’t know yet who it was.

MR MILLER: Let me say a few things about it. Number one, we’ve seen some of the reports circulating on social media and elsewhere making claims that U.S.-supplied weapons were used in these attacks. I will say that we’re skeptical at this time of the veracity of these reports. As a more general principle, as we’ve said and I believe I said yesterday, we do not encourage or enable strikes inside of Russia, and we’ve made that clear. But as we’ve also said, it is up to Ukraine to decide how to conduct this war.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, what does —

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: What does that mean, you’re skeptical of these reports? Either you know or you don’t.

MR MILLER: I will say we’ve seen a lot of reports on social media, and fuzzy pictures on social media, and a lot of kind of armchair intelligence analysts making —

QUESTION: But are they wrong?

MR MILLER: — making claims. We’re skeptical that they are – that they are accurate.

QUESTION: But why are you only skeptical? Why can’t you say they’re – why can’t you just flat-out —

MR MILLER: Because we don’t have perfect clarity on the information. We see – we’re looking at the same pictures that you see, the same fuzzy images, and at this time we are skeptical of their veracity.

QUESTION: Could I ask an Iran question?

MR MILLER: Let me – let me —

QUESTION: Iran?

MR MILLER: Let me work the – you’ve had a —

QUESTION: Oh, sure. Yeah.

MR MILLER: Alex, come on. You’ve had a couple already.

QUESTION: I have a —

MR MILLER: Let me – go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV, Pakistan. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan are targeting innocent Pakistanis (inaudible), and after the strong support from the Afghan Taliban we have seen a rise in their activities. Recently they’ve attacked an oil and gas facility in Pakistan. There were more than 50 terrorists. After the attack, they fled to Afghanistan. So my question is that are you concerned on the regrouping of terrorist networks in Afghanistan? Because it is not only TTP; there is Daesh, there is al-Qaida, and many more.

MR MILLER: Let me say a few things. Number one, we are saddened by the devastating reports concerning the deadly militant attack at the Pakistan oil and gas facility, which killed four security troops and two private guards. We extend our deepest sympathies to the families of those who were killed, and we wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured. We continue to closely follow the developments, but we understand that responsibility for the attack has not yet been claimed or attributed.

QUESTION: So there is a political chaos in Pakistan. In recent days we have seen a crackdown against political workers and journalists. The Pakistani Government and military leadership decided to try these arrested civilians under military laws. The national and international human rights organizations criticized this decision. What are your thoughts?

MR MILLER: I will say, as we’ve said before, we continue to monitor the situation in Pakistan very closely. We don’t have a position on one political candidate or another inside Pakistan. We call for the respect and equal application of democratic principles, freedom of expression around – and rule of law around the world, and of course in Pakistan we urge that these principles be respected for all people.

QUESTION: But would you call for the – to respect the human rights during this political chaos?

MR MILLER: Of course we do. As I just said, we always call for the respect of democratic principles, freedom of expression, and rule of law around the world – in Pakistan, in every other country around the world.

QUESTION: Africa?

MR MILLER: Who was that? Who – yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you so much, Matt. First, let me just say that it’s wonderful to see you at the podium.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: And I look forward to engaging you on the entire continent —

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: — of Africa. Pearl with Premium Times Nigeria. Matt, I have three questions to pose to you. My first question is the White House did announce the presidential delegation that will be going to President-elect Tinubu’s inauguration over the – from May 29. What do you say to the population of Nigeria who might view now the U.S. sort of embrace of Tinubu, whereas at the same time you have kind of indicated that the elections may not have been free, fair, and credible – yet there seems to be this embrace of Tinubu. So if you could share something on that, that would be great.

The second question I have for you is Africa Day is in two days, May 25, and in the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa and its keenness to engage and deepen relationships and partnerships there – what message do you have as we head into Africa Day when millions are still facing instability, conflict, and other things?

Third, I saw the humanitarian assistance that you announced today for Sudan and neighboring countries – Chad and others. Do you have a breakdown there on those countries? And is it going to be limited to those – why – I mean, I may understand Egypt, but Egypt already received a – receives a disproportionally huge amount of assistance from the United States. Could you share the motivation and thinking behind that? Thanks.

MR MILLER: So let me say, first of all, thank you for the question, and likewise I look forward to taking your questions, especially when you ask me difficult three partners that – three part-ers that challenge my ability to even remember all the questions, let alone answer them.

To take them in order or attempt to take them order, let me say first, with respect to Nigeria, we did take steps last week in support of the democratic process in Nigeria to impose visa restrictions on individuals believed to be responsible for or complicit in undermining the democratic process in the country. That said, those steps that were specific to certain individuals and certain individuals alone and were not directed to the Nigerian people or the Government of Nigeria as a whole. As we made clear – as I think we read out last week, the Secretary just had a call with his counterpart in the Nigerian Government, and we look forward to continuing to cooperate with them on issues of shared concern.

With respect to your question about our Sub-Saharan strategy, I will say that Africa continues to be a priority for the Biden-Harris administration. Our U.S. Africa strategy is rooted in the recognition that Sub-Saharan Africa is a major geopolitical force, and we look at Sub-Saharan Africa as partners and the country in that part of the – the countries in that part of the world as partners. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa play – have some of the most rapidly expanding economies, a growing and young population, large free trade areas, one of the world’s diverse ecosystems, and one of the largest regional voting groups in the United Nations. So I will say we continue – we look forward to continuing to work with not just the governments, but of course engaging directly with the people of the entire African continent.

And then I – finally I will say with respect to your third question, I’m not aware of the exact breakdown of aid and which countries it might be – which countries, which particular tranches of aid might be going to, but we’d be happy to follow up after the briefing.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. The former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss (inaudible) in a speech in Taipei, she called for development of economic NATO to coordinate pushback against Beijing. Did the U.S. welcome Liz Truss’s visit to Taiwan, and do you share that vision for economic NATO? Is this on the table vis-à-vis U.S.-UK relations at all, and what’s your overall stance on economic NATO, this idea?

MR MILLER: Our overall stance on?

QUESTION: Economic NATO.

MR MILLER: I will say with respect to Liz Truss’s visit: I don’t have any specific comment on it. And with respect to the rest of your question, let me take that one back.

QUESTION: May I?

MR MILLER: I’m going to – I’ll come back to both of you, but after I’ve – go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Senator Menendez said the other day that the approvals for the sales – for the sale of F-35 jets that Greece is asking have been given, he said. And he said, quote, “So they are coming,” end quote, to Greece. Can you tell us if the State Department sent already this request by Athens to buy the F-35?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any update with respect to that issue.

QUESTION: Can you take the questions?

MR MILLER: I will, but I don’t believe we have any update with respect to the sale of F-35s.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. There was a report that Chinese new ambassador, Xie Feng, would arrive in Washington as early as yesterday. Has he arrived, already come to D.C.? Do you expect any meeting between him and a high‑profile official of the Biden administration in coming days? And would you think his assignment could have a positive effect on the bilateral relationship between United States and PRC?

MR MILLER: So I don’t know the exact status of where he is at any given point. That’s probably a question better directed to the embassy here. I will say that the United States welcomes the arrival of Ambassador-Designate Xie Feng from the People’s Republic of China. We look forward to working with the ambassador-designate and his team. We remain committed, as we’ve said on a number of occasions, to maintaining channels of communication with the PRC to responsibly manage competition. And our understanding is that, in terms of when officials here will meet with him, the Office of the Chief of Protocol here at the State Department will work with the PRC embassy on the presentation of credentials in accordance with standard State Department practices and diplomatic norms.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. So you’ve reiterated today that you don’t encourage or enable attacks outside – Ukraine’s attacks outside its borders. But in the context of U.S.-provided air defense and soon maybe F-16s, does that also apply to Russian planes being in Russian airspace? Because they haven’t performed their strikes against civilians and civilian infrastructure from within its borders. So I’m wondering what the —

MR MILLER: Did you just say that Russians have not executed strikes on —

QUESTION: No, no, they do – they – I mean, the Russian air force conducts their strikes usually – I mean, a lot of the times from within their territory, airspace. So does your guidance on not encouraging attacks on outside of Ukraine’s borders also cover the Russian planes in Russian airspace.

MR MILLER: So I’m just going to say that, again, that we do not encourage or enable attacks outside Ukraine’s borders. But I do think it is important to step back and always remember that it is Russia who is the aggressor here. It is Russia, as you alluded to, that is launching attacks on civilian infrastructure. Russia, that is bombing civilian targets, is taking out schools and hospitals, and killing civilians by the thousands. So we will leave it to our Ukrainian partners to decide how to conduct this war. But as I’ve said on a number of occasions, and as the President, the Secretary, and the National Security Advisor have made clear, we don’t encourage or enable strikes beyond Ukraine’s borders.

QUESTION: And on the attack in the Belgorod region, do you know – do you have a position on who was behind it?

MR MILLER: We don’t. We are aware of the reports, but I don’t have any – any more specific information about it.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Tensions rise between Afghanistan and Iran over the Helmand River dam as the Taliban continue to build the dam. What is the U.S. reaction to any possible escalation between Afghanistan and Iran? And second question: In the past few weeks, Afghan women activists took to the street and they demanded the right to work and education. Does the U.S. have any new pressure strategy to pressure the Taliban?

MR MILLER: So I will say with respect to tensions between Iran and Afghanistan, I don’t have any specific comment other than that, obviously, we would be concerned about any increased tensions in the region. With respect to the Taliban, I will just reiterate what we have said for some time and that we encourage the Taliban to stop its crackdown on human rights, to stop its repression of women. We understand that the Taliban continues to seek international recognition, but to get international recognition they have to earn legitimacy. And that is very difficult to achieve as long as they continue to suppress their own people, and especially as they continue these horrific attacks on women inside the country.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Good to see you in the podium.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: This is Mushfiqul Fazal representing South Asia Perspectives. On Myanmar, in the United Nations-linked body found Myanmar’s military regime has procured more than 1 billion worth of arms and raw materials, weapons, from – mostly from Russia, China and India, since it ousted the democratically elected government in February 2021. And this, weapons using against the pro-democratic protesters. So what is your comment that?

MR MILLER: I am not aware of that specific report. I’ll have to take it back and get you a comment on it.

Yeah, go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: This is just – I realize you may not have anything, and this might be more for the Pentagon. But since we’re here, Russia —

MR MILLER: You’ve already given me an answer. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR MILLER: You shouldn’t make it easy – too easy for me.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) A serious matter, though – the Russian Defense Ministry said they’ve intercepted two U.S. jets just now over the Baltic Seas. Is there any – is that something you’re familiar with?

MR MILLER: I’m not aware of it. And I – as I said at some point yesterday, I’m going to make it a practice not to comment on things that break while I’m at – up here at the podium that I’ve not yet had a chance to confirm or discuss with my colleagues.

QUESTION: Thought I’d try.

QUESTION: Stay on Russia? Does the department have any position on the controversial meeting took place in Moscow between high-level UN special representative on children and the Russian ombudsman on children, AKA wanted war criminal?

MR MILLER: I don’t think I have any specific comment on that meeting, other than I will say we continue to be concerned about Russia’s actions in Ukraine. We have expressed our concern and our shock and our outrage about those actions on a number of occasions. We’ve made clear in calling Russia’s actions war crimes and we continue to seek accountability for those actions.

QUESTION: Can you take that question for me, so get back to me on —

MR MILLER: Sure. Sure.

QUESTION: And you might have some reports about Russia preventing Black Sea grain deal. Today Ukraine had to actually halt operations because of that reason.

MR MILLER: Yeah. I saw that, and I’ll say once again Russia continues to obstruct the normal operations of this lifesaving initiative. Really since the – almost since the ink was first dry on the first Black Sea Grain Initiative agreement, Russia began to complain about the agreement publicly, began to obstruct it – to obstruct it.

The – we should be very clear about what happened here. The parties agreed to enable unimpeded exports of Ukrainian food from three ports. Now Russia is refusing to allow ships to one of those three. It is a clear violation of their commitments under the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Their obstruction of this initiative – their continued obstruction of this initiative and threats to withdraw threaten to push up global food prices, threaten to reduce food accessibility for vulnerable populations around the world, and we once again call on Russia to stop holding global food supplies hostage.

You had your hand up, and this will be the last one. I’ve got to go.

QUESTION: Very quickly, Iran-related question. Yesterday —

MR MILLER: What’d you say? Iran-related?

QUESTION: Iran, yes. Yes, sir, if I may.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant accused Iran of converting merchant ships into military vessels and rocket launching platforms and so on, for the airplanes and so on. Are you aware of these – this accusation?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific comment on that, but I don’t think you’ll be surprised to say that – to hear me say that we have long been concerned about Iran’s activities in the region.

QUESTION: Right, but would that be a great deal of concern for you, like a threat to the United States and its interests in the region?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to comment on that specific report. Thank you all.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)

# # #

Department Press Briefing – May 22, 2023

1:31 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Hello, everyone. Sorry for being a few minutes late.

QUESTION: Yes, well, we won’t hold it against you, your first day on the job and you show up 15 minutes —

MR MILLER: Are you going to let me speak, before we get into grilling me, Matt?

QUESTION: Of course.

MR MILLER: Or are you going to just jump right in to the holding me accountable part?

QUESTION: Well, this is kind of like off the record first bit.

MR MILLER: Understand. Let me start with a few brief remarks before we turn to your questions. Excuse me. I’m recovering from a little bit of a cold, so.

The Secretary is on his way back from a successful trip to Japan and Papua New Guinea, where we continued work revitalizing and strengthening alliances around the world. Thanks to our shared efforts, the G7 is now stronger and more united than ever on our shared goals.

First, we made clear that we are united on the core elements that underpin our common approach to China. We stand together as partners on a set of core shared principles.

Second, we are deepening our cooperation on economic security and resilience, which includes strengthening and diversifying supply chains, launching a new coordination platform to help deter and counter economic coercion, and affirming the need to protect emerging technologies.

Third, we reaffirmed our commitment to addressing global challenges, including the climate crisis. We launched a Clean Energy Action Plan, which underscores the need for investment and incentives to build a clean energy economy of the future and create jobs at home and around the world.

We made clear we will continue to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s invasion. In coordination with the G7, Australia, and other partners, we imposed new sanctions to further degrade Russia’s military and deny Russia resources to fuel its continued aggression and abuses against the people of Ukraine. The sanctions hit over 200 entities, individuals, vessels, and aircraft.

Finally, President Biden announced our 38th tranche of security assistance for Ukraine’s courageous defenders, including fourth generation fighter aircraft training. We are honoring our commitment to stand with Ukraine as long as it takes. We welcome and support Ukraine’s commitment to a just peace, based on fundamental principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

And then let me just close by saying earlier today while in Papua New Guinea, Secretary Blinken reaffirmed our continued commitment to the Indo-Pacific and affirmed a vision of cooperation and partnership to address shared challenges, bolster Pacific regionalism, advance economic growth and sustainable development, maintain peace and security in the region, and expand opportunities for our people.

And with that, before I go to Matt, let me just say a few personal comments, and that’s that it is a – both an honor and a privilege for me to stand here before you, to speak to you and to the American people about the work that the men and women in this department do every day on their behalf. I have long admired the work that goes on in this room, both from my predecessors that have stood here to take your questions, and of all of you who do so much to explain the work that we do to the American public and to the world and to hold us accountable. And so my pledge to you will be that as long as I have the privilege of coming before you to take your questions every day, I will answer them as forthrightly as I can, share as much as information with you as I possibly can, and understanding that when I mess up – which I’m sure I will – you all will hold me to account.

And with that, Matt, you want to kick us off?

QUESTION: Yes, please. Well, before I get into it, I want to say welcome aboard.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: And I’m sure you’ll do just fine. Two words of advice: don’t use the word of irregardless, because it doesn’t exist, and also fulsome doesn’t mean what you think it means.

MR MILLER: I find myself —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: — in longstanding agreement with you on both of those issues.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) All right. So anyways —

MR MILLER: And I reject the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary has changed the definition of fulsome, but I’m with you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, anyway, welcome.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: And I’m sure we’ll have many fun times here in this room. Let me start with Israel and the Middle East. You put out a statement last night, or at least it was put out under your name, which was not particularly enthusiastic – let’s say it wasn’t enthusiastic at all. It was actually highly critical of Israel’s decision on Homesh settlement, or outpost, as it were. I’m wondering: one, have you heard anything in response from the Israelis to your criticism; two, does your criticism still stand, whether you have heard anything or not?

And then secondly, the second paragraph of your statement referred to the letters that had been exchanged between former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and former U.S. President George Bush – W. Bush. And you seem to be complaining, and this is the second time this has happened – not – the first time under your name but the second time it has happened – that you guys have complained about this. And yet it was in fact the Obama administration that said when it was in office that it no longer recognized or no longer felt bound by the assurances that were given by both sides in these. So, why do you expect the Israelis to uphold this when you guys haven’t for 12 years?

MR MILLER: So, let me start by restating what we said in the statement before I get to your questions, and that is that we are deeply troubled by the Israeli Government’s recent order that allowed citizens to establish a permanent presence in the Homesh outpost in the northern West Bank, which, according to Israeli law, was illegally built on private Palestinian land. As you referred to, Matt, as our statement said last night, that order – this order is inconsistent with both former Prime Minister Sharon’s written commitment to the Bush administration in 2004 and, significantly, the current Israeli Government’s commitments to the Biden administration.

With respect to your question about communications with the Israeli Government, of course, we engage with our Israeli counterparts on a number of levels. all the time. I’m not going to get into speaking specifically about the contents of those communications. And I will say with respect to the letters our view has been clear and consistent that the expansion of settlements undermines the geographic viability of a two-state solution. It exacerbates tensions, it further harms trust between the two parties, and that is consistent with the views of previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, including the views expressed in that exchange of letters.

QUESTION: But I don’t care who the letters were exchanged between. They could have been between Golda Meir and Lyndon Johnson, but the fact of the matter is – is that you guys were the ones who first said you’re no longer bound by them, so why do you keep bringing – why – if you think that what the Israelis are doing now is inconsistent with what they’ve told you – I mean “you” meaning this administration – that’s one thing. But why keep bringing up the Sharon-Bush letters?

MR MILLER: Because I don’t agree that our position has changed over time. Our position has been clear and consistent across administrations, and it is our view that that letter was not withdrawn.

QUESTION: Really? The last administration, really?

MR MILLER: It’s our view – our view is that —

QUESTION: That was a clear and consistent view in the – during the last administration?

MR MILLER: It is our view that the letter to which you referred has not been withdrawn and that the Israeli Government —

QUESTION: It hasn’t? Okay.

MR MILLER: And that the Israeli Government has not withdrawn the obligations it made in its letter.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. Well, then that’s interesting. So, this administration still feels bound by the commitments that President George W. Bush made to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon back in —

MR MILLER: We – our policy has not changed, and that is that the expansion of settlements —

QUESTION: But I’m not asking – do you —

MR MILLER: The letter has not been withdrawn and our policy has not changed.

QUESTION: Well, then, what did the Obama administration do? Maybe I shouldn’t ask you to speak —

MR MILLER: I’m not a spokesperson for the Obama administration. I’m not going to speak to them. It’s what our policy is.

QUESTION: No, but – well, but the current president was the vice president during the Obama administration, so I’m just – I am curious. Do you expect the Israelis to uphold something that the Obama administration already said it was not interested in —

MR MILLER: So, what I will say is we expect them to – to uphold their commitments that they made in that letter, their commitments that they made to the Biden administration, and, as I said, the fact that these settlements are illegal under current Israeli law.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I could understand this a lot better if you just said that you expect them to uphold their commitments to the Biden administration.

MR MILLER: Which I’ve said.

QUESTION: The fact of the matter is that you’re asking them to uphold commitments that were made almost 20 years – 15 years ago that you – that the United States under the Obama administration has already said that they’re not bound by. So why does Israel have to uphold them if you don’t? And just drop it from the —

MR MILLER: So again – no, again, we have not withdrawn that letter. We do not believe that they have withdrawn their obligations under the letter. But more to the point, these settlements would be inconsistent with current Israeli law and, as I said, consistent with the commitments that they made to this administration in the last few years.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up?

QUESTION: Just – wait, wait, I got one more. It’ll be really brief on Homesh. And – so the Israelis say that they are not going to rebuild anything on private Palestinian land. Is that okay with you or is it – is that just a non-starter?

MR MILLER: I would say, as we have said, we believe the expansion of the settlements undermines the geographic viability of the two-state solution – as I have stated.

QUESTION: Including —

MR MILLER: And their pledge was to remove all settlements from this area.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, Matt?

QUESTION: Can I get a follow-up?

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead, Andrea.

QUESTION: Can we focus on the second paragraph as well? Because clearly, Sharon did not observe any understanding about not going to the Temple Mount. Is there an understanding, a legal understanding other than your concern, the U.S. concern about that holy area, about what you’re saying was the provocative visit?

MR MILLER: I will just reiterate that we are deeply concerned by the provocative visit to Haram al-Sharif, Temple Mount. We believe this holy space should not be used for political purposes, and we call on all parties to respect its sanctity. And more broadly, we reaffirm the longstanding U.S. position in support of the historic status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites and underline Jordan’s special role as the custodian of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem.

QUESTION: Does that – did that apply when Israeli police entered the mosque, just in recent weeks?

MR MILLER: I will say, not speaking with respect to that specific incidence – incident, but that we are concerned by any actions by either side that escalate tensions, and make an ultimate resolution more difficult.

QUESTION: Aside from your statement, at what level has this been communicated to the Israeli Government?

MR MILLER: As I said to Matt’s first question, we regularly communicate with the Israeli Government at a number of levels. But I think it’s more productive for us to keep those conversations confidential.

QUESTION: Matt, may I just follow on this?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Good to see you behind the podium.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: And irregardless of what – (laughter) – I’m just kidding.

QUESTION: No, no, no. Not —

MR MILLER: You’re going to get yourself ejected for that, and not by me.

QUESTION: That’s okay. All right. I mean, look, good statement, strong statement, as far as stating your position on the settlements and so on and expansion and otherwise. But what next? I mean, regardless of the letters exchanged and so on, so we’ve heard from behind this podium by you, by the Secretary, by others, and so on, expressions of displeasure, of concern, and all these things. But what steps are you willing to take? I mean, it can be concerned, deeply concerned. It can be – maybe you’re angry and so on. But what steps can you take to really drive the point home?

MR MILLER: So, I’m going to first of all somewhat disagree with the implicit premise of your question that the words that we deliver from this podium or elsewhere in the U.S. Government have no impact. I think if that weren’t true, I wouldn’t be looking out at a full room of people here ready to ask what our position is on this issue and others.

QUESTION: No, you underestimate your (inaudible).

QUESTION: I didn’t say – I didn’t say that —

MR MILLER: That’s – yeah. No, I think that’s one thing I definitely don’t. What I will say, Said, is that we will continue to make our views known – we will make our views known publicly, as we did in the statement last night, as I am here, and we will continue to make our views known privately.

QUESTION: Are we ever going to hear “or else” kind of a thing? You do this or else, this is our position? And just before you answer that, let me ask you about my own village. I mean, there are plans today to build in my own village, in Abu Dis, 400 housing units. So, I mean, it seems that the Israelis, they may take what you say very seriously, but then they go on with their own plans.

MR MILLER: I will say, with respect to those reports, we have made abundantly clear, on a number of occasions, that the Biden administration, like most before it, views the expansion of settlements as counterproductive and an obstacle to peace that undermines the geographic viability of a two-state solution. And Said, we will continue to make that view clear both publicly and privately to governments in the region.

QUESTION: Building 400 housing units in the heart of that town, it will make it like Hebron. It will be a flash point. It will be a constant confrontation and so on. I mean, would you – how would you dissuade them from doing such a thing?

MR MILLER: I will – we will continue to make —

QUESTION: Before it happens?

MR MILLER: We will continue to make our views known, as I have just done.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Humeyra.

QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Welcome, and good luck with your new gig.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: So, I just want to move to China. A lot of things happened over the weekend, and President Biden said a shift in tides could occur shortly. We’ve Chinese MFA come out and respond to that. I don’t want you to read President Biden’s mind, but then I am curious if his comments were a reference to Secretary Blinken possibly rescheduling the Beijing trip. When can that happen? And after this weekend, do you see it more likely to happen soon rather than – sooner rather than later?

MR MILLER: So, I don’t have any announcements, as you probably anticipated I would say. Don’t have any announcements about rescheduling that trip or other further travel. I think what I would say is that as you know, the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, met with Wang Yi. I think it was week before last now, and this was one of the things that they discussed, the way in which the U.S. Government will continue to engage with China. We’ve made clear that we think it’s important that we engage with China about issues of shared concern and about issues where we have concerns about actions by the PRC.

So, we continue to work through, with our colleagues at the White House and with our colleagues at other agencies in the U.S. Government, the timing of any engagements with China, who would make – who would be responsible for those engagements, where they would occur, when they would happen. But I don’t, as I said to start, have any announcements to make today.

QUESTION: Right. So, your answer actually kind of answers my second question because we also know that other officials might be traveling, too. There’s talk of Secretary Yellen, Kerry, Raimondo. You said that there are talks across the government. So, would you still say it’s more likely for Secretary Blinken to go first, or it might be another high-level Cabinet-level official going there?

MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to speculate at all about the timing or sequencing of events. Secretary Blinken has made clear that he looks forward to rescheduling that visit – when conditions allow, but I don’t have any announcements to make about when that will happen.

QUESTION: Okay. And then I have something specific on the Marshall Islands. So, I just want you guys to clarify when you expect to finalize the new COFA agreement with the Marshall Islands. Because Joe Yun was just there for three days, you guys have been negotiating this for more than a year, and he told Reuters on Saturday that he hoped to finalize the deal in – within the coming weeks. But then Secretary Blinken said – told the Pacific Islands Forum today the U.S. is looking forward to entering negotiations with the Marshall Islands. Did he misspeak or can you explain what —

MR MILLER: No. We continue to work on that matter. It’s a high priority for us. But I don’t have any further details to offer about when such a negotiations could be concluded.

QUESTION: Do you think the fact that it wasn’t signed on this one was some sort of a setback, or —

MR MILLER: No, not at all. It’s a priority for us; as you know, we finalized other similar agreements in the region. We’re continuing to work to this one and look to finalize it in short order.

QUESTION: Can I change the topic?

MR MILLER: Sure.

QUESTION: In the —

MR MILLER: Oh, we got – before we do anything else on China, before we –

QUESTION: On China?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Welcome to the podium.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: China? She was asking about the Marshall Islands.

MR MILLER: Well she started in China, so some forbearance, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Is the State Department considering whether to lift sanctions on Chinese Minister of National Defense Li Shangfu?

MR MILLER: No, we are not. We – I’ll leave at that. No, we are not.

QUESTION: President Biden say during the press conference in Japan that it’s under negotiation. So are you saying that the – President Biden have different —

MR MILLER: Very – I – very much not so. He also made clear that we are not planning to lift any sanctions on him or on China more broadly.

QUESTION: But is the U.S. entertaining the idea of whether to not to lift sanctions to – for negotiation purpose?

MR MILLER: No.

Before – before – anything else on China, and then I’ll come —

QUESTION: Taiwan?

MR MILLER: I’ll come to you as soon as – go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) News. So, there was a Taiwan Science and Technology Cooperation Dialogue today earlier, and I’m wondering if you could speak a little bit about how this fits within the wider framework of keeping Taiwan included in the Asia-Pacific commerce – body of commerce and development, and beyond that, within the global commerce and development area.

MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: First off, welcome to the podium. Nadia Bilbassy with Al Arabiya. Iran just announced appointment of a new ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Alireza Enayati. Do you support this, and do you see it as a way to de-escalate within the new frame of agreement that was signed between the Saudis and the Iranians recently?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on the appointment of a new ambassador. That’s an issue between Iran and Saudi Arabia. As I think – believe we’ve said before, we welcomed – we welcome continued diplomatic engagement in the region. But I – and if any such diplomatic engagements could lead Iran to curtail its malign activities in the region, we would, of course, support that. But I don’t have any comment on that specific announcement.

QUESTION: But some people were doubtful that the agreement actually can be implemented, but the fact that now they have appointed an ambassador – initially, the administration said they did support the agreement. I’m just wondering if you see practically if this is – actually, will lead to more stability in the region, or do you still that Iran – you hold Iran accountable for everything else that it’s been doing in the region?

MR MILLER: I think two things can be true. Number one, they appointed an ambassador, and number two, we very much continue to hold responsible – Iran responsible for its activities in the region.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: Since you are in the region —

MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the on the Arab League summit final statement in general?

MR MILLER: I will just say, as we have said before, we continue to oppose normalization with the Syrian regime. We do not believe it was appropriate to admit – readmit Syria into the Arab League and we made that position clear to our partners in the region. That said, if those countries are to continue to engage or to resume engagement with Syria, we think it’s important that they demand progress on a number of areas where we have concerns with Syria’s behavior and where we understand they have concerns with Syria’s behavior. That would, of course, be the trafficking of Captagon, humanitarian issues in the region. And so, while we oppose any normalization with the Assad regime, we do hope and expect that our partners in the region will press for progress on the many issues on which we have shared concerns.

QUESTION: And one more: Any comments on Hizballah war games yesterday in south Lebanon?

MR MILLER: So, we have seen these reports. We reiterate our position that Hizballah remains a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specifically Designated Global Terrorist. Hizballah is more concerned with its own interests and those of its patron Iran than what is best for the Lebanese people. And I just want to note something that the prime minister of Lebanon said, which is the event constituted a diminution of Lebanon’s authority and sovereignty, and add that moreover, it threatens Lebanon’s security and stability.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Alex.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Welcome to the podium.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: I look forward to asking you some tough questions in the weeks and months ahead.

MR MILLER: Sure.

QUESTION: But since it’s your first day, I have a very simple question. Given what’s going on in Ukraine —

MR MILLER: Simplest questions are sometimes the hardest ones, so —

QUESTION: Let’s try it out. Sixteenth month we are entering into Russian consistent attacks. Today, Ukrainians woke up again to apartments damaged. Is Russia a terrorist state?

MR MILLER: So, we have not designated Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. As I think you’re aware, we’ve spoken to this before. We don’t believe that that’s the most effective mechanism for holding Russia accountable, and that, in fact, doing so could have counterproductive – or could have counterproductive side effects in our ability to deliver humanitarian aid to the region. But what I will say is we have continued to hold Russia account – to account through a number of other – another – a number of other steps. Those started even before Russia invaded Ukraine with our delivery of weapons to Ukraine. It’s continued with the sanctions and export controls that we have imposed and that our allies and partners have imposed on Russia.

And I think most significantly, it’s continued with the weapon systems that we have delivered to Ukraine; and as I said in my opening remarks, further weapon systems that we announced even in the last few days. So, we will continue to look at all the ways that we can hold Russia accountable for its actions, but most significant of those is to continue to back our Ukrainian partners so they can repel the Russian forces that have invaded their country.

QUESTION: And the reason why I’m asking is that because, given the familiar pattern that we have seen in terms of weapons – you guys have – first you say no and then you reconsider your decision. I’m just wondering if you are still reconsidering your decision on designating Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

MR MILLER: No, we —

QUESTION: No?

MR MILLER: We have said – look, we – we do always look at every tool that’s in our toolbox. But we do not think that it is the most effective way to hold Russia accountable, at this time. It does not necessarily or significantly add to the mechanisms we have already taken. And I think you have to look at the measures that we have imposed – which have had a serious impact on the Russian economy, which have had a serious impact on Russian oil revenue, which of course helps fund the war machine. And so, while there – we will always look at what other measures are appropriate to impose on Russia, I’m not going to make any apologies for the measures that we’ve imposed to date.

QUESTION: And let me get your sense on what’s going on in Belgorod.

MR MILLER: What’s the limited number of questions from one reporter, before you move on?

QUESTION: It’s my last one.

MR MILLER: I’m new here, so –

QUESTION: I promise, my last one on this. In Belgorod, what’s going on there? Som what’s your sense of –

MR MILLER: What’s going on where?

QUESTION: In Belgorod.

QUESTION: Belgorod.

QUESTION: Belgorod. The border – Russian-Ukrainian border, which is Russia side of the town. And do you have any sense of what’s going on, and its implications?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on activities on the ground. I would refer you to the Pentagon for any updates, or of course the Ukrainian Government.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that one?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So, in Belgorod there were – there are obviously these reports, and there’s images online that suggest American weapons have been used. So, I know you don’t know, but do you support U.S. weapons being used on Russian territory? And would that change the calculus of providing F-16s to Ukraine?

MR MILLER: So, with respect to the calculus of providing F-16s to Ukraine, the President has made very clear that we will begin training the Ukrainian military to pilot F-16s, and we will work with our allies and partners on the provision of F-16s to Ukraine. I don’t have any announcements about when or how that will happen, or what countries they’ll come from. But it is a priority for us, and we will begin to implement that in the coming months.

And then with respect to the broader policy question, we have made very clear to the Ukrainians that we don’t enable or encourage attacks outside Ukrainians’ borders, but I do think it’s important to take a step back and remind everyone, and remind the world, that it – of course it is Russia that launched this war. It’s Russia that continues to launch attacks on civilians in Ukraine. It’s Russia that’s targeted schools and hospitals and civilian infrastructure. So, it is up to Ukraine to decide how they want to conduct their military operations, but it is Russia that has been the aggressor in this war.

Yeah, Jenny.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Welcome to the podium.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the efforts to free Paul Whelan or Evan Gershkovich? Has Russia engaged at all with the proposal that Secretary Blinken mentioned a couple months ago?

MR MILLER: So, I don’t have any specific updates with regard to the proposal that we made. As you know, as we’ve spoken to before, we oftentimes have found that it is not conducive to our efforts to return wrongful detainees home to speak about the details of those efforts. So, we tend to, for the most part, keep them confidential. I will say that I did see Paul Whelan’s comments in the interview that was released over the weekend. And I can assure him and I can assure his family member that we have no higher priority than returning him safely home to the United States.

And the Secretary continues to work on it, other people in this building, other people throughout our government continue to engage on it. And the same goes – the same holds true for Evan Gershkovich. As we announced on Friday, the Russians again denied a consular visit for Evan. It was the second time that they’ve refused to fulfill their obligations. We will continue to press them to fulfill those obligations, as they are supposed to do under consular conventions. And at the same time, we will continue to work to return both Evan and Paul to the United States.

QUESTION: What sort of engagements have you had with the Russians on that front? Are there plans to summon Antonov, for example, over the fact that they keep denying consular access to Evan?

MR MILLER: Secretary Blinken had a call with Sergey Lavrov some time ago that we made known publicly. And beyond that, for the reasons I outlined a minute ago, we’ll keep the communications confidential.

QUESTION: Will he call again?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make. And for the most part, as I’ve said, usually we’ve found that it’s counterproductive in such a delicate situation as returning wrongfully detained Americans home to make public all of the work that we’re doing to secure their release.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Moving back to Sudan, do you have any update? And are you – do you have any reason to believe that the parties will uphold the – this ceasefire, which is supposed to enter into force very shortly or has been already?

MR MILLER: A few hours. Yeah, a few hours.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have any reason to believe that the parties will uphold this ceasefire , since they haven’t upheld any other ceasefire? And could you tell us a little bit more on this monitoring mechanism, and who exactly is going to be monitoring, and if that has been set up definitively ahead of this ceasefire which is supposed to come into force –?

MR MILLER: Let me make a few comments about this in response to your question. Number one, we believe this was an important agreement that for the first time was signed by the two parties. It will allow the delivery and distribution of humanitarian assistance. It will allow the restoration of essential services. The two parties are supposed to withdraw their forces from hospitals and essential public facilities. These are all important steps for the Sudanese people.

And I will say, in response to your question, the first question about prospects for it, one of the things that is included in this ceasefire agreement that we think is important is this international monitoring mechanism. And I’m not going to get into all of the details of that other than to say that from our part, Ambassador Godfrey will lead – will remain in Jeddah and lead the U.S. delegation that’s in charge with monitoring and implementing this agreement.

QUESTION: Okay. And that mechanism has been set up already, or I mean – it’s set up? We know who’s in it?

MR MILLER: Ambassador Godfrey will lead the U.S. —

QUESTION: From the U.S.?

MR MILLER: — for the U.S.

QUESTION: But on the other side?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any further details to make public at this time?

QUESTION: Who else is on it?

MR MILLER: Other than Ambassador Godfrey leading, I don’t have any other specifics.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Welcome to the podium.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thanks. Late last week, there were some reports that Wagner Group has been trying to procure weapons for its fighters in Ukraine by sourcing them from African countries, specifically Mali, and those would be going to their fighters in Ukraine. Do you have any confirmation of that or any sort of additional details?

MR MILLER: Yeah. What I will say is we do believe that Wagner is trying to obscure its efforts to acquire military equipment for use in Ukraine, including by working through third – third-party countries where it has a foothold. We have been informed that Wagner is seeking to transit material acquisitions to aid Russia’s war through Mali and is willing to use false paperwork for these transactions. In fact, there are indications that Wagner has been attempting to purchase military systems from foreign suppliers, and route these weapons through Mali as a third party.

We have not seen, as of yet, that – any indications that these acquisitions have been finalized or executed, but we are monitoring the situation closely. We have sanctioned a number of entities and individuals across multiple continents that support Wagner’s military operations, and we will have more to share on this question soon.

QUESTION: Is there any sense that this might have been what happened in South Africa? I mean, there was a lot of confusion related to the ambassador’s comments a few weeks ago now that there was shipments of weapons going out, he would bet his life on it. The South African Government obviously objected to that characterization, and there was some confusion as to where, I think, all of that ended up. And the South African Government is looking into it. Is there a sense that it might not have been South Africa that was shipping weapons but that possibly a third-party group like Wagner or another mercenary group was trying to use that port or ship weapons that were not an official sort of South African weapons shipment?

MR MILLER: I don’t think I have anything to add other than what we said several weeks ago, which is we were concerned about that incident in South Africa, but I don’t have any other – any further details to share.

QUESTION: Well, can you just say – how recent are – the guidance that you just read on Mali? Did that just – was that from like a couple days ago or is it from December? And —

MR MILLER: It’s new. This is a new —

QUESTION: New from —

MR MILLER: A new map.

QUESTION: New from —

MR MILLER: A new concern from the —

QUESTION: Yes. From?

MR MILLER: No, the broad concern is not new. These are specific details.

QUESTION: Well – no, no, no, I get that. But that language and this specific allegation that they might be trying to get stuff from Mali, how new? Like a day?

MR MILLER: The last several days.

QUESTION: Two days? Three days?

MR MILLER: I think we made it public in – under some form or fashion. It was reported over the weekend and confirming it here.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Congratulations on the new role, and the best of luck with the briefings. Earlier this morning in Manhattan, New York, there was an attack against the Turkish diplomatic mission just across the street from the United Nations as well. I think the suspect is still at large. What would you have to comment as the State Department against this – about this attack against a diplomatic mission?

MR MILLER: Sure. We have seen these reports of vandalism at the Turkish House in New York City. I can tell you the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service is working with local law enforcement authorities on the investigation. We condemn the vandalism. Violence against – diplomatic crimes is – in – within the United States is a punishable crime. And for additional details, I’d refer you to the NYPD.

QUESTION: A tiny follow-up on that. There’s obviously a long-running history of attacks against Turkish diplomats and diplomatic missions. Even in Los Angeles, we had a diplomat that was killed by the ASALA Armenia terrorist group. So have you been able to find out if there’s been any plans or plots prior to this attack and if threats against Turkish diplomatic missions on U.S. soil?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any other further – any further details to add. Obviously, it’s a matter that remains ongoing, and I think, as will often by the case about investigative matters, I would leave comment to law enforcement – in this case, the NYPD.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Welcome.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: I would like to ask on the G7 Summit in Hiroshima. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy joined the summit by arriving at Hiroshima on a French Government airplane. I know its operation was basically arranged by French and Japanese Government, but I’m wondering if United States provided any diplomatic or security support regarding this – Zelenskyy’s trip?

MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any. I would refer you to the French Government and the Japanese Government for further details, especially since he traveled on a French Government plane.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, and welcome to the podium. I wanted to ask you about Bakhmut. The fog of war there has been making it very difficult —

MR MILLER: About where? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Bakhmut in Ukraine. So. the fog of war there has made it very difficult to understand who is in the control of the city. I was wondering if you could shed any light on whether the U.S. assesses that Russia or Ukraine is currently in control. Have you been in communication with your Ukrainian counterparts on the city? And does the U.S. address the situation there – we do know that there are very few Ukrainian troops. Does the U.S. assess that is a setback or perhaps part of a broader strategy?

MR MILLER: So again, we remain in constant contact with our Ukrainian partners, really at several – at several different levels of the government, from the State Department, from the White House, obviously from the Pentagon. And for any comment about the military situation on the ground, I think it’s more appropriate that it comes from the Pentagon or from Ukraine themselves.

I would just note that whatever the exact situation in Bakhmut, as the President noted over the weekend, the Russian military and private military corporation, the Wagner Group, collectively suffered around 100,000 casualties in its assault. And in their attack on Bakhmut – we’ve all seen the pictures – destroyed the city. And so of course we lament the loss of life there, but I don’t have any specific comment on the situation on the ground.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a welcome and good luck, of course. Sir, yesterday we’ve had elections in Greece, I’m sure you know. The current prime minister, who is a pro-American, emerged as the big winner against the left. I wanted to know if you have any comment.

MR MILLER: Sure. First of all, I’ll say about our relationship with Greece, the U.S.-Greece bilateral relationship has strong support across political parties in both the United States and Greece. It has been strengthened over years of cooperation between multiple administrations and governments in both countries. We congratulate the people of Greece on exercising their democratic right to vote in the birthplace of democracy. And for our part, we look forward to continuing to deepen our partnership with Greece and work with any government that’s chosen by the Greek people.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yean.

QUESTION: Thank you. First and foremost, welcome to the podium.

MR MILLER: You all have to stop saying that. It’s every —

QUESTION: No, it’s a tough one, but I am sure you will enjoy this experience.

My question – the Senate hearing on the Western Balkans took place last week. And given that State Department officials Gabriel Escobar and Derek Chollet gave their testimonies, I have a few follow-up questions.

So, Counselor Chollet said at the hearing that the U.S. wants to deepen the relationship with Serbia, and at the same time Chairman Menendez opened the hearing on the Western Balkans with attacks on the Serbian president, who is the actor in the ongoing high-stakes negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo.

My question: Do you find this approach constructive and aligned to the U.S. diplomatic effort and what Secretary Blinken is trying to achieve between Serbia and Kosovo? That’s my first question.

And the second question, Chollet said that Western Balkans is the priority for Secretary Blinken and the Biden administration. He said, quote, “For so many of us this is personal.” What does are this “personal” mean exactly, if you can unpack this a little bit for us? Thank you.

MR MILLER: Let me take that question back and get you a more complete answer. Given that you asked about what Counselor Chollet meant and another meant, I’ll take that question back and get you a complete answer.

QUESTION: And the first question about the attack on the president in the middle of the negotiation while the U.S. was saying they want to deepen —

MR MILLER: I’ll take that one back as well.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR MILLER: Thank you. Let me get – you’ve had four or five, I’m not sure – back to – I’ll come back to you, yeah.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. There was a G7 summit was going on in Japan at the Hiroshima on the 19th. And on the other side there was a summit meeting with five Central Asian countries led by China, which began on the 18th at Xi’an. It’s western China. How does the United States view Chinese independent diplomacy?

MR MILLER: How does the U.S. view —

QUESTION: How the United States view Chinese independent diplomacy?

MR MILLER: Independent diplomacy with respect to —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: — Ukraine?

QUESTION: No, for – in China, at ASEAN. Chinese, they did a summit meeting on the 18th with Central Asian countries.

MR MILLER: Oh, sure. I will say, with respect to that, we have never asked any country in the world to choose between the United States and China. As you know, Secretary Blinken traveled to Central Asia just several months ago to talk about how we can deepen U.S. diplomatic and economic ties with the region. But at the same time, we expect and understand that countries will have diplomatic relations, and discuss the concerns and interests they share with China as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: China?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Congratulation on your new position. So, China announced yesterday that they banned major Chinese firms from purchasing products of Micron technology, saying that they found significant security risks. Do you have any reaction to it?

MR MILLER: Yeah. So, number one, we’re aware of the news. We saw those reports. Obviously, we have very serious concerns that with the reports that the PRC has restricted the sale of Micron chips to certain domestic industries. The Department of Commerce is engaging directly with the PRC to make our view clear. And broadly, this action appears inconsistent with the PRC’s assertions that it is open for business and committed to a transparent regulatory framework.

QUESTION: And another quick one. There were fake images of explosion outside the Pentagon, circulated alarm on the internet from this morning, I think. So, do you have any information on this you can share with us?

MR MILLER: I don’t. I’m happy to follow up after the briefing.

QUESTION: Sorry, just on Micron. Is that – is there anything in your guidance there about Huawei?

MR MILLER: No. I don’t have any comment on Huawei.

QUESTION: No? Okay.

MR MILLER: No. I think – I think our comments about Huawei are well known.

QUESTION: So, I mean, if you guys – if you guys – if you guys ban or seek to ban a Chinese company from doing – from conducting business here or overseas, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do the same thing?

MR MILLER: I will say that we have made clear that – our concerns that we have with Huawei and the use of Huawei technology. That’s a national security concern.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, yeah. Well, but okay, but —

MR MILLER: But – and —

QUESTION: — China is allowed to have national security concerns too, aren’t they?

MR MILLER: They are. But as I said, they have made clear —

QUESTION: But so, they’re just —

MR MILLER: They have made clear that they’re open for business and said there would be a transparent —

QUESTION: Well, you’ve made clear that you’re open for business too. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: Hold on. Hold on. They have said they would have a transparent regulatory framework, something I think we have here that does not exist in China.

QUESTION: Okay. But still —

MR MILLER: I think the difference is the transparent regulatory framework I just said. The rule of law is quite clear in the United States.

QUESTION: Okay, but —

MR MILLER: Less so —

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. People are talking – there are states in the U.S. that are banning TikTok, right? Not just from government phones but from all kinds of phones. So —

MR MILLER: I think I’m —

QUESTION: So – well, you may be on solid ground as it relates to the federal government, but – and with Huawei because – but still, why can’t the Chinese ban or stop —

MR MILLER: The Chinese Government – the Chinese Government —

QUESTION: Why can’t they?

MR MILLER: The Chinese Government can take —

QUESTION: I mean, even if they don’t have a legitimate reason to. Why can’t they?

MR MILLER: So, they can take every decision that they want to take, obviously, but we believe that it ought to be taken —

QUESTION: Okay, so what’s the —

MR MILLER: — through a transparent regulatory framework. They’ve said that’s what they’re going to do.

QUESTION: Okay, so the – okay. All right.

MR MILLER: We don’t believe they have in this case.

QUESTION: So, what’s the – all right. Okay. So what are you going to do about it?

MR MILLER: As I said, the Department of Commerce is engaging directly with the Chinese Government.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you —

MR MILLER: And then I think I’ll – this will be the last question. I have to wrap up.

QUESTION: Thanks so much. The —

QUESTION: No, I – wait, wait, because I’ve got one more.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. (Inaudible.)

MR MILLER: This is definitely the last question. Oh, you in the – you, you, and then —

QUESTION: Thanks so much.

MR MILLER: — we’ll close with Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, but mine is not —

MR MILLER: For whatever – for whatever —

QUESTION: Mine is – mine is not going to be difficult.

MR MILLER: For whatever has broken front – while I’m at the podium that I have no idea about.

Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Moving to Georgia, South Caucasus. A number of events happened since our last press conference. First of all, we found out that Lavrov’s sanctioned daughter showed up in Georgia, and Russia – Russian aircraft showed up in Tbilisi. Now Georgian aircraft is poised to fly to Moscow. Where has the U.S. been in these days? There is no reaction and no sanction.

MR MILLER: So, I will say with respect to Russian aircraft in Georgia, many Western countries, including the United States, prohibit Russian aircraft from entering airspace. We have been concerned about direct flights between Russia and Georgia resuming. It mean – it could mean that companies in Georgian airports could be at risk for sanctions. We – the entire Western community has distanced itself from this regime, and now is not the time to increase engagement with Russia.

QUESTION: But do you have any timetable for reaction? So, it has been happening already.

MR MILLER: I do not. I do not.

Go ahead. I said I’d come to you next.

QUESTION: Welcome to the podium, Matt.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: The supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Saturday met with the country’s diplomats and ambassadors. He basically gave them guidance on how to conduct their diplomacy, the short version of which is, number one, he said don’t beg, don’t conduct a, quote/unquote, “begging” type of diplomacy. Even if you don’t mean it, make sure it doesn’t sound like you’re begging. Number two, stick to your own – to our principles, the Islamic Republic’s principles. And when it comes to heroic flexibility, which he had used before in terms of showing flexibility during negotiations – for example, with the P5+1 about the nuclear program – he clarified here that he didn’t mean that people – that the Iranian side give up their principles or what they believe in, but to work around anything that may come in front of what they’re trying to achieve.

So, do you have any comments? And do you think given these issues, it seems like they’re toughening again. And all the concerns that the U.S. has with Iran, is continuing diplomacy with Iran possible, especially with regards to the nuclear program?

MR MILLER: So. I will just say, without commenting in detail on those reports, some of which I’m familiar with, some of which I’m not, that we continue to – it continues to be a first principle for this administration that Iran should not – that Iran not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. We have always believed, we continue to believe that diplomacy is the best way to reach that solution, but we have seen no progress in terms of actions from the Iranian Government in the region.

Matt, you want to close us off?

QUESTION: Yeah, I just – and these will be extremely brief because I think you’ll only have a five-second answer for both.

One, do you know anything about the U.S. embassy in Cuba renting Cuban Government EV cars that are made by China?

MR MILLER: I do not. As I think you —

QUESTION: Okay. Could you —

MR MILLER: As you seemed to anticipate.

QUESTION: Could you – yeah. Well, I just heard about it, so I didn’t think you would have anything, but I wanted to get it out there on the record.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can you – could you – or maybe not you, someone look into this and find out if it’s true and what the deal is? I mean, it might be completely innocent.

And then the second thing is just the whole email thing from last week, is that – that’s been resolved, right?

MR MILLER: It has been resolved. That was an unintentional glitch. I’m glad that I’ve had the chance to look into this before answering. My colleague Vedant did not —

QUESTION: Yes.

MR MILLER: — since it broke while he was at the podium. It was an unintentional —

QUESTION: Well, I didn’t —

MR MILLER: It was an unintentional glitch. It was an attempt – or actually, the systems team here, the IT team, was looking at ways to allow users, if they want, to select their pronouns and to be displayed in their – in their email address, and it was certainly not the intention to choose them for anyone.

QUESTION: Okay. So it —

MR MILLER: And it has been resolved.

QUESTION: So, it was fixed?

MR MILLER: It has been resolved.

QUESTION: It was – it was fixed that day or —

MR MILLER: It was fixed that day. It was fixed that day.

QUESTION: Okay. And then – but then there was this notice that went around offering people psychological or – help if they were offended or upset by this. Do you know if anyone took them up on that?

MR MILLER: I don’t, but we always look to offer whatever resources are available to State Department employees.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m not trying to make light of it. I’m just asking if you know —

MR MILLER: I don’t.

QUESTION: — that anyone felt strongly enough about it that they went to —

MR MILLER: I know you felt strongly about it, but I —

QUESTION: No, I —

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I don’t. I’m not trying to bait you, I promise.

QUESTION: I didn’t feel that strongly about it, but anyway, thank you.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I just – can I just follow up on something that Matt had asked?

MR MILLER: What – yeah.

QUESTION: There was apparently a license, an export license, issued more than a year ago to a Maryland-based company to export an electric car and a charger to the embassy, and that four were supposed to be sent, and for some reason, apparently, Brian Nichols did not approve that. So —

MR MILLER: I will say I’m not aware of these reports, and I think I will make it a practice not to comment on things that broke while I was at this podium that I have not had a chance to look into.

QUESTION: Understood.

MR MILLER: So more tomorrow. Thank you all.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)

# # #

Department Press Briefing – May 18, 2023

1:16 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Thursday. I have one thing at the top, and then we’re happy to dive right into your questions.

We are aware that Iranian authorities may imminently execute Majid Kazemi and Saleh Mirhashemi, and Saeed Yaghoubi in connection with their participation in protests in Iran.

We join the people of Iran and the international community in calling on Iran to not carry out these executions. The execution of these men – after what have been widely regarded as sham trials – would be an affront to human rights and basic dignity in Iran and everywhere.

It is clear from this episode that the Iranian regime has learned nothing from the protests that began with another death, the death of Mahsa Amini in September of last year.

We once again urge Iran’s leadership to stop the killing, stop the sham trials, and respect people’s human rights. We are continuing to work in close coordination with our allies and partners around the world to condemn and confront these appalling human rights abuses.

And with that, Matt, happy to dive into your questions.

QUESTION: Okay. I didn’t have anything, but since you started with that, let me just ask you. These are the same cases that Special Envoy Malley tweeted about earlier today, correct?

MR PATEL: Correct, correct. Yeah.

QUESTION: Does that mean that he’s now back?

MR PATEL: I believe he is, but I don’t have a specific – I don’t keep a metric of when people are on leave or not.

QUESTION: Okay. And none of these people have any affiliation with the U.S., do they?

MR PATEL: That is my understanding. Correct.

QUESTION: Right. And then – well, that’s it.

MR PATEL: Okay. Staying on Iran? Okay, then I’ll come back to the wires. Guita, then I’ll come to you, Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you. So you said you – the U.S. is speaking with its allies and partners. Are they of the same view, and do you expect them to condemn these executions or possible executions?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak for our allies and partners, Guita. But when it comes to confronting the challenge of the Iranian regime and its egregious human rights abuses, its continued support for Russia in the war in Ukraine, its provision of arms to proxies in the Middle East, there is convergence between the United States and our allies and partners in confronting the challenge faced by the Iranian regime. And so when it comes to holding them accountable, we’ll continue to do so. We’ll continue to do so via coordinating with our allies and partners.

QUESTION: So on a related topic, about the description of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, Iranians inside and outside the country have started a campaign long ago about trying to convince the UK Government to do so. Even one Iranian-British citizen has been on a hunger strike for about two months at least. A couple of days you were asked whether – what you think, if the U.S. has been talking to the UK about this. You’ve said that it’s a sovereign decision. Yes, but at the same time, you have repeatedly said – excuse me – that just like now that the U.S. does speak with its allies. And so what has the U.S. Government been saying in this regard to the UK Government?

MR PATEL: Sure. So on this, let me just say we of course support putting more pressure on the IRGC to cease its destabilizing activities and involvement in human rights abuses. It is of course up to each country or up to blocs of countries to determine what action is applicable under their own various legal authorities and what’s, of course, in their own interest. And as you know, we have applauded the EU and the UK’s recent designations of IRGC officials and entities for their involvement in not just human rights abuses but of course the transfer of UAVs to Russia that Russia has since used to target Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and kill Ukrainian citizens.

Our viewpoint on this has been quite clear. Our position on the IRGC is that we’ve designated them a foreign terrorist organization and they are subject to more U.S. sanctions than perhaps any other entity on the planet. And so when it comes to continuing to hold the Iranian regime – including the IRGC – accountable, we’ll continue to coordinate closely with our allies and partners in doing so.

QUESTION: And so those reports about the U.S. lobbying for the UK not to do it, when you actually say that you do support IRGC being under pressure, those are —

MR PATEL: We of course support putting more pressure on the IRGC, and it is up to each country and each bloc of countries to determine what way to go about doing that.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up. And thanks so much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: We’re having a hard time understanding why you cannot say on the record that you did not lobby the British Government to refrain from recognizing IRGC —

MR PATEL: Alex, it should be no surprise to you who has covered the department for a long time, I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of the diplomatic discussions that we’ve had with allies and partners. And when confronting the challenge posed by the Iranian regime and countering their malign activities that have impacts not just in the immediate region but in the international community broadly, tackling that head-on requires close coordination with our allies and partners.

And of course in this instance you all are asking about the United Kingdom, so I’m just not going to get specific about what those discussion are like, other than to reiterate what I’ve said, is that when it comes to countering Iran’s malign influence there is immense convergence between our allies and partners in holding this brutal regime accountable. And in the case of the IRGC, we of course welcome efforts to put more pressure on them, but the specific way to go about that is up to each individual country and bloc of countries.

QUESTION: Thank you. Again back to topper, you said rightfully that Iranian regime has not learned from the protests. One thing they have learned, it looks like, that they can get away with it. They can murder their own —

MR PATEL: I would reject the premise of that question. I don’t think the United States has allowed them to get away with it in – we have taken since the death of Mahsa Amini, since the immense protests that we’ve seen break out in Tehran and other parts of Iran, you have seen this country in alignment with our allies and partners take appropriate steps to hold the Iranian regime accountable, whether that be direct sanctions on the human rights abusers, direct sanctions on security officials involved in some of these human rights abuses, bringing licenses on board with our colleagues at the Department of Treasury to allow the further flow of information within the Iranian people. We’ve not hesitated to take action. This action, we know, is having a direct impact on Iran both just as it relates to their own country but also the standing that it has in the international community.

QUESTION: Does the administration —

MR PATEL: So they are not getting away with anything.

QUESTION: Thank you. Will the administration sanction Iranian supreme leader for this very action?

MR PATEL: Again, Alex, I have never been in a place to give you a list of things that we will or will not do when it comes to holding people accountable. We continue to have tools at our disposal to hold the Iranian regime accountable, and we have used those tools and we’ve used them quite regularly. If you look, dating back to the fall of last year, just the regular clip of which we have announced designations relating to the Iranian regime. We’ve done so regularly, consistently, and in close coordination with our allies and partners.

QUESTION: And the last one on this, just a follow-up. You mentioned the tools. My last question, I promise.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: You probably are aware of the MAHSA Act is being considered on the Hill, which will allow the administration to sanction high-ranking Iranian officials. Does the administration support that legislative action?

MR PATEL: Alex, I’m just not going to get into something that is pending legislation that’s still being discussed in Congress.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just to clarify something —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — that you just said. You said that you have – that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been – there are more sanctions than any other entity on Earth. More so than Russia? I mean, you have like 14,000 sanctions on the Russians.

MR PATEL: I believe what I said: it is perhaps than any other entity on the planet. I don’t have – a don’t keep a sanctions list in my back pocket to cross-reference. I will say though that I feel pretty confident saying that the IRGC is, in fact, one of the most designated in the world. Of course the Russian Federation, especially in light of their recent activities over the past year in Ukraine, continues to be something that this administration will continue to take steps to hold accountable as well.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: The head of the Syrian regime will be welcomed to a big hall tomorrow in Jeddah at the Arab Summit League. What’s your take on that, and especially one of your important allies in the region invited him for the summit and most likely they are naturalizing the relationship with the regime.

MR PATEL: So I spoke a little bit about this yesterday and I will reiterate what I said that – and what you heard the Secretary say. We do not believe that Syria should be afforded re-entry into the Arab League. Of course, we are not a party to the Arab League, so this is a decision for the body to make. And as it relates to normalization, we don’t support normalization with the Assad regime and we don’t support our partners doing so.

That being said, we have a number of shared objectives as it relates to the Syrian regime. One of those pieces, of course, is bringing home Austin Tice. Another piece of that is ensuring that ISIS does not re-emerge and continue to have destabilizing impact in the region. Another piece of that is ensuring that we can counter the illicit captagon trade in Syria. These are all objectives we know are shared by our partners in the Arab world and by – while we might disagree on the ways about going to get there, we know and we hope that our Arab partners will use these avenues to raise these directly with the Syrian regime.

QUESTION: So it is okay for the administration or top officials to meet secretly with Syrians in Oman like the last meeting to talk abut Austin Tice? This is appropriate, right?

MR PATEL: You heard me say from here yesterday that the U.S. is willing to engage with anyone who can help secure the progress toward the release of U.S. nationals.

QUESTION: Even U.S. officials themselves to meet with Syrian delegations?

MR PATEL: I think I am very clear in what I’m saying.

All right, Leon, you had your hand up. I looked —

QUESTION: On this?

MR PATEL: Can I go to – I’ll come you right after. I’m sorry. Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can we expect the release of Austin Tice after the Arab summit?

MR PATEL: What I will say, Michel, is that we are working around the clock. We continue to engage extensively to bring Austin home. This of course includes discussing this case with a number of countries in the region. We have pursued every channel, we will continue to pursue every channel, to seek his safe return to his family.

QUESTION: And one more. The Syrian regime is saying in Jeddah that it took all the necessary steps and decisions related to the refugees return to Syria, but the problem is the sanctions that prevent the reconstruction of Syria. My question is are you planning to lift the sanctions on Syria to allow the reconstruction and the return of the refugees?

MR PATEL: Well, let me be very clear that we intend to stand by our core sanctions principle, and we’ve been clear about that with our partner countries in the region. We will not normalize relations with the Assad regime, and our sanctions efforts will remain in full effect. That being said, we do share the objective of creating safe conditions within Syria for the eventual safe return of refugees and will continue to work on that in accordance with our partners in the Arab world.

Leon, go ahead. I’m sorry for passing you over first.

QUESTION: No, no, no. No problem. Change of subject.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the Armenia and Azerbaijan talks in Moscow at the ministerial level. So the two ministers were here not too long ago, about 10 days ago or two weeks ago. There was progress made, but there was obviously no conclusion to those talks. And so now they’re ongoing in Moscow, and Moscow has invited the two leaders to Moscow in end of May, I think. The Armenian prime minister has accepted; I don’t know about his counterpart from Azerbaijan. But my – I was wondering, I mean, how does the State Department, the United States view those talks in Moscow and Russia’s role in these talks, given the context, of course, of the war in Ukraine and —

MR PATEL: Well, we continue to provide full support and engagement of the United States as these two countries work to secure a durable and dignified peace. We welcome the reports that the parties are going to continue to engage in these discussions, and we reiterate that – our conviction that peace is within reach and that direct dialogue is key to resolving these issues.

Our view is that direct talks between the parties are of utmost importance, and we’re glad to see them happen and take place. Whether they are taking place in Arlington, in Brussels, in Moscow, our support with this effort will continue to endure.

QUESTION: Okay. Just a follow-up. Are there any back channels with Moscow on this – Moscow on these talks, sharing information between U.S. and Washington on these —

MR PATEL: Leon, I’m not – without getting into specific diplomatic engagements, of course, one of the many reasons why we continue to maintain bilateral relations with Russia, even in a time of immense tension, is because there are, of course, issues between our two countries that we need to ensure are talked about responsibly, appropriately. And so I will just leave it at that.

Simon. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Still on Russia.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: A group of U.S. senators is introducing a bill called the No START Treaty Act that would recommend withdrawing from New START. I’m guessing you’re not going to comment directly on pending – potential legislation or that element of it. But since they’re suggesting – basically they’re suggesting that Russia has already withdrawn itself from the treaty or said it will no longer comply with the requirements of the treaty. Is the administration’s intention to continue to comply with a treaty where the other side is basically saying, we don’t respect this anymore?

MR PATEL: We are complying with the treaty, and Russia’s decision to unilaterally suspend its participation in New START is unfortunate and irresponsible. You heard the Secretary speak to this quite clearly. Our view is that mutual compliance of New START strengthens security interests of not just the United States but our allies and partners. It strengthens the security interests of Russia and the rest of the world as well. And that’s why we are continuing to work to preserve the treaty.

I’ve not seen this legislation, so I, of course, am not going to comment on it. But we think the world is better off when both of our countries are in compliance of New START.

QUESTION: And is it still your view that the Russians are in compliance, in terms of the limits of the treaty rather than other aspects of treaty, but intent of the limits it actually puts on —

MR PATEL: That is my – that is correct.

QUESTION: Sure. Thanks.

MR PATEL: All right. Olivia, go ahead.

QUESTION: All right. Starting with Nigeria – thank you – has it been determined how many U.S. Government employees were killed in the attack on the convoy?

MR PATEL: So it has not been determined. We’ve not been able to ascertain that information. That could potentially take some time and may require some additional steps, such as DNA testing. What I can add is that it is our assessment that the assailants killed at least four but probably seven members of the convoy. But again, we are not at a place where we can ascertain how many of those were our personnel or not.

QUESTION: You said seven out of nine in total. So what is the status of the other victims? Is there a search ongoing? Is there a potential they’ve been kidnapped or –

MR PATEL: There is. We are continuing to work urgently to ascertain the location of the other convoy members.

QUESTION: Okay. On a separate topic, if I may.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has the department received a response from the House Foreign Affairs Committee to its letter regarding the dissent channel cable yesterday?

MR PATEL: I am not aware of a formal response back. Yeah.

QUESTION: There were, of course, remarks by the chairman in the media yesterday indicating he’s amenable. He’s encouraged by the offer but would like it to be expanded to the entirety of the committee. Is that something that the State Department would entertain?

MR PATEL: I – we’ll look forward to receiving a formal response from the committee, and we’ll take it one step at a time. I’m not going to speculate further from here.

QUESTION: But if the final compromise is to expand the universe of people who can see this from two to more than 50, is that something that you think the department would sign off on?

MR PATEL: I think in – it is natural in these discussions for there to be deliberations and accommodations about the path forward, and I’m certainly just not going to speculate and hypothesize on how we continue to further engage with the committee. What I will reiterate, though, is that at every turn we have offered tangible, fair, and realistic accommodations that we think have sufficiently met and continue to sufficiently meet the committee’s request for information.

And I’ll remind that at this – from – up until this point, we have already offered a classified briefing. We have offered a written summary of the dissent channel cable and the department’s response. And additionally, we have now made the offer that we – that I shared with you all yesterday for Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks to come to the department and view a version of the cable with personal information redacted. So continue to engage with the committee, but I don’t want to get ahead of the process.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on the Nigerian comment?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you still don’t know the motivation for the attack. Is that right?

MR PATEL: Our assessment still is that the – there’s no evidence to point to that these – this convoy was targeted due to its affiliation with the United States or the U.S. mission.

Goyal, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Answer two questions please, one on India, and one Pakistan.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: As far as a recently released religious report, it is talk of the town in India and the media and also government. The foreign ministry is saying that this was a propaganda against India by some groups in the U.S. or outside which have – or has not been properly investigated by the State Department. And what the ministry is saying, that India is a rule of law and freedom of religion and worship of law and all that, like in the U.S. But at the same time, Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary of the Aaj Tak V channel, he highlighted the report in a very vigorous way, and he’s saying that Hindus or BJP was named in the report many, many, many, many times or maybe more than 100 times, but PFI, which is a Muslim organization who has killed so many people in India, only one time, and they receive funding from the NGOs and anti-India groups or ISI or – among others.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: What he said, that what kind of message that State Department or U.S. is sending to India or the people of India when prime minister comes —

MR PATEL: I’m going to jump in, Goyal, because I think I have a sense of where you’re going with this. Let me say broadly that we carefully monitor the religious freedom situation in any country, and we encourage each government to uphold its commitments to protect religious freedom, to protect human rights for all. And officials from the Secretary and the President on down engage regularly on steps to – that they can take and engage with their counterparts on to advance religious freedom and human rights. Again, we strongly oppose laws and actions around the world that impede the ability of any individuals to practice a faith, choose their faith, participate in religion in any which way.

QUESTION: Second, on Pakistan, sir.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: I’m sure you must be watching – or State Department must be watching what’s going on in Pakistan right now. Imran Khan, he has been called that he’s a traitor and he should be put to death by the National Assembly in Pakistan. And now all the action is in Lahore, where Imran Khan is there, police and military and all that. What (inaudible) that Imran Khan is talking about breaking up Pakistan and all that, and now he said he will be killed. So how much – where – how much we have to believe in media in TV or there, and what is reality? What is the actual – are you getting any information or you’re – see in Pakistan? Because Lahore is not far away from Islamabad.

MR PATEL: This is – Goyal, this is a —

QUESTION: I’m sorry.

MR PATEL: This is a situation that is internal to Pakistan. And as you have heard me say before, the United States does not choose a particular candidate or political party in Pakistan. Our view is that a strong, prosperous, secure Pakistan is key to U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relations, but I don’t have any other comments to add on the situation there.

Said, you’ve had your hand up.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Very quick question on – the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich has asked to prepare for 500,000 more settlers in the West Bank, in the settlements, in illegal outposts. I mean, I know the position of this administration on settlements. But what measures are you willing to take to deter or to dissuade him from pursuing this, actual measures?

MR PATEL: Said, we regularly engage with Israeli officials on this issue and we’ll continue to do so. You have heard me say this before, that like most administrations previously, we view the expansion of settlements as an obstacle to peace that undermines the geographic viability of a two-state solution. And we continue to oppose any unilateral steps that incite tensions, harm trust between the parties, and undermine this viability of a two-state solution.

QUESTION: So if in fact they begin to allocate funds and so on to pursue this goal, would you say that that is unacceptable to the United States of America? Would you declare such a thing as being unacceptable?

MR PATEL: Said, we have been clear and have not parsed words that actions such as these, like the expansion of settlements, they undermine the ultimate goal – our ultimate goal – for the region, which is a two-state solution. And we raise this issue directly with our Israeli partners, with our partners in the Palestinian Authority, and we will continue to do so.

All right, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have a ask on G7.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Today Chinese embassy in Tokyo has delivered grave concern to Japanese Government, saying the G7 summit is taking negative posture against China, and at the same time Chinese foreign ministry also criticized United States and Japan that they have responsibility to growing tension in Taiwan Strait. So I’m wondering if you would – how you would react to this allegation?

MR PATEL: The G7 is about tackling the many pressing global challenges that are in front of us, and it is about the world’s most advanced economies working together through international cooperation to address some of these very serious challenges, whether that be addressing climate change, whether that be addressing health insecurity, food insecurity, Russia’s barbaric and unjust war in Ukraine. The G7 is not about one country or another; it is about what these collective economies can do as a whole in partnership for the world, for the international community. And that is what you are going to see President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and other leaders who are there right now reiterate in their engagements while in Hiroshima.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Two topics. Let me get your reaction quickly to Russia’s freezing Finnish embassy’s bank accounts in response to what it’s called unfriendly actions of the West.

MR PATEL: I’ve not seen those reports, so I don’t have any assessment to offer. Broadly, though, Russia should make sure that it obliges with appropriate auspices under the Vienna Convention as it relates to whatever engagements that they have with this particular diplomatic facility. But I’m not going to – I’m not aware of this, so I don’t have anything else to offer.

QUESTION: Thanks so much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And next to Karabakh, if you don’t mind. Not to beat around the bush, I’m just curious: How confident are you that Moscow process will serve in terms of carrying out the peace process for – till the desirable outcome? We’re talking about different format, different mediator. Do you have any concern that given Russian officials —

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to prescribe or hypothesize or speculate from here, Alex. Our view is that the countries – that peace between the countries is possible, and the U.S. continues to welcome and work towards a durable and dignified peace in this case, and don’t have anything else.

I’m going to go to Leon now.

QUESTION: Just a – well, just one clarification, because this question was asked previously.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Ambassador Reeker was on the record last fall saying that he tried to reach out to his Russian colleagues and they did not return his call. I was wondering if Special Advisor Bono has done the same. And where is he these days since the end of Washington talks?

MR PATEL: He continues to be deeply engaged in this issue, as you know, Alex. I don’t have specific diplomatic calls to read out, but again, I’ll reiterate that we found the talks that we hosted in early May as constructive. The parties themselves agreed to certain terms and believe have a better understanding of each other’s points of view, and we continue to welcome the continued dialogue on this.

Leon.

QUESTION: Yeah, I was wondering if you had any concerns about the summit that’s taking place today and tomorrow, I think, in China with the five Central Asian republics. There’s a big push, obviously, by China to create ties with these five republics, which are moving a little bit away from Moscow given the war in Ukraine —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — and all of that. And I know obviously the Secretary was there not so long ago in two of these republics. But should the U.S. be concerned about this summit and should you be doing a little bit more in terms of trying to reel in these five ex-Soviet republics?

MR PATEL: Leon, we’ve been doing a lot. I will let —

QUESTION: But should you be doing more? (Laughter.)

MR PATEL: I will let the PRC – I will let the PRC and the C5 countries speak to their own engagements. These are sovereign decisions for them to undertake on their own. But we strive to be a reliable and steadfast partner to countries in Central Asia. As you so noted, Secretary Blinken in Astana, in I think it was March, had the opportunity to convene a C5 ministerial. That was at that point his fourth engagement with the C5 in two years. He previously had the opportunity to host the C5 on the margins of UNGA High-Level Week as well as hosting a virtual convening in the early months of 2021.

We look forward to continuing to collaborate with Central Asian partners on a number of bilateral issues, whether that be strengthening our cooperation in the energy sector; there is, of course, a security nexus given their proximity in certain regions of the world; as well as deepening our important people-to-people ties as well as deepening important trade relationships as well.

I will also note that when Secretary Blinken was in Astana and Uzbekistan earlier in this year, we were happy to launch $45 million of U.S.-funded Economic Resilience Initiative in Central Asia to diversify some of these many issues that I was talking about: Central Asia’s trade routes, expand investment in the region, increase employment opportunities. So our engagement with Central Asia continues to be robust. The examples I have given are just from what the Secretary has done, but others in this department continue to be deeply engaged, as does the Secretary.

QUESTION: Yes, but that’s what I mean. You just said $45 million, compared to a lot more money being engaged by China on the Silk Route and things like that, and this is a summit, obviously, at the leaders level. The Chinese leader penned it as a new era, new opening. So are you – question is, are you concerned about that and do you have to step it up?

MR PATEL: We are very confident about the engagement and the inroads that we continue to make in Central Asia, specifically through the C5, and we look forward to continuing to engage with the region.

Simon, go ahead.

QUESTION: I wanted to move to the Pacific Islands because the Secretary —

MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah.

QUESTION: The Secretary is supposed to be in or will be in Papua New Guinea. The last couple of days there have been announcements of – that you guys have agreed to renew these Compact of Free Association agreements with Micronesia and now Palau. We believe the Marshall Islands is the outstanding one that you’re trying to get agreed. I wonder if you could sort of explain what’s the sticking point there, why haven’t you been able to get an agreement with the Marshall Islands so far, and do you think you can get that agreed so that something could be signed when the Secretary is there.

MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to get ahead of the Secretary’s trip. We of course look forward to his trip to the U.S.-Pacific Islands Forum in Port Moresby, and as it relates to your question about the COFAs, I’m going to have to check with the team and get back to you, see if we have any additional information for you there.

QUESTION: Actually, is that – is the premise of the question correct? I thought all three of them were done and basically what’s waiting is congressional approval for the money.

MR PATEL: Well, I’ll have to double-check on that, Simon, and can get back to you.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a very quick question on the Jeddah summit?

MR PATEL: Sure, Said. Yeah.

QUESTION: In the past, American diplomats participated in these summits. Do we know who is participating this time around?

MR PATEL: I talked about this last week.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

MR PATEL: I said that Assistant Secretary Molly Phee and Ambassador Godfrey are leading the U.S. delegation to Jeddah, and they continue to be deeply engaged in that process.

QUESTION: Is this summit —

MR PATEL: Are you talking about the – are you talking about the Sudan talks?

QUESTION: I’m talking about the – no, I’m talking about the Jeddah summit.

MR PATEL: My apologies. My apologies. My apologies, Said.

QUESTION: Because I know that they have sent a diplomat.

MR PATEL: I will – understood. My apologies.

QUESTION: No problem.

MR PATEL: I assumed you were talking about the talks relating to Sudan.

QUESTION: No, no.

MR PATEL: I will have to check. I’ll check and get back to you on that.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR PATEL: All right, thanks —

QUESTION: Wait, no, no, no, hold on. Before we go —

MR PATEL: All right.

QUESTION: — I have somewhat of a logistical question that’s not a policy a question. Well, it actually might be a policy question.

MR PATEL: I love these.

QUESTION: Yeah. And bear with me. Have you looked at your – have you gotten any emails from any of your colleagues in the last – before you came out here? Obviously not while you’ve been at the podium, but since about noon or so?

MR PATEL: I – why don’t you get to your question and then – (laughter.)

QUESTION: Have you? Have you?

MR PATEL: What’s your question?

QUESTION: Do you have – are you able to look at them right now?

MR PATEL: My email?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PATEL: I’m not going to pull up my email from the podium.

QUESTION: No, no, no, you don’t need to show it to me.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I want to notice – I want to know if you noticed anything different in the from line where it gives the sender.

MR PATEL: Matt, this would be a lot better if you would just ask us what your question was.

QUESTION: All right, I’ll just ask. Well, I mean, so you haven’t noticed anything?

MR PATEL: No.

QUESTION: Okay. So within the last hour and a half, two hours, the State Department’s internal email system – and I’ve tested this, so I know that it’s true —

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: — has added pronouns to people’s – not their signature but to their – where it says from.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh. Okay.

QUESTION: So it will say him/he/his, or her/she or —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why? This is not an optional thing. This is something that has been just arbitrarily imposed, and I understand that people could have their pronouns attached if they wanted them to a signature before, but this is not something that anyone has a choice about. And so I’m just wondering why and who made this decision.

MR PATEL: Well, Matt, I have not seen this phenomenon for myself.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I have, and I’ll show it to you as soon as we —

MR PATEL: And is it just – so let – to ask you a question, is it just for internal State Department people when they’re emailing?

QUESTION: Obviously not, because I tested it —

MR PATEL: So if you send an email —

QUESTION: — and I got an email from someone in this building, and whereas before it did not have any of these pronouns attached to the sender’s name, it now does. And I’ve also been told from other people that many of them, or at least two or three —

MR PATEL: Well, when you send it, does it have the —

QUESTION: I’ll show it to you in a second.

MR PATEL: Okay. Well, what I will just say —

QUESTION: If you don’t know anything about this, then that’s fine. Can you look into it? Because I’d like to know why.

MR PATEL: Yeah, I’m happy – I’m happy to look into it. What I will just —

QUESTION: Why this would not be an optional thing for people to do. But the problem is, is that a lot of them, or at least some of them so far, as far as I’ve been able to tell, are wrong. They’re giving the wrong pronoun.

MR PATEL: Again, I’m not —

QUESTION: So men are being identified as women and women as men, and this has nothing to do with whatever transgender or anything like that.

MR PATEL: I have not seen —

QUESTION: But it’s ridiculous.

MR PATEL: This phenomenon has not made its way to my Outlook. I will – I’m happy to check on this for you.

QUESTION: I – well, I just told you about it, so can you get an explanation and find out?

MR PATEL: Broadly, though, Matt – broadly, though, Matt, of course, the ability for individuals to —

QUESTION: I don’t have a problem with doing it and if people want to have their – whatever pronoun on – attached, it’s fine, but it should be a choice, right, not something that is – that the State Department imposes on people.

MR PATEL: Thank you, Matt.

QUESTION: Especially if it’s wrong.

MR PATEL: I will look into this. I’m not aware. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: All right.

MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody. Happy Thursday.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:53 p.m.)

# # #

Department Press Briefing – May 17, 2023

1:30 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for being a couple minutes late. I have one quick thing at the top and then we’ll get started.

First, we welcome President Erdogan’s announcement of the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. As we’ve said before, we strongly support the U.N.’s and Türkiye’s efforts on the deal which keeps global food and grain prices low.

But as Secretary Blinken has previously said, we should not need to remind Moscow every few weeks to keep their promises and to stop using people’s hunger as a weapon in their war against Ukraine. We should not need to remind Russia to stop obstructing inspections to allow grain to flow to vulnerable people who need it.

The world needs the Black Sea Grain Initiative. What’s more, the world needs Russia to end its illegal war against Ukraine, which would allow farmers to return to their fields, return agricultural trade to normal, and immediately and significantly improve global food security.

With that, Matt. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So I’m think let’s start with Nigeria.

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: And if I – I have one very small nit to pick with you guys, which is: Why put out a statement from the Secretary literally a minute before we get the two-minute warning for the briefing?

MR PATEL: We wanted to make sure that you all had it before we came out.

QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s hardly enough time to even digest it before we get in here to ask you questions about it. So anyway, let me start with that, if I could.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: So your understanding – well, I assume you don’t – you’re not going to have a whole lot more to add than —

MR PATEL: Correct. And if —

QUESTION: But has there been any discussion with the Nigerian authorities about this? I understand that Secretary Blinken, when he was speaking to the president-elect yesterday, it was before this had happened and so that hadn’t come up because he had plans to talk —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any calls to preview for you, Matt. And of course, we continue to be in touch with Nigerian authorities on this. But if you’ll allow me just to reiterate what the statement says, on the afternoon of May 16th, unknown assailants attacked a convoy of two U.S.-Government-operated vehicles in the Ogbaru local government area of the Anambra state in Nigeria. This convoy was carrying nine Nigerian nationals, five employees of the U.S. mission to Nigeria, and four members of the Nigerian police force.

They were traveling to advance a visit by U.S. mission personnel to a U.S.-funded flood response project in Anambra. At last four were killed based on the information we have now, and U.S. mission personnel are working urgently with Nigerian security force counterparts to ascertain the location and condition of other members of the convoy. We condemn in the strongest terms this heinous act, and we will work closely with our Nigerian law enforcement colleagues in seeking to bring those responsible to justice.

We express our heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed in the attack and pledge to do everybody possible to safely recover those who are unaccounted for. The U.S. reaffirms its commitment to the people of Nigeria to assist in the fight against violence and insecurity.

QUESTION: Okay. And so you don’t have any more indication about potential motive, whether they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time —

MR PATEL: We have no reason to believe that this convoy was targeted because of its connection to the U.S. mission or because of its connection to the embassy or anything like that, though an investigation continues.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR PATEL: All right. Humeyra, go ahead.

QUESTION: Chairman McCaul scheduled a committee meeting for next Wednesday to consider holding Secretary Blinken in contempt of Congress over the dissent channel cable. I’m wondering if – how the State Department is going to respond.

MR PATEL: Thanks for your – thanks for your question, Humeyra. First let me say it is unfortunate that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has continued to pursue this even before the State Department had the opportunity to respond to the chairman and the committee. We will be sending a response to the committee later today, and as you know, we continue to engage with the committee and discuss accommodations on the request for this information.

To take a step back, we believe that we have provided sufficient through our classified briefing, through the written summary, and we believe that these efforts already should have and would satisfy their request for information. But that being said, in our letter to the committee today, we will invite Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks to view the dissent channel cable here at the State Department, in camera, with appropriate personal information redacted. Chairman McCaul himself has said that this is what he is interested in, and so it is our sincere hope that our offer here will sufficiently satisfy their request for information.

Anything else on this topic before we move away?

QUESTION: I’m just —

MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering why it took us so long to get here.

MR PATEL: Can you —

QUESTION: Why didn’t you guys just offer – if you’re now offering up this dissent cable with the names redacted, why didn’t we just do that from the get-go versus kind of having weeks long of this political fight between the department and the committee?

MR PATEL: Well, we’ve spoken to this a little bit, Kylie. First, to take a step back, you’ve heard me say this before: The dissent channel cable is something that is really integral and sacred to this department. It is an avenue for personnel across the world to engage with senior leadership on very important issues and for senior leadership to engage back. It’s not an avenue to inform or convey policy to Congress. And we wanted to ensure that we are taking steps to respect and protect the integrity of that channel.

Also, in any information request with a congressional body, there is a natural accommodation and discussion process, and we were engaged deeply in that and continue to be engaged deeply in that.

I will also note that at every turn the State Department has offered legitimate and sufficient steps forward to convey the information that was requested. We have – even before this new Congress was sworn into office, we have understood the importance of legitimate oversight requests and requests for legitimate information on the time period of our evacuation from Afghanistan, but on other foreign policy issues as well. And so we have engaged with Congress on all of those matters in good faith.

QUESTION: And just one more question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The concerns that you guys have stated, have pointed to – the sanctity of the dissent cable channel in this building and not wanting to disrupt that – so you believe that the action that you guys are following through with now, providing them this cable without the names, still protects the sanctity of that channel in this building?

MR PATEL: We do. We believe that. We also believe, Kylie – and I want to stress this – that the steps that we had taken previously – a classified briefing, an in-depth written summary of these documents – sufficiently met the mark when it came to their information request as well.

MR PATEL: Anything else on this before we move away?

QUESTION: Yeah, just one more thing on this, and that is Chairman McCaul also wants to see Secretary’s response to the dissent cable. Is that included in this offer, or has – have you guys already turned that over because it is not protected in the same way as the —

MR PATEL: I’ll have to check on the specifics on that, Matt, but we can get back to you on that piece. Anything else on this before we move away?

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have a couple of questions on the Palestinian issue and one question on Syria.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s apparently very severe restrictions imposed by the Israeli foreign ministry on the entry of foreign nationals, including Palestinians, and – per the reform that was introduced back in 2020. So I know that you talked from this podium on this issue before, but is this is something that you raise with Israelis while discussing the waiver issue?

MR PATEL: Of course, Said. We engage with the Israelis on a number of issues, including this one, and we engage with them on these procedures that I know you’ve asked me about before that were unveiled, I believe, in the fall that, as you know, impact the entry, the study, and the work, and residence of potentially thousands of people to and in the West Bank. Our view is that we seek equal treatment and freedom of travel for all U.S. citizens regardless of national origin, religion, or ethnicity, including, of course, Palestinian Americans seeking to enter or transit through Israel. And we fully expect the Government of Israel to ensure transparency as well as fair and equal treatment for other foreign nationals traveling to and in the West Bank.

QUESTION: Thank you. I know I asked you about the march yesterday. But in view of what the prime minister said apparently in a TV interview a couple days ago, that they will continue their assassination and – I mean, he said those words – and that we will assassinate anyone who disrupts the march, and so on. I mean, it’s – it is really a very volatile issue. Are you more concerned today than you were yesterday?

MR PATEL: I’ve not seen those comments specifically, Said, so I’m not going to comment on those themselves. But what I will say generally is that – you heard me say this yesterday – we are urging all parties to maintain calm, to exercise restraint, and to refrain from actions or activities or rhetoric that would escalate tensions.

QUESTION: And lastly, let me ask you on Syria, if I may.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. There were reports that the U.S. and Syria are engaged in some sort of negotiation in Oman. First, is this true? Can you confirm that? And did these – that these talks are ongoing, they took place in the past? And what was the nature of these talks? What did they include?

MR PATEL: Let me say a couple things to that, Said. As you’ve heard me say before, the U.S. is willing to engage with anyone who can help secure progress toward the release of U.S. nationals. In order to protect any avenues of progress, I’m not going to get into specific details, but broadly speaking, we are engaging extensively across the board to try and get Austin Tice home, and we have pursued every channel we can to seek his safe return to his family and will continue to do so. And that of course includes discussing this case with a number of countries in the region. And we will keep working until we see his safe returned in the United States. As President Biden and Secretary Blinken have said, we are not ceasing our efforts to find Austin Tice and to bring him home.

QUESTION: So these talks are ongoing now or —

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into further specifics, Said.

QUESTION: On Syria, Vedant?

MR PATEL: Let me get to Michele, then I’ll come to you, Alex. Go ahead. Go ahead, Michele.

QUESTION: Now it’s confirmed that President Assad will attend the Arab Summit after tomorrow in Jeddah. What’s your reaction to that, and how do you feel about that?

MR PATEL: Well, Michele, you saw the Secretary speak to this last week when he was standing with his counterpart, Foreign Secretary Cleverly. I’ll just echo his words. We do not believe that Syria merits readmission to the Arab League, and it’s a point that we have raised directly with our regional partners, with our partners in the Arab world. And – but ultimately, these are their own decisions that they’ll make. But our position is clear – we are not going to normalize relations with the Assad regime, and we certainly don’t support others doing that as well.

That being said, we know that we share a lot of the same goals as our Arab partners, and while the ways of going about to do that may differ, our objectives remain the same – and that is finding a resolution to this crisis in a way that is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254; expanding humanitarian access to all Syrians; building the security and stability and infrastructure needed to ensure that ISIS cannot resurge in the region; creating the appropriate conditions required for the eventual refugee returns; as well as countering Captagon trafficking taking place in Syria; as well as steps that can be taken to reduce the malign influence from the Iranian regime.

We are aligned with our Arab partners on all of these things and we’ll continue to work those lines of efforts. The ways in which we go about them may differ, but our objectives are aligned.

QUESTION: I have two more. One on Russia and Iran —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — who signed the rail deal today for a corridor intended to rival the Suez Canal and prevent sanctions. How do you view this project?

MR PATEL: Any steps or any project being undertaken to go around sanctions is something that we of course would find deeply concerning. I don’t have an assessment to make on this specific project, but there is a reason that we enforce such a strict sanctions regime, and any efforts to go around those would be of immense concern to us.

QUESTION: And one more on Deputy Secretary Sherman’s meeting today with Israeli director general of the ministry of foreign affairs. Did they discuss expanding the Abraham Accords, and are you hopeful that you will be able to expand these accords?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics about the meeting to share right now. Of course, though we talk with our Israeli partners on a number of issues, we know that normalization is something that is not just important to us; it’s important to our Israeli partners. So I have no doubt it was a piece that was discussed, but I don’t have any specific metrics to offer.

Alex, and then I’ll come back to you, Humeyra. Go ahead. Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Russia – moving to Russia if you don’t mind.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You spoke about Austin Tice. I want to ask about Evan as well, because today marks a depressing 50 days since his arrest for doing his job. I want to give you a chance to update us on what’s going on about his case, around his case. Also, Lavrov today seemed to be mocking the U.S. efforts, saying that they sometimes give us a call and raise his case. Is there anything more than just sometimes making the call to Moscow you guys have been doing?

MR PATEL: Of course. We are deeply engaged in this, Alex, and the work to secure the release of both Evan and Paul is ongoing. I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of a negotiation in progress, but we engage broadly with partners around the world to discuss wrongful detention cases, and in some cases look to their assistance and steps that we can collectively take to lead to a release. We continue to work aggressively using every means to bring home all U.S. nationals that are wrongfully detained or held hostage, and our view, again, is that Russia should immediately release Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, but beyond that there is a responsibility here consistent with the consular conventions that we have in place with the Russian Federation that they need to be offered consistent and regular consular access as well.

QUESTION: Yesterday the Secretary did not rule out designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. I was wondering if there’s any serious effort going on in this building beyond what the Secretary said.

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on those – on any policy designation, Alex. As you’ve heard us say before, the work to specifically designate a country is a robust policy process and I don’t have any updates to offer on that. But of course there is pretty significant public reporting out there that a specific state sponsor of terror designation for Russia would significantly impact the ability for a number of NGOs and nonprofit organizations to operate in the region, so we of course are incredibly mindful of that.

That being said, what we call and what we designate a country in this situation is a little besides the point, and what is more important is the actions that the U.S. Government is taking. And when you look at the actions that we’ve taken, we have clearly and consistently since even before February 2022 offered security assistance to our Ukrainian partners so that they can defend themselves, defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty. We have taken steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable through sanctions, export controls, and other measures that we’re seeing has a clear impact on the Russian economy. Multinational corporations are leaving Russia, choosing not to do business anymore. We are seeing clear public reporting of the Russian economy shrinking. So we know that our actions are taking effect and having a real impact, and we’ll continue to do so.

I’m going to —

QUESTION: But SST designation is not off the table? That’s what —

MR PATEL: I just don’t have any update to offer on that.

QUESTION: So lastly on Ukraine, (inaudible) —

MR PATEL: I’m going to go to Humeyra – okay, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Oh, my – sorry for that. You mentioned your thanks to the Turkish president. You also mentioned that the Secretary said we should not do that every couple of weeks. My question is, what are you guys doing to make sure that this is not – we are not back to the zero point again two months from now?

MR PATEL: Of course, on the Black Sea Grain Initiative, we think it’s really important that it was extended. We have long taken issue with Russia’s efforts to not just undermine the deal but also Russia’s efforts to weaponize hunger and weaponize food insecurity. And so this is of course something we welcome that it was extended, but it shouldn’t have been needed in the first place. And broadly, we’ll continue to work every channel that we can in conjunction with the UN and our Turkish partners to make sure that it’s extended for as long as it’s needed. We’ll also continue to take steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable when needed.

Humeyra, go ahead.

QUESTION: Vedant, since the President had to cancel his visit to PNG yesterday, there was a lot of disappointment. They had declared Monday a public holiday in honor of his arrival. So I’m wondering if the Secretary or anyone else from the administration is going to go to PNG? What are the plans? And there was quite a lot of commentary out there that it’s a blow to U.S. credibility in the region. It’s a consistent partner. Obviously, debt ceiling would have global repercussions. But can you talk a little bit about sort of U.S. commitment to the region to offset these concerns?

MR PATEL: Sure. Sure. Absolutely. So first to – let me just say I don’t have any additional or follow-on travel to offer in terms of scheduling at this point, but should we have any updates, we, of course, will let you all know. On Australia, the President spoke to Prime Minister Albanese yesterday to inform him that he will be postponing his trip. And as you know, he’s invited the prime minister for an official state visit at a time to be determined. We’ve also engaged the prime minister of Papua New Guinea to inform them as well.

But broadly, our commitment to the Pacific Islands and to the Indo-Pacific region broadly endures. And that is why we have had robust engagement from the department in this part of the world. Under Secretary John Bass in – I believe 2022 – had the opportunity to break ground on a new – not break ground, open a new embassy in Port Moresby. And so that is just an example of our continued engagement in the region. I know – I don’t want to preview or get ahead of any administration travel, but, of course, I think it’s everyone’s desire to find a way to get some kind of trip back on the books, but I’m certainly not going to preview or get ahead of the process.

QUESTION: So who spoke to the Papua New Guineans?

MR PATEL: I don’t have a specific call sheet for you, Matt, but the administration has been in touch with the prime minister of Papua New Guinea to inform them of the scheduling channels.

QUESTION: Yeah, (inaudible) who called the Australian prime minister. Who did the PNG prime minister get to talk to?

MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Matt, to see if there’s a specific person. But again, I think it’s important to note that —

QUESTION: Do think that there’s not a specific person, that it was like a group thing?

MR PATEL: It’s important to note – (laughter) – Matt, that revitalizing and reinvigorating our alliances and advancing our partnerships —

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, but —

MR PATEL: — with groups like the Quad, with the Pacific Islands —

QUESTION: — if the President of the United States is going to cancel a visit to Australia, and he calls the Australian prime minister, but he’s also going to cancel a visit was going to be a historic visit, as you guys all said, to Papua New Guinea, and you can’t tell us whether the President called the prime minister personally or not, then that’s —

MR PATEL: What I will say is this, Matt, is that we look forward to finding other ways to engage with Australia, the Quad, Papua New Guinea and the leaders of the Pacific Islands very soon. And we hope to have more, but our commitment to the region endures. I know you are no stranger to our work there. Even this year, we have indicated – in the past year and a half, I think, we have indicated a number of places in which we intend to further and enhance and strengthen our diplomatic presence as a commitment —

QUESTION: No, I’m not — I’m not arguing with any of that.

MR PATEL: — to the Pacific Islands. We hosted —

QUESTION: I wanted to know who spoke to the prime minister of Papua New Guinea.

MR PATEL: On the topic of – on the topic of history making, we hosted a historic Pacific Islands Summit here at the State Department just a number of weeks ago. So our commitment to the region endures, Matt, and I don’t have any specifics on calls.

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t. I just wanted to know who spoke to the prime minister.

MR PATEL: I don’t have – I don’t have any additional details for you right now.

Go ahead in the back because I think you want to ask something on the same topic.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you speak on the potential impacts of the cancellation of President Biden’s trip, especially in order to deter China?

MR PATEL: Again, I think I will just reiterate what I said just here. While a trip – I know it would have been everyone’s desire for the trip to continue on in its original format. Sometimes there are external factors out of our control. But that being said, our commitment to the Quad, our commitment to our Australian partners, our commitment to the Pacific Island, all those things do not change. And we are very much looking forward to ways in which we can deepen those partnerships, strengthen those alliances going forward through visits and other mechanisms. But I would point you no further than the work that this department and this administration has already done through its foreign policy, through its diplomacy in the time we’ve already had to strengthen our partnerships and our presence in the Indo-Pacific and Pacific Island region broadly.

Okay. Anything else on this before we move away? Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’ve got a question about Germany, what happened this morning. This morning at the crack of dawn, police raided the house of two Turkish journalists and arrested them in front of their wives and children, even confiscated their laptops, phones, even towed their car. And I also know them personally from back when I was working there. This took place in Germany, an EU member and a NATO Ally. It’s just an awful intimidation and treatment of journalists, would you not say?

MR PATEL: I don’t know the specifics of this case, so I’m just not going to comment on it.

QUESTION: Like, you don’t know the specifics of many cases when it’s press freedom, but, like, you basically don’t have anything to say?

MR PATEL: We – I reject the premise of your question. When we do not have information sufficiently about any specific case, we don’t comment on them. We don’t comment on them. And so that is – this is an issue I would let you speak to local German law enforcement. They can speak to more about this. I’m not familiar with this case; I don’t have anything to offer on that. Broadly, of course, the treatment of journalists and press freedom is something that I, many in this department, including the Secretary, have spoken quite clearly about. But I have nothing additional to add on this.

Go ahead, Olivia.

QUESTION: Back on Nigeria, is the —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — the visit to the flood response project that was mentioned in the Secretary’s statement, is that proceeding as planned or is that off? I’m just curious if there are measures being taken to limit the U.S. mission’s exposure at this stage, or are sort of security protocols and practices staying more or less the same?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into the specifics about the embassy’s forthcoming planning. But what I will just note is that our mission in Nigeria has a robust travel planning process and procedures in place. Of course, after this concludes, the response to this incident, we’ll take a look at those procedures and ensure that they remain appropriate. But I will also just note that U.S. mission personnel made multiple trips to the state in recent months and experienced no security incidents. And at the time that the decision was made to travel there for this advance route, there were no known threats to the U.S. mission in Nigeria at the time.

QUESTION: And understanding unknown assailants, unknown motive —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — no indications that that American or an American, like, was targeted – has that been ruled out, or it’s still part of the investigation?

MR PATEL: As I said in speaking to Matt’s question, the investigation is ongoing. But again, we have no reason to believe at this time that this took place because of the affiliation to the U.S. mission in Nigeria.

All right.

QUESTION: Can I ask a separate question about the American sentenced in China?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Just for an update —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) just before – before that, did – have you guys explained where these people work? Did they work at the consulate in Lagos or at the embassy in Abuja?

MR PATEL: My understanding is that they worked at the embassy in Abuja. But if I have an update to that, I will let you know.

QUESTION: On the American sentenced in China, just an update – have you requested consular access? Has there been engagement with the Chinese on his case?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything additional to offer on this. I spoke about it a number of times this week. We are aware of the sentencing of a U.S. citizen in the PRC. When a U.S. citizen is detained overseas, we take appropriate steps to offer all appropriate assistance. But due to privacy considerations, I don’t have more that I can offer on this.

QUESTION: Without offering specifics, has there been any engagement with the Chinese?

MR PATEL: Again, all I can say is that we’re aware of the reports of the sentencing.

Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: I want to go back to Michele’s question about – the Russia-Iran question. He mentioned the rail project. Now Iran and Russia have recently signed on for several projects, like, for example apparently one Russian bank opened a branch in Iran. And they’re – Russia’s also considering investment in Iranian oil fields. Now, you refer – you mentioned enforcement of sanctions and sanction evasion. Do you see Russia-Iran economic cooperations all in that vein, in them trying to evade sanctions?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to paint with a broad brushstroke, Guita, but what I will offer on this is that we have not parsed our words about the deepening of the cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime. We spoke to that earlier this week. And candidly, it is a situation in which – in the security context, support is flowing both ways, from Iran to Russia and Russia to Iran. In the economic context, we of course are going to continue to monitor and pay close attention. But any efforts to go around sanctions would be of immense concern to us and something that the United States would not hesitate to take further action on.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: A U.S. official told Wall Street Journal that the drone strike that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded several U.S. personnels in Syria on March 23rd was launched by Iranian-backed groups in Iraq. Can you confirm that this attack was done – was conducted by the Iranian-backed militia in Iraq? And if so, will there be any response or action against these groups?

MR PATEL: The activities of Iranian-backed militias and proxy groups – not just in Iraq, but in the region broadly – continues to be something of immense concern to us that we raise directly with partners in the region, including the Government of Iraq. But specifically on this, I don’t have anything to offer from here. I will let my colleagues from the Department of Defense speak to that. What I will just note is that the – this administration has not hesitated to take steps to ensure that our personnel are kept safe. But I don’t have anything else to offer on that.

QUESTION: Is there anything that puts you in a position that – not to pursue or to following the groups in Iraq that making threats on U.S. personnels in —

MR PATEL: I just don’t have any other assessments to offer on this from here.

QUESTION: Last question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Kurdistan Region of Iraq is scheduled to have an election later this year, which they should had last year. But there are still many disputes between the political parties, and the dispute is mainly on the minority position in the parliament, which they have 11 seats. Then the question is that: Have you touched this issue with the Kurdish political leaders? And second, will there be any engagement or encouragement to the Kurdistan Region?

MR PATEL: Well, we commend Kurdish parties for coming together to resolve issues through dialogue, Iraq in general and the Iraqi Kurdistan Region in particular. These steps are benefitted when its leaders are focused on the needs of the people, and we encourage them to build on the momentum. We welcome the efforts by the parties to reach an agreement on holding Iraqi Kurdistan parliament elections later this year.

Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: According to the latest DPRK state media report, North Korea’s military spy satellite number one is ready for loading. Do you have any indication that North Korea would launch that spy satellite in imminent future, as well as its seventh nuclear test? And are you preparing any strong response to its launching, including additional sanction?

MR PATEL: Well, any DPRK launch that uses ballistic missile technology would also include SLVs used to launch a satellite into space, and that would violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions. We have been very clear that we urge the DPRK to refrain from further threatening activity and call on Pyongyang to engage in serious and sustained diplomacy. We’ve also been very clear about our unwavering commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, as well as seeking dialogue with Pyongyang without preconditions.

In terms of actions, we of course continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to hold the DPRK accountable. You have seen us take those steps and we will continue to do so.

In the back. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, members of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party are going to visit the UK tomorrow to work with members of Parliament on hashing out a China strategy. Has the State Department been coordinating with the select committee on that visit? And does the administration have any hopes that the UK might still embrace de-risking over engagement with China?

MR PATEL: Sorry, I missed the first part of your question, if you could repeat that.

QUESTION: Members of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party are going to the UK tomorrow to work with members of Parliament on hashing out a China strategy between the two nations. I was wondering if the State Department has been involved in coordinating any of that trip.

MR PATEL: Well, I will let the select committee speak to their own travels, but broadly, we have a China strategy; of course, Congress plays an important role in that piece. But as it relates to our British partners, you’ve heard the Secretary speak quite clearly about this. Even – you all heard from Foreign Secretary Cleverly last week. Between the United States and our European partners, including the United Kingdom, there continues to be immense convergence on the challenge faced by the PRC, and a key aspect of our strategy is to continue to engage, invest, and align with our allies and partners, and of course, a big piece of that would be the United Kingdom.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: I had a question about Somalia.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: The government there is in the midst of an offensive to eliminate al-Shabaab. If they’re successful, what’s the State Department’s plan to support stability there?

MR PATEL: Well, we remain committed to working with the people and Government of Somalia to improve the security condition, to respond humanitarian needs, support economic growth. A big piece of that is of course deepening and strengthening our security partnership to further degrade al-Shabaab, but I don’t have anything to speculate or preview from here.

Abby, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. I just had a couple follow-up questions on Nigeria.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: The Secretary’s statement says that the U.S. mission is working with the local government to ascertain the whereabouts of those who are unaccounted for. Are the remaining five the – is that the number that are unaccounted for from the convoy?

MR PATEL: That is correct.

QUESTION: And the statement didn’t say how many of the four who were killed were U.S. consulate employees. It had been reported that that was two. Is that accurate?

MR PATEL: So that is information that we are still trying to ascertain, which is why I don’t have any additional information on that. Yeah.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just – I just have one clarifying question on the dissent cable.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You said that State is going to allow Congressmen McCaul and Meeks to review that cable in camera at the State Department. Will you also allow any staffers from that committee to review it or just the two top members of the committee?

MR PATEL: I believe our communication to them, which will be going later today, will be to Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks for them to come and view the cable in camera.

QUESTION: Okay. And then separate topic: Britain and the Netherlands are working on a group to essentially figure out ways to get F-16s to Ukraine. Obviously we know what the position of the U.S. Government has been in terms of F-16s to Ukraine, but what’s your response to them formulating this group to procure those? Do you guys – have you engaged with these efforts yet? How do you think that they could affect the position of the Biden administration on that topic now?

MR PATEL: A number of countries have been deeply involved in the broader effort to strengthen the security apparatus of our Ukrainian partners. The U.S. – we have obviously at every tide and turn of this conflict taken steps to ensure that our Ukrainian partners have the assets that they need to defend themselves, defend their territorial integrity. We of course recently have placed an immense focus on air defense, and we have seen our Ukrainian partners use those air defense assets quite successfully, and we will continue to engage through the alliance and with our partners on any additional assets that could be provisioned down the road.

QUESTION: Vedant, could I just follow up on this just for a second?

MR PATEL: On F-16s?

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: On the F-16s. I mean, is it a realistic pursuit? Considering I’m no expert, but considering that it takes years to train pilots to fly these things and use them effectively, is that something realistic?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into the specifics on the aircraft or any specific technology. But you have heard the Secretary speak about this as well, is that we want to ensure that the assets and systems that we offer our Ukrainian partners are the most impactful, that they can use them now, use them to defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty as soon as possible. And so we’ll continue to assess, based on the situation and security circumstances on the ground, what systems make sense. You have seen our Ukrainian partners use American systems to quite success in defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty, and we’ll continue to support them.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. And do you have any reaction on the decision of the president of Ecuador to dissolve the parliament over the impeachment?

MR PATEL: We’re aware of his decision to dissolve the legislature, and we support Ecuador’s democratic institutions and processes and respect the will of Ecuador citizenry and government. And we ultimately urge all government institutions, civil society, and citizens to ensure that democratic processes are carried out for the benefit of the Ecuadorian people. We will continue to work with the government and the people of Ecuador to address our shared challenges and goals.

QUESTION: Do you see any similarities with what happened in Peru, with Pedro Castillo?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to compare situations from here.

Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up. So in the face of the political chaos that we are seeing in Ecuador, did the U.S. Government or the State Department did any contact with Ecuadorian Government today?

MR PATEL: So I will say that our bilateral relationship with the Government of Ecuador and the Ecuadorian people remain strong. Ecuador remains a strong partner, and cooperation between the U.S. and Ecuador continues to expand and deepen in a number of areas, including security, addressing migration hemispherically, counter-narcotics, and other areas as well. I don’t have any specific calls to read out or share, but we of course continue to engage with our Ecuadorian partners.

QUESTION: What Lasso did, dissolving the parliament, so does not change anything in the bilateral relation among the U.S. and his government?

MR PATEL: That is correct.

QUESTION: The U.S. continue to support Guillermo Lasso?

MR PATEL: Our bilateral relationship with the Government of Ecuador and the people of Ecuador remain strong.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, I have a follow-up question on Syria, and a question on Lebanon.

MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Syrian sources have told the press that the regime is discussing or considering a crackdown on captagon but would want the Arab countries to convince the U.S. to reduce sanctions in exchange. What is the take on that and on captagon trade at the time, especially given the fact that Congress is getting geared up to discuss the anti-normalization act?

And on Lebanon, the department issued a statement which called on leaders to elect a corruption-free president. That was about a month ago. The country’s still in deadlock. Is the department, administration considering other means of pressure to end the stalemate?

MR PATEL: Let me take your second question first. I don’t have any updates or new actions to offer. Our statement continues to stand. Our desire is for the Lebanese people to elect and select a leader that can head their government and lead and direct the country in what is a very challenging time.

On Syria, I want to be very clear about this, and we have been very clear with our partners in the Arab world, that we are going to stand by our core sanctions principles. And we have been consulting with our partners about their plans and making it clear to them that we do not intend to normalize with the Assad regime and that our sanctions are going to remain in full effect.

That being said, we share – we have this shared objective of countering the captagon trafficking that is happening in Syria. We note that this is an objective shared by many in the Arab world, and so we will continue to engage with them on that. We have been very clear, though, that we do not support normalization, we don’t see normalization as an objective – as a goal into which reaching that objective, but we’ll continue to consult closely with our partners in the Arab world.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: South Caucasus. I have two human rights-related questions.

MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Azerbaijan, as you know, it has dozens of political prisoners in jail. Some of them have been mentioned in this room previously. I want to ask about Popular Front Party activist, leading activist, Alizamin Salayev, who has been on hunger strike for more than a hundred days. Today he had a hearing, a court hearing, and they did not let him go. I was wondering if the department is aware of his case, and if you have anything to say about it.

MR PATEL: We are aware of the reports that Mr. Salayev is on a hunger strike, and we will continue to follow his case closely. We remain strongly committed to advancing respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and we call on all authorities to take steps that are consistent with Azerbaijan’s obligations under its own constitution and international agreements when it comes to human rights.

QUESTION: Thank you. And lastly, on Georgia. It’s been a while since I last time asked you about President Saakashvili was put in jail for more than two years, almost two years. Our colleagues at the VOA had a very compelling report last month indicating that he might have been poisoned in jail. Is there anything that the administration can do to save him?

MR PATEL: Alex, we pay close attention to the statements coming from the public defender’s office, and Georgian authorities should ensure that Mr. Saakashvili’s human rights are protected and that he is receiving the appropriate medical care that he needs.

QUESTION: Let me press you a little bit on it. But I heard you saying that before. You are talking about Georgian Dream government, which is flirting with the Kremlin. I am asking about a president who actually made a lot of enemies in the Kremlin because he stood up against Putin in the past. Aren’t you concerned that by not standing behind – let’s put it this way, by not – by leaving his life in the Georgian regime’s hands, you are sending wrong signals to —

MR PATEL: I don’t think we’re sending the wrong signal. We have been very clear that we think that his human rights need to be protected, and that his – he should receive the appropriate medical care that he needs.

All right, thanks everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:13 p.m.)

Department Press Briefing – May 16, 2023

2:16 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Tuesday. I don’t have anything off the top.

So Matt, please take us away.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. I don’t know why my wife is calling.

MR PATEL: Everything okay? You need to take it? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I think so. I got – let me just get two things, and then I’ll call her right back. (Laughter.)

MR PATEL: There’s a transcript. Are you sure you want to? (Laughter.) Are you sure about this?

QUESTION: They’ll be —

MR PATEL: We can start with Simon. I don’t want you to get in trouble. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: They’ll be very brief. They’ll be very brief, and then I’ll leave. One, do you have anything to add to the statement that you guys put out earlier on the ex-consular employee in Vladivostok who was arrested?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything additional. You saw the statement that we put out. We strongly condemn the reports of the arrest of Robert Shonov, a former employee of the U.S. mission in Russia. These allegations against Mr. Shonov are wholly without merit. As you saw in the statement we put out at the time of his arrest, his role was largely centered around supporting the press and public affairs operations.

So again, these allegations are just wholly without merit. Mr. Shonov is a Russian national who was employed by the consulate general for more than 25 years, and after Russia forced the termination of our locally employed staff, he was employed by a company that was contracted to provide services to the embassy in Moscow. That was done in strict compliance with Russian laws and regulations.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, did the Russians tell you that – about this? How do you know about this arrest? Other than public reporting.

MR PATEL: The thing, Matt, as you know, is that he is a Russian citizen, and so we were not notified of his arrest and do not have the ability to visit or communicate with him. I’m not going to get into specifics of how we stayed in touch, but we, of course, were not notified of this arrest.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the second one on – in terms of an actual American citizen, you’ve seen the comments from Prigozhin about an American dying in Bakhmut. Do you have anything to add to what has already been said?

MR PATEL: We are aware of those reports of the death of a U.S. citizen in Bakhmut, and we are continuing to seek additional confirmation. As you know, our ability to verify reports of deaths of U.S. citizens in Ukraine is incredibly limited, but would reiterate our message to U.S. citizens that they should not travel to Ukraine due to these armed conflicts.

Let me just note, Matt, though that, as part of the conflict in Ukraine, Russia – including its Wagner forces – have an obligation under the Geneva Convention to respect the dead, including from disrespectful and degrading acts. So I’ll just note that.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. Thank you.

QUESTION: Follow up on that?

QUESTION: Can you stay on —

MR PATEL: Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So just to be clear, U.S. officials have not directly discussed the matter with Russian officials?

MR PATEL: Well, we’ve not been notified of it as this is not an American citizen or a U.S. national, and so we were not notified of his arrest, nor do we have any ability to visit or communicate with him.

QUESTION: Is there any action that the U.S. Government can take to compel his release? Obviously, other than this very clear condemnation, is there any action you guys can take here?

MR PATEL: Look, I’m not going to get into the specifics of what our engagements with the Russian Federation can look like, but his targeting under the confidential cooperation statute highlights that the Russian Federation’s blatant use of the increasingly repressive legislation against its own citizens. It’s quite stark and deeply concerning. But I’m just not going to get ahead of this beyond that, as this continues to be an evolving situation.

QUESTION: Just one last question. What’s your message to other Russians, who are now in a position similar to his – working for companies that have been contracted by the U.S. mission in Russia?

MR PATEL: Kylie, this is, of course – let me – to take a step back, our – it is our understanding that staff, including former staff, could be subjected to further scrutiny from the Russian Government. And so we continue to be very careful about our contact and engagement with them. As you know, the Russian staff, who were forced – we were forced to let go received a generous package that included several months of severance pay, allowances, extended medical insurance, and a prorated annual bonus. It, of course, just broadly is incredibly concerning these accusations that the Russian Federation is throwing against Mr. Shonov, as well as their use of the confidential cooperation statute, and so this is something we’re going to continue to be engaged on. I don’t have a specific message or announcement from here at this time.

QUESTION: Then should these Russian still work for these companies that are contracted by the U.S. mission if they could potentially be subject to arrest?

MR PATEL: These are decisions that individuals are going to need to undertake on their own. I don’t have guidance or advice to offer from here. Obviously, the reports of this are incredibly concerning, and we condemn them. I will note, again, that at the time of his arrest Mr. Shonov was simply assisting the public affairs and press division. And so, these allegations are just incredibly concerning. And we condemned this reported arrest.

Simon. Still on this topic, or —

QUESTION: Sorry. Yeah, yeah.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: So it’s clear by your – you’re condemning this publicly. Are you – is there any specific channel that you’re making that – your views known to the Russians?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the specifics of our diplomatic engagements with the Russians. What I will note, though, is that Mr. Shonov is not a Russian^[1] citizen. We were not notified of his arrest, and we have no ability to visit or communicate with him. You’ve heard the Secretary say this before, but the other side has a vote here. This is – now, we – as much as we condemn this, the Russians are treating him as a Russian citizen because that is what he is. And so therefore our ability to communicate, visit, ask for information is incredibly impaired and limited.

QUESTION: Could you just – obviously not going into your diplomatic engagements on this particular issue, but you also have separately the cases of U.S. citizens Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich. What’s the current situation in terms of your ability to communicate with the Russians? What channels are you using to try and get them released? And can you give us an update on them?

MR PATEL: I, of course, am not going to get into the specifics of the channels that we are working to secure the release of wrongfully detained American citizens Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan. We have no higher priority than securing their release, and we continue to work this from all angles. It’s something that the President is engaged in, Secretary Blinken, Ambassador Carstens, and others. In both of those cases, we continue to push for consistent and regular consular access that is in line with Russia’s consular conventions. But I don’t have any specifics to get into on our efforts for their release.

QUESTION: More on this?

MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The fact that you’re condemning it, does that mean it is your understanding that he is being targeted because of his previous job?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate or hypothesize on that from here, Alex. I will just reiterate that these accusations are wholly without merit, and we do condemn the reports of this arrest. And I will just note again Russia’s use of this confidential cooperation statute is incredibly concerning – and it highlights the Russian Federation’s blatant use of this repressive tactic.

QUESTION: I understand that your hands are short because he’s not a U.S. citizen, but the practice has been U.S. embassy did actually provide with legal support, whenever the local employees got arrested or were persecuted by local governments. Isn’t that the case here?

MR PATEL: I’m not sure of that – of that policy, Alex. I’d have to check on that.

QUESTION: And back to Bakhmut. When you said we are aware of the reports, are you talking about the reports that are citing to Prigozhin? You’re not going to trust anything coming out of Wagner, are we? Do you have any independent source related to —

MR PATEL: Alex, that is why you so clearly heard me say that we have not had the ability to verify these reports, only that we are aware of them. And as I said, our ability to verify reports of deaths of U.S. citizens in Ukraine is extremely limited. So, I don’t have any additional assessment to offer on that.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any other reports that we have seen publicly? That’s why I’m —

MR PATEL: Again, I don’t have anything additional to offer than what I said. Anything else on this topic before we move away?

All right, Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. First on Sudan. Any updates on the mechanism, international mechanism to observe the ceasefire and to move forward with the peace process or the civilian government?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates. Ambassador Godfrey and a U.S. delegation remain in Jeddah to support the ongoing talks between the SAF and RSF towards a short-term ceasefire and humanitarian arrangements. As you know, last week they signed a declaration of commitment to protect civilians, and this is something that the U.S. is going to continue to be deeply engaged on. And broadly, as you know, Michel, we are engaging Sudanese civilian leaders, resistance committees, and civil society as it relates to this as well.

QUESTION: On Libya.

MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Libya’s eastern-based parliament has voted to suspend its appointment or its appointed prime minister, Bashagha, and assign his finance minister to his duties. Do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of those reports, Michel. But I will just note that Libya – our goal in Libya is a sovereign, stable, unified, and secure country – one that is in control of its own affairs. And we seek a democratically elected government that protects human rights, that is capable of combatting terrorism within its own borders, and a free and fair election we believe is core to that.

QUESTION: Another one on Libya. Weeks ago, Libya’s eastern authorities banned women under 60 from traveling abroad without a male guardian after alleged cases of women spying. Do you have anything on this?

MR PATEL: I – what I would say, Michel, is that that is clearly a repressive policy announcement, one that we certainly would take issue with. But I don’t have any new policy to share or anything like that from here.

QUESTION: And just final question on an Israeli official in D.C. this week to discuss expanding Abraham Accords. Do you have anything on this?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any – I don’t have any meetings to preview – let me rephrase it that way – from within the department. But I’m happy to check and see if there’s anything planned.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. One question on the Palestinian issue.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Thursday, thousands of young Israelis – mostly Religious Zionists and so on – are expected to flood the neighborhood, the Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. I mean, the last time this happened a war broke out. Do you have any position on the flag march, the supposed flag march?

MR PATEL: Said, we continue to urge the parties to refrain from actions and rhetoric and activities that would inflame tensions.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, are you asking Israel to stop such a march? Is that what you’re doing? Are you urging the Israeli prime minister? Because he has the authority to stop it. Are you asking him to stop it?

MR PATEL: Said, of course we believe in the right of – for individuals to express themselves and to do so peacefully. And what I will reiterate is that we are urging all parties to maintain calm, to exercise restraint, and to refrain from actions and rhetoric and activities that would escalate tensions.

QUESTION: Yeah, and just to follow up on Michel’s question, there was a news story yesterday in Axios that Secretary Blinken is considering appointing an envoy to the Abraham Accord. I know I asked you about this yesterday. Is there – anything has panned out since then? I mean —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any personnel announcements to announce from here.

QUESTION: Is that likely to happen? Is that something that —

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate or hypothesize on any personnel announcements, we may or may not make. I just have none to offer today.

QUESTION: And last, is envoy – Hady Amr in town or is he in – where is he?

MR PATEL: I believe he is in D.C., but I will check if we have any —

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: — specific update for him.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Palestine.

QUESTION: I have two questions on Ukraine. The first question is about Kyrylo Budanov’s comments today in an interview. He basically admitted that Kyiv was behind the terrorist attacks on high-profile Russian journalists over the past months. Does the U.S. plan to designate Kyiv as a state sponsor of terrorism for this?

MR PATEL: I have not seen those comments, but I will note that it is in fact the Russian Federation that has a track record of suppressing journalists, suppressing media freedom, arresting journalists for just doing their job, including in the case of Evan Gershkovich of the Wall Street Journal just about a month or two ago. So, let’s not lose sight of who has the true track record of suppressing journalistic voices.

QUESTION: Also on media freedom, Chilean – U.S.-Chilean journalist Gonzolo Lira was arrested by the Ukrainian security service in the beginning of May. To date, the United States has not provided any condemnation, any statement on his arrest. Do you have any comments here?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of that case, but I’m happy to check on that.

Olivia, go ahead.

QUESTION: More broadly, could you explain a little bit how you determine when to issue a statement of condemnation as in Shonov’s case? For example, why was there less to say about the American passport holder sentenced to life in prison in China? Why wasn’t there something sort of equivalent or analogous issued in his case?

MR PATEL: Well, on the other case that you mentioned, there is of course a limit to what we can share given privacy considerations. That is, of course, a factor when it comes to any individual, whether they are an American citizen or not – whether they’re an American national or not. All of those factors play into our ability to speak or, in many cases, not speak about the circumstances surrounding their case.

QUESTION: Do you have an update on that case, as to whether you’ve been in contact with any representatives in question in that case?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on that beyond what I shared. Again, there is a limit. We are aware of those reports, and we’re – there is a limit to what we can engage on from here given privacy considerations.

QUESTION: Has any process to determine him a wrongful detainee been started or considered?

MR PATEL: Again, I’m just not going to get into the specifics of a case given privacy considerations.

QUESTION: Thank you. One unrelated one —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — on Iran. There was a Senate aide, unnamed in reports, suggesting that there may be progress in nuclear talks. This is of course related to a briefing that is supposed to be provided this afternoon. Is there an update on the status of nuclear talks with Iran?

MR PATEL: Let me say a couple of things. First, President Biden and Secretary Blinken are absolutely committed to never allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. We have always believed that diplomacy is the best path forward to put a way to verifiably and durably ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. I don’t have anything to announce this time, and nothing has been removed from the table.

But I think it’s important to take a bit of a step back and remember that a lot has happened since last September when Iran turned its back on the deal that was on the table. Mahsa Amini is dead, along with 500 other Iranians killed by the Iranian regime – killed by the authorities in the course of a violent crackdown against peaceful protesters outraged by Mahsa’s death and by the regime’s other human rights abusers. Iranian has also – and we spoke a little bit about this yesterday – been transferring UAVs and other weapons to Russia, helping Russia target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and kill civilians, and they continue to do this. And Iran continues to rapidly advance its nuclear program in alarming ways.

Of course, these events are going to alter our approach. But as I have said repeatedly, we have always believed that diplomacy is the best way to achieve the goal of containing Iran’s nuclear program.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. (Inaudible.) So South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has said today that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy both agreed to receive a mission of leaders of African nations with a peace initiative for – on the Ukrainian conflict. Does the Department of State see any possibilities that the African leaders’ engagement could evolve into any meaningful break-throughs to obtain peace?

And as a follow-up, does the U.S. administration keep constant contacts with either Zambia, Senegal, Congo, Uganda, Egypt, or South Africa in this case regarding this particular initiative of African leaders? Thank you.

MR PATEL: Let me talk – take your second question first. Without getting into a specific list for you, we of course remain deeply engaged with our partners on the African continent on a variety of issues, including, of course, the very troublesome and brutal Russian invasion into Ukraine.

On the subject of peace, really this is a question for the Russian Federation, which has yet to demonstrate any meaningful interest in ending this war. Let’s not forget as we talk about peace plans coming from various corners of the world that President Zelenskyy has put forth a peace plan, and the Russians continue to not engage in good faith and instead send drones and missiles into Ukraine, hitting apartment buildings; hitting hospitals; targeting civilians; targeting civilian infrastructure. So, let’s not lose sight of that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News – which is about the Annual Report on Religious Freedom released recently. As expected, India is out of CPC countries. I now understand that U.S. Government is not bound to implement the suggestions, recommendations of U.S. commission and other groups, but could you please give us any specific reason for keeping out the biggest violator of religious freedom from the CPC countries?

MR PATEL: Look, we carefully monitor religious – the religious freedom situation in every country and we encourage each government to uphold its commitments to protect religious freedom of all – for all and engage officials around the world to regularly take steps that advance this core issue of religious freedom.

QUESTION: Sir, you are the best person in this room, who understands and clearly knows the democratic values of this country. But don’t you think when you take these kind of decisions, keeping out the biggest violator of religious freedom from CPC countries – sending a wrong message? Because people all over the world, who are the victims of religious freedom, look towards United States because you have the power, you have the authority to make it right. It seems like – I’m sorry to say, it seems like might is right, don’t you think?

MR PATEL: I would – I would reject the premise of that question a little bit. First, let me say clearly that we strongly oppose laws or actions from any country around the world that impede the ability of any individual to choose faith, practice a faith – change their religion, participate in a religion, or tell others about their religious beliefs and practices. We think that countries have an obligation to protect that right of freedom of religion or belief. And again, we carefully monitor the religious freedom situation in every country. And we encourage each government to uphold its commitment to protect religious freedom for all.

QUESTION: Sir, one last question. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan is accusing Pakistani military and its chief of ordering his arrest and crackdown on his party workers, while other political parties are protesting against chief justice of Pakistan for giving alleged undue favors to Imran Khan. So, what is the position of U.S. of this political circus or blame game going on in Pakistan? Because U.S. is closely engaged with the Pakistani military, so any concerns or just like it doesn’t matter?

MR PATEL: You have heard me say this a number of times now, for the past few weeks, but I will use this opportunity to say again that we do not choose a political party or a particular candidate when it comes to Pakistan or really any country. As it relates to Pakistan, our view is that a strong, stable, prosperous Pakistan is key to a strong and stable U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi there, thanks so much. Willy Lowry with The National. I know Secretary Blinken met with Hans Grundberg yesterday. Is there anything you can add, offer from that meeting? And what does the U.S. see its role in the conflict in Yemen, and are we closer than we’ve ever been to seeing a resolution to —

MR PATEL: I will – I will refer to the readout that we put out of that meeting. If it hasn’t gone out yet, it should be going shortly. But broadly, in the conflict in Yemen we of course remain committed to taking whatever steps possible to expand and extend the UN-mediated truce and take whatever steps possible to get us to a durable peace. And we will continue to work this effort with our partners in the region, with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and others.

But of course, Iran’s malign influence in the region, their backing of rebel forces continues to be of concern to us. But I don’t have any specific assessments to offer beyond that.

Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: Going back on the international religious freedom Iraq section, you mentioned that from Iraqi security, including the federal police and also PMF-sponsored Iraqi Government group, they are still using verbal harassment, and also physical abuse on the minority groups like Yezidis and Christians. Then the question is that – what tools do you have to use against these groups and also governments that are still violating the minority groups, like Yezidis and Christians, in some areas in Iraq like Nineveh Plain?

MR PATEL: You have seen us over the course of this entire administration – when abuses against human rights have taken place, whether they are related to religious freedoms or not, but when the – when human rights have been compromised, you have seen this administration take action. And I would not point you any further than the series of steps that this administration has taken in response to Iran’s crackdown on human rights that began in the fall of last year. We have not hesitated to take action. I’m certainly not going to preview them from here, but we have a number of our tools in our tool belt additionally to hold violators accountable.

QUESTION: Have you took any actions against the PMF and also the other groups that used this violation against Christians and Yezidis in Iraq?

MR PATEL: I would have to check if there is a specific action to share with you, but I – again, we have not hesitated to take actions.

QUESTION: And last question on the Sinjar Agreement.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: We know that we have this agreement – at least that’s on paper, and then what engagements do you have to transfer this agreement from the paper to the – on the ground?

MR PATEL: On – sorry, on what agreement?

QUESTION: The Sinjar Agreement. There is an agreement just to – about Sinjar. It’s a city in Iraq and there’s different minority groups are living there, but there are PMF and also different groups, militant groups, are there and they are – put a huge barrier in front of the IDPs. They are not going back to their places, ancestral lands, and they are not letting these people to go back to their homes. What engagements you have with the Iraqi and also Kurdish government to implement this agreement?

MR PATEL: Again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of our diplomatic engagements, but as you know, we continue to remain deeply engaged with the Iraqi Government as well as Kurdish officials to find a durable solution. But I don’t have any other specifics.

Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Georgia.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Georgians are out on the street as we speak protesting restoration of flights with Russia despite U.S. warnings.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering how do you see this process, the fact that Georgian Government – Georgian Dream Government, I should say – moved forward with this plan? Are they risking the U.S.-Georgia relationship?

MR PATEL: Alex, I think I spoke a little bit about this either last week or earlier this week. If direct flights take place between Russia and Georgia, that would be of increasing concern – not just to the United States and other Western countries but as well as companies that may be operating out of Georgian airports, if they service aircrafts that are subject to import and exports and other matters. The entire Western community has distanced itself from the Russian Federation, and we believe that now is not the time to increase engagement with Russia.

QUESTION: I’ve heard you said that before, but now they have moved forward. There are direct flights taking place – five times in a week as of next – as of day after tomorrow. Do you regret that they moved (inaudible) your warning? And when should we expect sanctions?

MR PATEL: This isn’t about regret or not, Alex. We have been very clear about our concerns about this, and we’ve been very clear about the fact that we also have taken steps to prohibit Russian aircraft from entering our airspace, as have many Western countries. So we will continue to monitor the situation closely and we’ll take additional steps, as needed. But I don’t have anything to preview from here.

QUESTION: And do you have any message to Georgian protesters? They’re out on the street right now trying to save their country.

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything additional to add beyond what I’ve said.

Michail, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you very much. Yesterday at the White House, Mr. Kirby said that there will be an announcement this week of further pressure on Iran over relations with Russia, and also I see a report in The Wall Street Journal saying how sanctioned Western goods are still flowing into Russia. My question is this: I wanted to ask if the United States is investigating a NATO Ally country which through Iran is helping Russia, is sending goods – even American technology – to Putin.

MR PATEL: Can you —

QUESTION: I’m asking you if – are you investigating a NATO Ally country that is helping Russia through Iran?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any —

QUESTION: If you don’t have an answer, can you take my question?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any such investigation. And on – as a follow-on to Mr. Kirby’s comments, we of course – I’m not going to get into a habit of previewing sanctions and designations from here. The news we shared yesterday about the increasingly concerning close defense partnership between Russia and Iran is incredibly concerning and worrisome, dangerous not just to the immediate region but dangerous for the international community. And we will, of course, take appropriate actions as needed.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: On this, Vedant, on the —

MR PATEL: Let me go to him, then I’ll come to you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the next briefing at the Capitol, who will represent that?

MR PATEL: I believe Deputy Secretary Sherman is going to be attending and representatives from Rob Malley’s office.

QUESTION: Is it not part of Malley’s role?

MR PATEL: I believe he’s on personal leave, but he is still very much engaged on this issue.

QUESTION: What do you mean by personal leave?

MR PATEL: Like personal leave, like on vacation, taking a couple days off.

QUESTION: Ah.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: South African foreign minister – Minister of International Affairs Pandor has called for the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants against leaders of, quote, “apartheid Israel,” responsible for, quote, “the massacre of the Palestinian people.” Will the State Department finally support International Criminal Court mechanisms and international law regarding Israel? If not, why not?

MR PATEL: We, of course, remain engaged with the ICC, through a number of mechanisms. We believe that there are a number of avenues for holding those accountable for atrocities, especially in the context of Russia and Ukraine. But I don’t have – I’ve not seen these comments, so I don’t have anything additional to offer on that.

QUESTION: But the State Department continues to not want the ICC to be implemented regarding Israel?

MR PATEL: On the matter of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, you saw me speak quite clearly to Said’s question about our desire that both sides not take steps that are going to incite tensions and take us further away from a negotiated two-state solution. We’ve been quite clear about that consistently.

Go ahead. You had your —

QUESTION: I’m sorry, but you have refused to apply the ICC over the years to Israel. And I don’t know —

MR PATEL: I just don’t have anything additional to offer on this.

QUESTION: — what the reason for that is. You’ve stated reasons before but you’re unwilling to state them now.

MR PATEL: Your colleague has had her hand up.

QUESTION: I’ve had my hand up.

MR PATEL: I understand, and I called on you.

QUESTION: It’s quite clear. In the past, you have said that the reason that you have not wanted to implement the ICC is because Israel was not a signatory to the – is not subject to the Rome Statute. But that’s the case for Russia now as well, and you are pro applying the ICC to Russia, which is not – which has the same status fundamentally – not a member.

MR PATEL: We have never said that either. What I’ve simply said is that we have worked and worked with the ICC and other international entities as it relates to atrocities happening in Russia. I have not said that we are pro anything.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, no, but you have said in the past that you will not apply the ICC —

MR PATEL: I’m going to move on now.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: This is Leah Griffith with Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper. So on Taiwan, today the CCP’s defense ministry spokesperson was asked about President Biden’s plan to approve an arms sale of $500 million to Taiwan and sending 100 military personnel as well. And he said they will resolutely smash any form of Taiwanese independence succession along with attempts of outside interference. Do you have any comments on that?

MR PATEL: I don’t. I’ve not seen those comments. But what I will say broadly is that our approach to the PRC has not changed, and we seek competition, not conflict. In terms of any forthcoming announcements, I don’t have anything to preview. But we will always do what we think is in our interests, not just as it relates to the region but the international community broadly, and we’ll do so in close coordination with our allies and partners as well.

All right. Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:48 p.m.)

[1] Mr. Shonov is not a U.S. citizen. _{[back to 1]}

Department Press Briefing – May 15, 2023

1:16 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. I hope everyone had a good weekend and a wonderful Mother’s Day. Just one very brief thing at the top, and then —

QUESTION: How was your Mother’s Day?

MR PATEL: I had a wonderful Mother’s Day?

QUESTION: Did you wish your mother a Happy Mother’s Day?

MR PATEL: I spent a wonderful Sunday with my mother-in-law.

QUESTION: Did you? Okay.

MR PATEL: It was great. I have one very brief thing at the top, and then happy to dive into your questions.

I am very pleased to note the election of Amy Pope today to become the next director general of the International Organization for Migration.  At a time when more than 100 million people are displaced globally as a result of conflict, climate-related disruptions, and extreme poverty, IOM needs innovative, energetic, and inclusive leadership, and Amy Pope is the right choice to provide that leadership.  We look forward to working closely with her as she assumes this new role. 

Matt, go ahead.

QUESTION: That’s it?

MR PATEL: That’s it.

QUESTION: Okay. All right, well, I assume that maybe others will ask you more about U.S. migration – immigration policies and the election of an American to run it. But I want to start somewhere else, and it’s just purely logistical, and that is there are some reports in Russia that former employee of the consulate in Vladivostok has been arrested. Do you guys know anything about —

MR PATEL: I’ve seen those reports, Matt, but I don’t have anything additional to offer from here at this time.

QUESTION: Okay. I’ll turn it over to Humeyra, who I think has some more pressing questions.

MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hello. Hi. I just want to ask you a couple of things about the Turkish election.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Obviously, it looks like it’s going to a run-off, so what you may say – what you say might be limited, but just indulge me here. So whoever wins, I am basically wondering if U.S. is thinking a little bit strategically after the election and looking at ways to create some sort of an opening for a reset in ties betweeen the two countries, because their relationship have been at best uncomfortable and sometimes tense. I’m just wondering if you guys are thinking about that.

MR PATEL: Let me say a couple things, Humeyra, and I would reject the premise of your question a little bit. We have a deep partnership with Türkiye, which is a longstanding U.S. ally. The Secretary had the opportunity to visit earlier this year, where he had the opportunity to engage with not just President Erdogan, but also Foreign Minister Cavusoglu. But broadly on the issue of the election, we are continuing to closely monitor the country’s ongoing electoral process. As you so noted, the supreme electoral council has indicated that the elections are going to go to a run-off.

But broadly we congratulate the people of Türkiye for peacefully expressing their will at the ballot box, and also congratulate the newly elected parliament. We’ll continue to work together with whatever government is chosen by the Turkish people to deepen our cooperation and our – deepen our shared priorities. But I don’t have anything else.

QUESTION: Great. Let me try a couple of more times. Washington – one of Washington’s priorities when it comes to Türkiye is to obtain a green light from Ankara for Sweden’s NATO bid. And while it was on the cards that this was probably going to go into a run-off, we’re now going to wait for another two weeks. Again, I’m wondering if the U.S. is planning to communicate with Türkiye, whoever gets elected, and try to one way or another make sure that Sweden gets an approval before Vilnius summit in July.

MR PATEL: Our message regarding Sweden is the same irregardless of whatever government is chosen by the Turkish people, and that is the longstanding position on this that you’ve heard many describe from up here, which is that Sweden is ready to join Finland as a member of the NATO Alliance. We believe this strongly; we think that Sweden’s accession will not only strengthen the Alliance, but it will strengthen security across Europe. It is why the United States was so quick to approve its formal accession protocols, and we look forward to this process finalizing. And we are – we believe that Sweden should join NATO as soon as possible.

QUESTION: And my final one on this. There was a lot of commentary that U.S. was waiting to see the result of the election, the Turkish election, to proceed with the possible F-16 sales or to weigh in on a little bit more on Congress to move on this. So what is the Biden administration’s position as of now with the F-16s? Will there be a push to proceed with that sale in terms of, like, lobbying with Congress after the election?

MR PATEL: Our position hasn’t changed. You saw the President and the Secretary both speak to this a number of times since in office. One of the key things that is of upmost importance to us is NATO inoperability, and that is why we believe —

QUESTION: No, no, no. It’s inter-, not inoperability.

MR PATEL: Inter- – thank you, Matt – NATO interoperability. That is why the Secretary and the President are so supportive of this. But I don’t have any new progress to announce or anything, and we of course will continue to engage with Congress on a number of these issues.

QUESTION: I have one on Türkiye.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: So Vedant, there was a highly competitive election, and then the turnout was about 90 percent – almost. And Erdogan finished the race by 5 points ahead of his opponent. My question, like – did the election atmosphere was quite peaceful and there were a lot of international observers also watching the election in Türkiye, including some of the U.S. So how was – what is your assessment on the atmosphere – election atmosphere in Türkiye, and your assessment of the Turkish election process in general?

MR PATEL: Well, the election process is still unfolding, as is the work of the OSCE’s election observation mission, which, as you know, released some preliminary findings. But to take a bit of a step back, Türkiye has a long, proud democratic tradition, and we trust that Turkish authorities will carry out this next phase of the presidential election in line with the country’s laws and in a manner that is consistent with its commitments to the OSCE as well as a NATO Ally. But I’m not going to predict anything additional from here.

QUESTION: Who is your favorite candidate?

(Laughter.)

MR PATEL: We do not – nice try, but I really appreciate your candid effort, but I will just say again that we look forward to deepening our alliance and cooperation with the – whatever Turkish Government is chosen by the people of Türkiye.

Shaun, go ahead.

QUESTION: Does anyone else have more on Türkiye?

MR PATEL: Anything else on Türkiye?

QUESTION: Very quickly —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — to clarify. Thank you so much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I just want to give it another shot because I did not hear actual assessment. Did you have U.S. observers on the ground observing elections —

MR PATEL: My understanding is that there was observers through the OSCE.

QUESTION: But the embassy was not involved, the U.S. embassy was not —

MR PATEL: Not to my understanding.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Shaun, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can we go to another election?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Also starts with a “T”, Thailand. The quite – a result that (inaudible) people did – the Move Forward Party – Mr. Pita’s party – scored a bit of an upset. Does the United States have any assessment both on the conduct of the election and on the presumed winners? And also, is there any concern about whether the winners will be able to take office considering the military-backed system there?

MR PATEL: Well, first, Shaun, we congratulate the tens of millions of people across the Kingdom of Thailand who participated in the May 14th election, and the U.S. is looking forward to working with the new government elected by the Thai people to continue advancing the interests and values that our two countries have long shared. And we support the right of the people to democratically choose their own leaders. And as a longstanding friend and ally of Thailand, the U.S. looks forward to seeing the final results and working with the next Thai Government to advance our shared goals for the benefit of both of our people.

QUESTION: Do you feel confident that the democratically chosen winners of this would be able to take office?

MR PATEL: Again, we look forward to seeing the final results and working with the next Thai government. My understanding is that the final count is still ongoing, and it will still be a number – many of number of days before an official result is announced.

Anything else on Thailand before we move away?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Okay. Go ahead, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions. Thank you, Vedant. North Korea and China are fully normalizing economic trade now. Do you see this as a violation of UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea? So what sanctions does the U.S. currently imposing on China for violating UN sanctions?

MR PATEL: Let me say a couple of things there. First, it is, of course, our view that a number of countries who have influence and engagements with the DPRK have a role to play when it comes to curtailing their destabilizing activities that we see so frequently in the Indo-Pacific region. Of course, one of those countries is the PRC. There, of course, are sanctions in place with the DPRK through the UN Security Council as well as otherwise. I’m not going to get into specifics here, whether such an action is a deviation of a sanction or not. But broadly both in holding the DPRK accountable and holding accountable countries that attempt to subvert sanctions or bolster the DPRK’s destabilizing efforts, the U.S. will continue to have a number of tools at its disposal to hold them accountable.

QUESTION: And on G7 —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — Summit, do you have plans to extend the G7 to the G8, including South Korea, and as a G8 member? Do you think South Korea is qualified enough?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any plans to discuss membership changes at the upcoming leaders’ summit, but of course we’ll let the summit take place first.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Lalit, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Pakistan, I wanted to ask you about what is your assessment in the situation in Pakistan right now.

MR PATEL: Specifically?

QUESTION: Because there have been some attacks – violence been taking place, attacks on the government installations —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — political leader of opposition is being arrested.

MR PATEL: Certainly, Lalit. So first and foremost, of course, our belief is that individuals should have the freedom to express themselves but do so without participating in any violence, violence that would put government employees in government buildings in harm’s way. And specifically on the arrest, I spoke a little bit to this last week. The U.S. does not have a position on one political party or one candidate or other. Our view is a strong, stable, and prosperous Pakistan is crucial to U.S.-Pakistan relations and that for any arrest that such an individual is affronted basic human rights in accordance to their laws.

QUESTION: The former prime minister today said that the press is not being allowed to show the other part of the story. Are you concerned that the freedom of press has been challenged in Pakistan right now?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to be prescriptive about the current situation. I don’t have an assessment to offer from here. But broadly, we are very clear about the need for access for media and the access for information and the free flow of information between the government and journalists.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you also about India. Last week the White House announced President Biden has invited Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, for a state visit —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: – next month. I know this is all being handled by the White House, but State Department – what role State Department will have? And also, what are the key issues with Secretary, things should be on the table for the state visit between bilateral issues?

MR PATEL: Sure, sure. So first, I have no doubt that the State Department and of course Secretary Blinken will be critically involved in the upcoming state visit for Prime Minister Modi. I’m not going to get ahead of the White House or get ahead of the state visit, but I will just say, Lalit, and this is no surprise to you, the State Department’s viewpoint is that our partnership with India is one of our most consequential relationships, and we work closely with India on a number of vital priorities. And the state visit is an opportunity to deepen some of these partnerships, whether it be ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific and ensuring that it is a region that is more connected, more prosperous, more secure, and more resilient.

Obviously, between India and the United States, there exists an opportunity to deepen trade issues, deepen security partnerships. There’s an opportunity to address some shared global challenges, like global health and addressing the climate crisis. So again, I’m not going to get ahead of the state visit, but we very much look forward to hosting the Indian Government.

QUESTION: And finally, this is the third state visit of this Biden administration. Was Secretary taken into confidence, consulted on inviting Prime Minister Modi for this? And what are the reasons why India was selected from the long list of state visits?

MR PATEL: Yeah. Well, first, as Secretary Blinken is our country’s and the President’s chief diplomat and one of his most trusted and longest-serving foreign policy advisors, we of course are in constant communication with our partners at the White House on things like state visits and visits by foreign dignitaries and things of that sort. But I’m not going to get into the specific deliberations beyond that. And like I said, our partnership with India is one of the most consequential and it is why we’re very much looking forward to hosting them in a state visit next month.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Today, May 15, marks the 75th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba. Now, there was an event at the UN, and the deputy ambassador, the U.S. deputy ambassador Evans chose not to go, and he said that they don’t attend event that are anti-Israeli in nature. Is commemorating the Palestinian Nakba an anti-Israeli event? And it’s – why would he – why would he skip such an event?

MR PATEL: Said – Said, the attendance or U.S. representation at any event is not reflective of our commitment to the Palestinian people. We continue to recognize the painful plight of Palestinian refugees. I will also note that this administration has prioritized our support for the Palestinian people and has provided over $940 million for Palestinians, including $730 million in humanitarian assistance for Palestinian refugees.

We also remain committed to a negotiated, mutually agreed, two-state solution that settles all final status issues, including refugees. And you recall, Said, that President Biden, standing right next to President Abbas last June, said that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own that’s independent, sovereign, viable, and contiguous. That continues to be our view.

QUESTION: Well, speaking of President Abbas, today he said that the United States and the United Kingdom bear the responsibility for the Palestinian catastrophe. Do you agree with him? And the time has come to end it. Do you feel that the time has come to end this catastrophe?

MR PATEL: The – I do not agree with those comments.

QUESTION: You don’t agree. So they should continue to suffer?

MR PATEL: That’s not what I said, Said. I can disagree with President Abbas’s comments, but also I would reiterate what I just said, is that our commitment to a mutually agreed, two-state solution continues to be unwavering. And that is something that this government and this administration will continue to pursue.

QUESTION: All right. One last question.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Today it’s been reported that Secretary Blinken is considering appointing an envoy to the Abraham Accords and maybe Dan Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel. Can you comment on this? Do you have any information?

MR PATEL: I have no personnel announcements to offer from up here.

All right. Jenny, go ahead.

QUESTION: Overnight, an American, John Leung, was sentenced to life in prison for espionage charges in China. Do you have any comment on that sentencing? Do you see these charges as legitimate?

MR PATEL: We are aware of the sentencing of a U.S. citizen in the PRC on charges of espionage. When a U.S. citizen is detained overseas, the department works to provide all appropriate assistance, including relevant consular access. The department has no greater priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas. But just given privacy concerns, I don’t have anything else to offer.

QUESTION: Has he been designated as wrongfully detained?

MR PATEL: So look – broadly on wrongfully detained designations, that work is a deliberative process that is ongoing. I don’t have any updates to offer on any new wrongfully detained designees from here. And again, on the reports of this case, because of privacy considerations there’s a limit to what else I can get into.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Bangladesh authority withdraws additional security to envoys, including U.S. and UK. The foreign minister told reporters that they will not give any additional security to the U.S. ambassador and the UK and others, around six ambassadors. As you know, U.S. ambassador’s convoy attacked couple of times in recent days and 2018 by the pro-regime supporter. Are you concerned about the ambassadors and the embassy personnel security in Bangladesh?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics about security details concerning the U.S. embassy or its personnel. But I will note that per the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, any host country must uphold its obligations to ensure the protection of all diplomatic mission premises and personnel and take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on personnel. The safety and security of our diplomatic personnel and facilities are of the utmost importance.

QUESTION: Follow-up, Bangladesh.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two small question, one about Deputy Assistant Secretary Afreen Akhter. She just told you Saturday that about Bangladeshi election – you know this is election year – that is it ultimately on the political parties if they want to participate or not; USA will not interfere. Do you have any comment on that if BNP or other parties do not participate in election, if U.S. will have any comment on that part, that it will be fair or unfair election?

And other thing, very short, on – I’ll make it very short. Bangladesh terribly suffered from terrorist threats during the BNP-led regime in 2004 and 2005 despite the meaningful antiterrorism support from USA. According to the Global Terrorism Index, in 2023 Bangladesh tremendously improved in the position in – all over the world. The question: whether the U.S. will continue to engage with Bangladesh in counterterrorism and if Biden administration has any new plan regarding lifting the sanction on RAP, Rapid Action Battalion. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Okay, let me say a couple things. First, I don’t have any new policy to announce so no new news on any sanctions or anything like that. But broadly, let me say about the U.S.-Bangladesh relationship – you’ve heard me say this before – last year our two countries celebrated 50 years of diplomatic relations. And what we’re looking forward to is deepening that relationship and deepening our cooperation with Bangladesh on a number of key issues regardless of political party or candidates or anything like that. Our hope for any election taking place around the world is that they are free and fair and accessible, but beyond that I have nothing else to offer insight on when it comes to political parties or candidates or anything like that.

QUESTION: Only if there are elections?

MR PATEL: No, that was my answer about elections.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So a Chinese envoy is going to Ukraine and Russia this week to attempt to end a – or start a negotiation to end the war. Is the U.S. concerned about China doing these negotiations, or are they welcoming any attempt at this point?

MR PATEL: Well, you’ve heard me say this before, that it is important for the PRC to hear directly from our Ukrainian partners about why Ukraine’s security concerns and its sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. You’ve also heard us say that when it comes to diplomacy, nothing should happen about Ukraine without Ukraine.

There is a role for the PRC and frankly, any country for that matter, in supporting diplomatically an outcome that is consistent with the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. No one wants this war to end more than our Ukrainian partners.

But the other piece of this is obviously Russia, the Kremlin, and I am not saying something new. The Kremlin has yet to demonstrate meaningful interest in ending this war, and in fact they’ve done quite the opposite. While others are focused on finding ways for this war to end, including President Zelenskyy, who has laid out his own peace plan, Russia is sending drones and missiles into a neighbor’s country, hitting apartment buildings, hitting hospitals, hitting movie theaters, killing scores of children and injuring others.

Our goal, the United States goal, will continue to be to make sure that Ukraine can defend itself against further attacks from Russia and that if Ukraine chooses offensive operations of its own, it can repel Russia’s ongoing invasion, and it has the capabilities to conduct those.

QUESTION: And then on a different topic —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s been criticism of the U.S. building a new embassy in Lebanon. It’s estimated to cost about a billion dollars. What’s the reasoning for building such an opulent embassy, especially in a country where right now I believe about 80 percent of the population is below the poverty line?

MR PATEL: Well, I don’t have any specifics about our new mission in Lebanon. But what I will say is that where we decide to open up new facilities, that is – obviously there’s a close coordination with Congress on that. There’s also a close coordination on what building and what security and what technology requirements – we try to keep those consistent among our facilities across the world. But we’ll see if we have anything specific to offer on this one.

Coming back to you, Shaun.

QUESTION: Sure. Can I ask a couple of different things about Africa?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Nigeria first. Secretary Blinken in a statement today said there were visa restrictions being imposed on a number of Nigerians over undermining the democratic process in the elections this year. As you know, a number of opposition candidates there have challenged the actual validity of the election results. Is this in any way giving credence to that, saying that there were overall concerns about the election, and can you give us any more details about the people being targeted?

MR PATEL: No, Shaun. So you might recall that in February the Secretary spoke to this via a statement in which – congratulating the Nigerian people and the winners of that election and calling that election credible, and our viewpoint is that both things can be true. The election can be credible and we congratulated it when it happened, but also, individuals could have attempted to undermine it. And that’s what today’s designation is about, is the Secretary announcing steps to impose visa restrictions on individuals who we believe were responsible for or complicit in undermining the democratic processes during Nigeria’s 2023 elections.

QUESTION: Can you just say a little bit more if these are people in the election as an – are these officials, are these people in political parties, or —

MR PATEL: As you know, Shaun, visa records are confidential, so I’m just certainly not going to get into a specific litany of lists, but what I will note is that today’s steps are specific to certain individuals and they are not directed at the Nigerian people nor the Government of Nigeria as a whole.

QUESTION: Sure. Can I just follow up on what we talked about on Thursday, I believe it was, on South Africa?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s a South African military delegation in Moscow now. Is this – does the United States have anything to say about this? Do you have any further thoughts about South Africa’s relationship with Russia and how this is – how this has gone forward?

MR PATEL: So on this specific meeting, I will refer you to our South African partners and to the Russian Federation to speak to. I don’t have anything to offer on that. But as it relates to our relationship with South Africa, I’ll note that our relationship with South Africa remains strong, and we are – continue to be committed to the affirmative agenda of our bilateral relationship. There are a number of issues that we look forward to working on with them, whether that be global peace and security, furthering and growing our bilateral trade, working together on a shared health agenda, finding ways to collaborate on energy challenges, and so forth.

QUESTION: Do you think that the episode that we had last week challenges that at all? Are you confident that relations remain on track?

MR PATEL: No, our – I am quite confident that our relations remain on track. Our two governments continue to be focused on the priorities that lie ahead.

QUESTION: Just finally, completely different, other part of the continent.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Secretary had a call, I believe over the weekend, with the Moroccan foreign minister.

MR PATEL: Yep.

QUESTION: Nasser Bourita. In the readout, there wasn’t specific mention of the autonomy plan that Morocco has for Western Sahara. Some have interpreted that as a change in policy or watering down it all. Do you have anything to —

MR PATEL: No. So there is no change in the U.S. position on this matter. We continue to view Morocco’s autonomy plan as serious, as credible, as realistic, and a – one of the many potential approaches to meet the aspirations of the people of Western Sahara. And we also fully support UN Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General Staffan de Mistura as he intensifies the UN process on Western Sahara toward an enduring and dignified political solution and for the people of Western Sahara and the region.

All right. On —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Let me go to Jenny and then I’ll come to you. Go ahead, Jenny.

QUESTION: The U.S. ambassador said on Friday he spoke with the foreign minister to, quote, “correct any misimpressions” left by his public remarks. What were those misimpressions? Because he was very clear in his public remarks.

MR PATEL: I am not going to parse the ambassador’s words any further, as I just said that our relationship with South Africa remains strong. We have a number of key priorities and areas that we very much look forward to working with them on.

I’ll also reiterate what I said on Thursday that we have raised directly with our South African partners, which is that the U.S. Government had serious concerns about the docking of a sanctioned vessel at a South African naval port. And just as good partners do, we raised those directly with South African Government officials, but I don’t have anything else to offer.

QUESTION: So does the U.S. not believe defensive materiel was transferred to that docked sanctioned ship?

MR PATEL: I just don’t have anything else to offer on this, Jenny. Thank you.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Very quickly.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Sudan.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Government of Sudan said that they are extending the closure of their airspace till the 31st of this month. You have any comment on that? Does that impede in any way or impact any operations that you might —

MR PATEL: I certainly wouldn’t get into operational specifics from here, Said. We of course – are you speaking about the ability for evacuations and stuff?

QUESTION: Yes, the evacuations – right.

MR PATEL: So look, our message and what we’ve communicated directly to American citizens is that – to look to the security alerts that the department updates regularly about avenues and information for options to depart Sudan. Obviously, security assessments and situations on the ground will play into that, but I don’t have anything else to offer.

QUESTION: And second, do you have any update about ongoing or dormant talks in Saudi Arabia? Are you involved in any —

MR PATEL: Well, you saw a very important announcement happen late last week, where the SF – SSF – SAF and the RSF signed a declaration of commitment to protect civilians of Sudan while also pushing for humanitarian access as well. This is something that we will continue to remain deeply engaged on. It’s something the Secretary has been personally engaged on. He’s had the opportunity to engage with both sides over the past number of weeks. As I said last week, Assistant Secretary Molly Phee and Ambassador John Godfrey had been in Jeddah engaged deeply in these talks, and it’s something that the U.S. will continue to monitor.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Me?

MR PATEL: Go ahead. I’ll come to you after. Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Last week, Japanese Ambassador to the United States Tomita said that NATO was planning to open a liaison office in Tokyo. Do you have any timeline regarding this plan? And I’m also wondering if it could be a positive step for the United States and whole NATO Alliance.

MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything new to offer, and obviously, our partners at NATO would be able to speak more to this. But NATO – a strong and unified NATO as well as one that is reflective of our alliances in the Indo-Pacific is something that’s very important to us, and our traditional security partnerships elsewhere not only deters aggression but provides a platform for mutually beneficial cooperation that strengthens the international order. Secretary General Stoltenberg spoke to this, I believe, at the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels most recently, where he said what happens in Europe matters to the Indo-Pacific and what happens in Asia matters to NATO.

So broadly, Japan’s cooperation with NATO is mutually beneficial. And as you might recall, at this foreign ministers meeting that took place in Brussels, the NATO foreign ministers had a entire session on the Indo-Pacific and had the opportunity to engage with their counterparts from Japan and South Korea on these important topics as well.

Go ahead in the back.

QUESTION: Yes, on Iran.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Vedant, today John Kirby in the briefing said that there are indications that Russia and Iran are expanding their cooperation and the U.S. is prepared to do more to stop this. A few days – a few days ago also there was an announcement that the U.S. will bolster its defenses in the region, in the Middle East, due to the growing – to the growing threat from Iran. What’s new that you are becoming more vocal about the threat? I mean – I mean, the Iranian are threatening the navigation since a long time. What’s new now?

MR PATEL: I would not say that we have been new in how we’ve been communicating about this. We have been very clear collectively, across the board, that the United States will always act in its interest; it will also always act in efforts to defend itself as well as our partners and allies.

But to take a step back, the crux of this is, is that Iran remains Russia’s top military backer, and Iran has already provided Russia with artillery and tank rounds for use in Ukraine. Iran also continues to provide Russia with one-way attack UAVs. Since August – and this is something that we’ve talked about last year as well – Iran has provided Russia with more than 400 UAVs, primarily of the Shahed variety, and Russia has expended most of these UAVs using them to target Ukrainian critical infrastructure inside Ukraine.

But broadly, the deepening of this cooperation is a threat and a danger to not just Ukraine; it’s a threat and a danger to Russia’s neighbors, Iran’s neighbors, and the international community broadly.

QUESTION: A follow-up on —

QUESTION: One more question on Sudan.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is —

QUESTION: Follow-up on Iran first.

MR PATEL: Let me – since I’ve called on her, let me, and then I will – we’ll do a follow-up on that question.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is Assistant Secretary Molly Phee still in Ethiopia, or she’s back?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on her travel, but I’m happy to check for that – for you.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on —

MR PATEL: Go ahead, and then I’ll come to you.

QUESTION: I hear you: there’s nothing new here. But what is the reason for the decision to flag it today? You mentioned 400 drones now, but we heard from Admiral Kirby this morning that he was talking about Iran was seeking (inaudible).

MR PATEL: So let me clarify my words. What is not new is the United States’s reaction and response when it comes to the threat that it faces from Iran or from any other malign actor. But as it relates to the news that was announced today, of course – the reason we have been and are being so public about the deepening cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime is because it is incredibly concerning. It is dangerous. It is a threat to the countries in those regions. It is a threat to the international community. We are talking about a security cooperation that flows both ways, from Iran to Russia and from Russia to Iran. This is a partnership that is a full-scale defense partnership, and it is harmful to Ukraine, it is harmful to other countries in the region.

QUESTION: White House is seeking some designations in response to this action. I know you’re not going to preview any upcoming action, but let’s step back a little bit and talk about previous actions you have taken. Is IRGC a terrorist organization?

MR PATEL: I can’t – I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the —

QUESTION: Do you consider IRGC a terrorist organization?

MR PATEL: Well, it’s been designated as one, Alex, so yes.

QUESTION: Then why – why would the U.S. ask the UK not to do the same? We have seen multiple reports and the UK officials are still keep saying same thing (inaudible).

MR PATEL: These – Alex, these are – these are sovereign decisions – these are sovereign decisions that other countries will make as it relates to their own assessment of the security environment. We of course have taken these steps, and we of course have taken additional steps to hold the Iranian regime accountable.

QUESTION: But the U.S. has not asked the UK Government to refrain from —

MR PATEL: These are – these are sovereign decisions, Alex, that countries will take on their – their own accord.

Go ahead, behind you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Oh, let me go to him and then I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: And just I’d go back to the previous question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The U.S. Navy bolstered their presence in Middle East and especially in Persian Gulf to deter Iran. My question is that: Has the Iranian threat increased on the U.S. presence in Middle East?

MR PATEL: I certainly am not going to get into a specific threat assessment from here, and my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to any force posture, or things like that.

QUESTION: Is that —

MR PATEL: What I will say is that we are not – will not ever be naïve about the threat that the Iranian regime can face to American personnel as well as the personnel of our partners and allies. We have seen time and time again in the conflict with Ukraine and other parts of the world Iranian-backed activities take actions that further destabilize specific countries or regions. So we are not going to hesitate to take actions to protect our own interests, to hold the Iranian regime accountable, and take other steps as well.

QUESTION: Is that – is that a sign that the U.S. is preparing for dealing with a reality without Iran deal?

MR PATEL: Look, we have always said that we will take any step possible to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. We continue to believe that diplomacy is the best path forward, but we of course also have not taken anything off the table.

QUESTION: And a short question on Türkiye.

MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit.

QUESTION: A short question on Türkiye.

MR PATEL: I’m going to work – you’ve gotten a couple of questions in.

Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. About your Religious Freedom Report today, in these reports, going back more than a decade, the State Department has accused the CCP for persecuting Falun Gong practitioners in China. The Biden administration has sanctioned some individuals, but that seems to not have changed the situation. So I’m wondering if you are – is the State Department looking at broader actions targeting those involved in persecution and also forced organ harvesting in China?

MR PATEL: Of course our – we remain deeply concerned about human rights abuses taking place within the PRC, and we continue to be clear-eyed about that. I’m not going to preview any actions or designations or additional steps that the government might take from here, but we have already taken a number of historic actions on human rights specifically to hold violators accountable. And human rights is something that we raise quite regularly in our bilateral engagements, and we will continue to do so.

Shannon, go ahead – your hand up.

QUESTION: There’s an (inaudible) briefing on Iran tomorrow. I was wondering if you could shed any light on this particular subject matter, why it’s happening now, and State’s involvement in the briefing.

MR PATEL: I don’t – I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of our engagements with Congress. We engage with Congress on a number of issues. We brief Congress on a number of issues, often at Congress’s request. But of course, there are a number of issues at the nexus of Iran, and so we look forward to engaging with Congress on that. But I’m not going to offer anything else.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Me?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On U.S.-UK Special Relationship, on May 10th, day after Secretary Blinken held bilat with Cleverly here, President Biden brought up his trip to Ireland and he said that he went there to make sure, I quote, “the Brits didn’t screw around.” Has Secretary Blinken spoken to the UK Government to provide reassurance regarding the President’s recent remarks? And can Secretary Blinken say with confidence that President Biden trusts the UK Government?

MR PATEL: We absolutely trust the UK Government and the – you saw – if you paid attention to the bilateral engagement that Secretary Blinken and Foreign Secretary Cleverly had and the press conference they had together, what you saw was two allies, two partners talking collaboratively about the issues that lie ahead of it, whether it be addressing challenges within the conflict in Russia and Ukraine. I’ll also note that President Biden in Belfast deeply spoke about the appreciation he had for the United Kingdom’s government, specifically Prime Minister Sunak’s leadership in reaching an agreement with the EU on the Windsor Framework and preserving the gains of the Belfast and Good Friday Agreement.

QUESTION: Just one more question regarding Zelenskyy’s visit today to Chequers. Sunak said that UK remains a great supporter of Ukraine, and he announced that the UK is going to train Ukrainian pilots to fly Western fighter jets. So what is the U.S. stance on that? And how do you see this developing further between the coalition going forward?

MR PATEL: Look, there is an important process as it relates with the alliance of a number of countries providing important security assistance to our Ukrainian partners. We are all unified in our goal of doing collectively everything that we can to ensure that Ukraine has the assets to defend itself, to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty. And you have seen a number of countries step up and share systems, train individuals, and we look forward to deepening our partnerships in order to do that and play our role as well.

In the back. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Patel.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Jalil Afridi here from The Frontier Post. My first question is with regard to the women education in Afghanistan, and it’s a bit personal to me as well because I’m a Pashtun well. It’s been a long time now they are not getting education, and the Biden administration and the State Department has pretty much forgotten about them. And if you remember, in the early days after 9/11, there was a system called jirga was done by the U.S. to bring a government in Afghanistan. Now, jirga is a traditional gathering of elders from different tribes, different parts of the countries to convince something or to decide something. Why hasn’t the U.S. thought about holding a jirga especially with regard to women education?

MR PATEL: Well, first, let me – I will reject the premise of your question, because our endure – our commitment to the people of Afghanistan, not only is it unwavering, it endures. The United States continue needs to be the single largest humanitarian provider to the people of Afghanistan, and we will continue to take this challenge head on. There’s a number of ways in which we engage on this issue. Of course, we have spoken regularly about the egregious human rights violations coming from the Taliban, especially on – and the impact that it’s had on women and girls.

We continue to affirm quite clearly that we do not see how the people of Afghanistan will be able to move forward when half of their population is being left behind. And so we will continue to take steps —

QUESTION: So Mr. Patel, basically —

MR PATEL: — to strengthen those issues and strengthen what aid we have on these important areas.

QUESTION: Mr. Patel, basically, I hope – last time you said the same thing, the word premise of the question. Foreign journalists usually don’t have favorites presidents. I don’t ever try to choose between Biden and Trump. That’s not our goal. But jirga is a tradition which State Department and the U.S. Government used – and this is a very important issue – like Pashtun women are —

MR PATEL: I’m not disputing the importance —

QUESTION: — for the last few decades they have —

MR PATEL: — of the issue. I’m —

QUESTION: So like online education, Jirga is one thing that you like hold from different tribes of Pakistan or Afghanistan, and you could try to convince them. Why not use their own tradition instead of using this podium to say that U.S. is the biggest donor —

MR PATEL: I don’t have a new program to announce within Afghanistan. What I will say is that the U.S. is the single largest humanitarian donor to the people of Afghanistan. We work with NGOs and entities through the UN to ensure that that aid goes directly to the people of Afghanistan, and we work with experts in the region; we work with organizations who have deep expertise in the area and these issues to ensure that we can do what we can to offer this aid.

QUESTION: Just one thing related – one related subject —

MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit —

QUESTION: One related —

MR PATEL: — because we’re getting close.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: On May 12th, Qatar prime minister met with the Taliban leaders in Kandahar, and two days later Secretary Blinken talked with him and Afghanistan was also a topic in their discussion. Would you elaborate on developments? And was Al Thani – Qatar prime minister – able to meet the supreme leader of the Taliban? And the last question: is there any development regarding the American taken hostage by the Taliban?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics about the Secretary’s call with his counterpart beyond what was in the readout. But look, we appreciate the strong cooperation with our Qatari partners on Afghanistan in a number of areas. As the United States is protecting power in Afghanistan, Qatar provides the diplomatic and consular interests of the U.S. and our citizens in Afghanistan. Our senior leadership meets with and discusses regularly with our Qatari counterparts to find solutions to Afghanistan’s – a number of issues. And as a member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Qatar and other Muslim majority countries are influential voices. So this is something that of course the Secretary and others in the building are going to engage on and raise directly with their Qatari counterparts.

QUESTION: So will you take one related?

MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit. Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. A question on Taiwan, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan President You Si-kun, who is the equivalent of the U.S. congressional speaker, is in D.C. today – this week. I’m sorry. So is there any meetings set up with State Department officials? And is it – can it be said that his visit to D.C. is considered – is consistent with the U.S. “one-China” policy under the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Communiques, and the Six Assurances?

MR PATEL: So I will let the – Taiwan speak for – about the details of this visit. I don’t have any specifics to offer you, nor do I have any meetings to read out or preview from the State Department. But, yes, such a visit would be consistent with our longstanding “one-China” policy, which has not changed and is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Just quick question. Just coming back from a short trip to India, what I saw there, that there’s a much more interest in the U.S. products and U.S. policies in – among – especially among youngsters in India. What I saw there, more and more U.S. franchise are open and now the first U.S. – first Apple stores in Mumbai and Delhi opened. So what do you tell us more and more interests are there in India among Indians and also from the U.S. companies – what it tells us?

And also, hundreds of thousands students are flooding to the U.S. universities and colleges, and more are lining up. What they’re asking: if U.S. is opening for more student visas? And what is the now future and where do we stand as far as ahead of prime minister’s visit to the U.S.?

MR PATEL: Sure. Thanks for your question, Goyal. So, of course, as I said to your colleague, that our partnership with India is one of our most consequential and of course deepening our trade relationship is of course a key priority and has been one as it relates to our partnership with India. Of course, another key component of this is our deep cultural exchanges and peopletopeople ties as we are both democracies. I don’t have any new policy to announce, but we, of course, are eager to welcome Indian students interested in studying here through the appropriate visa systems and otherwise, but I don’t have any – anything new to provide.

QUESTION: Just —

MR PATEL: Go ahead. Go. Go.

QUESTION: Just a quick, I want to say traveling from Delhi to many places in India, and I asked this question to many people from every sector of people that why there is so much interest in the U.S., and what they’re saying is because United States has a rule of law and human rights and freedom of press, freedom of religion, and just like in India, and we have no problem traveling to the U.S. and back forth. That’s what they’ve been telling me. So what message you think you have for that?

MR PATEL: Again, I will just reiterate that these shared values that you so outlined are a key tenet to this partnership that we continue to believe is one of the most consequential.

I’m going to wrap soon, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. I know that you don’t want to take sides in the Turkish election, but President Erdogan is saying that – actually, he’s accusing opposition that they were working with President Biden to overthrow him. And if you allow me, he said that, quote, “Biden gave the order to [overthrow] Erdogan. I know this,” he said. “All my people know [is that] if that is the case, then the ballots will give a response to Biden, too.” He is the President Biden —

MR PATEL: So I’m just going to – I’m going to stop you right there and reject the premise of the question because that is absolutely not true. The United States does not take sides and elections and our interest is and will continue to be the democratic process. And we will continue to work together with the government chosen by the Turkish people to deepen our cooperation on a number of shared priorities. As I’ve said, Türkiye is an important NATO Ally, and we look forward to deepening these collaborations.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex – probably final question.

QUESTION: Thanks so much. On Armenia-Azerbaijan, just curious if you have anything for me on the Brussels talks. What was your reaction to the results? Did the meeting meet your expectations?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any additional assessments on it from here, Alex. I will let the two parties speak to updates. Obviously, the U.S. was not a party to these talks. But as a follow-on to the talks that we hosted in Arlington, we continue to believe that these are important steps forward as we continue to find that a durable peace is possible between these two countries.

All right. Thanks everybody.

QUESTION: What was UN —

MR PATEL: Thanks everyone.

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

# # #

Department Press Briefing – May 11, 2023

1:32 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for being a little tardy today. Still starting earlier than what we’re used to, so I guess that’s a good thing. I have two very, very brief things, and then I’m happy to dive right into your questions.

So first, this morning the Secretary of State, together with the president of the World Food Prize Foundation, announced the 2023 World Food Prize Laureate. The World Food Prize is considered the preeminent award for global agriculture and celebrates breakthrough achievements in combating hunger and enhancing food security around the world.

This year’s winner is American Heidi Kühn, founder and CEO of the nonprofit Roots of Peace, which works to transform heavily mined areas into sustainable agricultural farmland.

Since its establishment, Roots of Peace has facilitated the removal of 100,000 landmines and unexploded ordnances and strengthened food security in local communities in Afghanistan, Angola, Croatia, Guatemala, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Vietnam, among others. We offer her our congratulations and gratitude for this critical work.

The world is facing a global food security crisis of historic proportions. A combination of climate shocks and regional conflict, including Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine, have disrupted global food production and distribution, driving up the cost of feeding people and families and disproportionately impacting those in developing countries. The U.S. is committed to addressing this crisis and working with the world to build resilient food systems that support local communities.

And secondly, I wanted to offer an update on Sudan, specifically the talks that are ongoing in Jeddah. Assistant Secretary Molly Phee and Ambassador John Godfrey are leading the U.S. delegation to the Jeddah talks, which are ongoing and are focused on establishing the commitment of the two parties to recognize their obligations under international humanitarian law and to agree to arrangements to allow the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance and the restoration of essential services. In this process, we will continue to engage and press for the effective short-term ceasefire to facilitate humanitarian assistance.

The talks that are ongoing in Jeddah enjoy broad support from the AU. The IGAD tripartite mechanism, countries in the region, and many Sudanese civilian groups have also issued supportive statements. The pre-negotiation talks contribute to the goals and intent of the AU’s April 20th communique and support the AU’s forthcoming roadmap to de-escalation.

These talks are a – of course, a first step. And more broadly, we continue to engage Sudanese civilian leaders, resistance committees, and civil society to work toward the shared goal of establishing civilian democratic governance in Sudan as soon as possible, and to harmonize civilian and international assistance efforts.

With that, Matt, if you’d like to kick us off.

QUESTION: Right. Yes, thanks. I’ve got a couple, but I don’t think you’ll have any substantive answer to any of them. So they’ll be very brief, I promise. Just first on your Sudan thing, what exactly is your understanding of what pre-negotiation talks are? What does that mean?

MR PATEL: Matt, the work is ongoing to ensure that —

QUESTION: Yeah, I know it is. But what the hell does that mean, pre-negotiation talks? They’re either talks – they’re negotiations, or they’re not.

MR PATEL: What we are working towards – and you can assign any vocabulary that you like —

QUESTION: But you assigned it. I’m not assigning anything.

MR PATEL: And so can we.

QUESTION: I just want to know what is your understanding of this.

MR PATEL: What this is about —

QUESTION: What is it supposed to produce? At the end of this, if it is successful, at the end of these pre-negotiation talks, are there supposed to be negotiations? Are there supposed to be talks?

MR PATEL: What this is about is —

QUESTION: It doesn’t make any sense.

MR PATEL: What this is about, Matt, is about taking further steps to see a reduction in violence, to see steps being taken for a ceasefire to be extended and adhered to, all of —

QUESTION: Yeah, well all that is well and good. But I don’t —

MR PATEL: — all of which to get to an ultimate cessation of hostilities. That’s what this is about.

QUESTION: All of that is well and good, but it doesn’t make any sense to me. Pre-negotiation talks – they’re either talks, they’re negotiations, or they’re not.

Anyway, I want to ask you something I know you’re going to defer to Justice on. Prove me wrong. Do you have any comment on the extradition —

MR PATEL: I’m curious.

QUESTION: — extradition from Peru on the suspect in the Natalee Holloway case? And was there any State Department involvement in this?

MR PATEL: To your surprise, Matt, and as you know, as a matter of longstanding policy the Department of State does not comment on pending extradition matters. And so I don’t have anything additional for you on that.

QUESTION: All right. And then before my colleagues ask you unanswerable questions about China and Pakistan, let me just ask you about Israel and Gaza. Has there been any – we saw that Jake Sullivan spoke with the – his Israeli counterpart last night about the situation. Has there been any State Department engagement?

MR PATEL: There certainly has been State Department engagement. The department, including many who work on these issues from Assistant Secretary Barbara Leaf to Ambassador Nides, have continued to remain engaged on this. I don’t have any specific calls from the Secretary to readout or preview, but obviously we continue to call on both sides to take steps that will not incite tensions and further incite violence and, of course, would ask all sides to take prudent steps to ensure that civilian life is not harmed.

QUESTION: May I follow up on that?

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Are you on the same issue?

MR PATEL: Is that okay, Shaun?

QUESTION: On Gaza?

QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, I am surprised that today that you didn’t really have anything to say on what’s going on in Gaza. The Israelis broke an agreement or a ceasefire, and they killed children. I mean, they killed children in the middle of the night while they were sleeping – girls and boys, five of them – and you had nothing to say on this.

And the other thing, Vedant, today marks the one year anniversary of the assassination of an occupying army of an American-Palestinian journalist, and you have to say on this either. So can you update us on both issues? I mean, aside from the stuff that you said to Matt, we want to hear what is the United States Government’s position on what Israel did in Gaza in the middle of night killing children while they were sleeping. And the second, update us on what’s going on with the investigation for – on accountability of those responsible for the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh.

MR PATEL: Said, let me say a couple things. First, we condemned Shireen’s killing when it happened a year ago and we condemn it today as well. And we continue to pursue accountability to ensure that steps are taken to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future, and we continue to engage when it comes to rules of engagement not just with our Israeli partners but others in other regions where journalists may find themselves in harm’s way. We continue to underscore the importance of accountability when it comes to her killing.

But, Said, I will also note that – and we’ve spoken about this before – that both the findings from the IDF as well as the findings we discussed last summer from the U.S. Security Coordinator continue to indicate that there was not an intentionality to this very tragic, tragic incident and that we continue to still condemn. But I think that is an important piece of this to remember, Said.

Number – going back to the first part of your question, we have continued to call on both sides, on both the – our Israeli partners and the Palestinian Authority, to take prudent steps to ensure the loss of civilian life is prevented and that steps are taken to ensure that violence is reduced and these kinds of actions don’t happen. Of course, the reporting that we’re seeing from overnight is tragic and heartbreaking, but that is exactly why we continue to pursue our efforts for a negotiated two-state solution and why we continue to pursue a goal of equal measures of prosperity, security, and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians.

QUESTION: So let me just follow up on Shireen’s case. So you consider that case is closed? As far as this department is concerned, the case is over, it’s closed, right?

MR PATEL: Are you talking —

QUESTION: Because that’s what you were saying. You say that you accept the findings.

MR PATEL: Said, we have – we will never forget about Shireen and her tragic death —

QUESTION: I understand. You will not – never forget.

MR PATEL: — and the circumstances around it. But to us, pursuing accountability, what that looks like is continuing to work with our Israeli partners, with partners around the world, partners in places where journalists find themselves in harm’s way, discussing these very important issues of rules of engagement and ensuring that steps are being taken collectively to ensure that civilian risk and the risk to journalists is mitigated. That is what accountability to us looks like, and we will continue to work on these matters.

QUESTION: Okay. So on this particular case – with the indulgence of my colleagues and you, of course – on this particular case, what would you tell Shireen’s family today? Where are we with this process? Is there going to be further probing of this issue by the United States of America or is it over? That’s it. I mean, you have to live with it. It’s tragic, sorry that it happened and so on. We’ll make sure that it does not happen again, although the Israelis have killed 22 Palestinian journalists thus far, but we don’t want to go into that. What would you tell Shireen’s family today?

MR PATEL: Said, Shireen’s family has experienced something tragic, something horrific, and that is losing a family member. And losing a loved one in any way is a tragic, sad, unfortunate, and heartbreaking thing, and so I’m just not going to engage on that from here. What I will reiterate again is that the United States will continue to pursue accountability, will continue to work with our partners in the region, with Israel, on rules of engagement, on steps that are taken to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

QUESTION: Any follow-up on Senator Chris Van Hollen’s letter to the Secretary of State?

MR PATEL: I just don’t have any updates on internal U.S. Government documents.

Shaun.

QUESTION: Could I just follow briefly on one of your responses? So you said that you’re calling for prudent steps to ensure that loss of civilian life is prevented. Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, today called for an immediate comprehensive ceasefire. This seems like – is that also something the United States supports? Does it support – does the United States want to – does the United States want a ceasefire? Is it working towards that end?

MR PATEL: I’ve not seen the specific reporting of High Commissioner Borrell’s comments, but certainly any steps that we can take or that the two sides can adhere to as it relates to a reduction of violence or steps that can be taken to prevent loss of civilian life, of course, would be a positive and welcome step.

QUESTION: And the ceasefire – can I switch topics unless somebody wants to stay on this?

MR PATEL: Anything else on this before – on – before we – I think you’re good to change topics.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sure. Can we switch to Ukraine and South Africa?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: The – Ambassador Brigety today made allegations that Russia has delivered – correct me if I’m wrong. He said that there’s – that South Africa has delivered weapons to Russia. Maybe there’s some more nuance to that. The South Africans, and sure enough, said that they’re disappointed that he went public with this. Could you explain a little bit more of the allegations about why the United States feels that this is – that this happened and the decision to go public? Does it – will it affect the relationship with South Africa?

MR PATEL: What I will say, Shaun, is that we remain committed to our affirmative agenda of our bilateral relationship with South Africa, one that is focused on the priorities the two governments share, priorities that the recent high-level delegation to Washington discussed. These include issues of global peace and security, further growing the robust trade relationship, working together on shared – a shared health agenda, finding ways in which we, the United States, can be helpful to South Africa’s energy challenges through a just transition of renewable sources of energy, as well as continued partnerships on work as it relates to addressing climate change.

That being said, Shaun, as we have previously said, the U.S. has serious concerns about the docking of a sanctioned Russian cargo vessel at a South African naval port in December of last year. And as good partners do, we have raised those concerns directly with multiple South African officials, and I will – I will leave it at that.

QUESTION: Could you say a little bit more about – share a little bit more about what you think was actually transferred and —

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into that from here, Shaun. Again, what I will reiterate – and this is not something new that the U.S. Government has said – is that we have serious concerns about the docking of a sanctioned Russian vessel at a South African naval port in December of last year.

QUESTION: Could I just – sorry, just one more, just one more attempt on that. In terms of the motivation for this, I mean, do you see this as a purely covert activity, perhaps not with full knowledge or do you see this as South Africa actually cooperating, actually giving – supporting Russia in some way?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to offer an assessment to that from here. What I will say is that we have been quite clear and have not parsed words about any country taking steps to support Russia’s illegal and brutal war in Ukraine, and we will continue to engage with partners and countries on this topic. But I just am not going to offer an assessment on that from here.

Only because you had a follow-up, then I’ll come to you, Simon, I promise. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The South Africans have asked that the U.S. provide evidence or intelligence, release the intelligence supporting the ambassador’s claim. Is that something that the U.S. is going to consider?

MR PATEL: I just don’t have anything additional to offer on this given the – since the reporting this morning, and so don’t have any – I don’t want to speculate on additional steps.

Simon, go ahead.

QUESTION: I mean, I just wanted to sort of probe why the ambassador is out there speaking so strongly about this, whereas you are not able to sort of – and why – why is the ambassador saying different things than what you’re saying? Is there a disconnect between the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa and what the State Department think – believes about what happened with this ship?

MR PATEL: Simon, I’m just not going to get into how I am talking about something or how one of our colleagues is talking about an issue. What I will reiterate, though, is that, one, we continue to be committed to our affirmative agenda with our South African partners, and we are focused on the priorities that we share between our two governments. I’ve outlined a number of those. But also we continue to be concerned about the – that a docking of a sanctioned Russian vessel took place at a South African naval port. And we’ll continue to engage on this directly with our South African partners, but with allies and partners across the world as well.

QUESTION: And you mentioned the high-level South African delegation that was here. I couldn’t see the State Department – that the State Department put out specific readouts from that visit. Is there anything you can tell us about the purpose of that visit led by the national security advisor to the South African president? And specifically, was the South African – the role of AGOA with regard to trade with South Africa, was that – was that something that was discussed?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into the specifics of these diplomatic meetings. But what I will say is that a number of topics were discussed, including global peace and security, furthering the robust trade relationship that we have with South Africa, and of course, I have no doubt that AGOA was discussed in that context as well, as well as continuing to work together on shared – on the shared health agenda as well, as well as the numerous energy and climate issues that I mentioned also.

QUESTION: And just one more. The South African response to this is to say that they’re going to – there’s going to be investigation into what happened with this ship. Is that – does that satisfy the serious concerns that you have?

MR PATEL: It certainly would be a welcome step. But again, the deeply concerning piece of this is the docking of a sanctioned Russian vessel at a South African naval port, so.

Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Vedant, it seems there’s a certain pattern they have. We have seen South Africa and other countries in Africa have been blaming the U.S. on – when it comes to Black Sea grain deal, not only about arming Russia. I’m just wondering, how much does this indicate that U.S. has been failing in terms of making your case in that part of the world?

MR PATEL: Alex, I would point you no further than the UN vote that was held on this in the clear condemnation of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, in which more than 140 countries spoke in unison about Russia’s barbaric and unjust and unlawful actions in Ukraine, countries that – many of which are from that region and the African continent and are watching how the U.S. as well as its allies and partners engage on this.

And since you’ve given me the opportunity, on the Black Sea Grain Initiative, it is unfortunate that Moscow has continued to use and has continued to weaponize grain and hunger in a way that has forced the Black Sea Grain Initiative to be needed in the first place. It shouldn’t have been needed. But it is exactly because of this mechanism that has allowed for grain to get to the places that it has needed, including many final destinations on the African continent as well.

QUESTION: But how do you explain the fact that we keep hearing South Africa and other countries blaming the U.S. of double standards? Is it a reflection of strong Russian propaganda, or what is it?

MR PATEL: I don’t think we’re hearing people blame the U.S.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR PATEL: Again, the United States has taken prudent steps to show leadership on Russia’s unjust and barbaric invasion in Ukraine. It has done so in a number of steps – in taking steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable through sanctions, through export controls, and doing so in a way that has ensured that humanitarian materials and goods are still able to flow freely. We have also taken steps in conjunction with allies and partners to support our Ukrainian partners to ensure that they can defend themselves, defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as reclaim territory that has been taken from them.

We’ve also seen a number of countries, including the United States, step up in the humanitarian space as well, offering and providing humanitarian goods as well as taking an active role in the – in accepting and welcoming refugees and displaced people from Ukraine as well, so.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR PATEL: Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant. Korea and China. Chinese – China is threatening South Korea with economic retaliation again, pointing out the THAAD missile and strengthen of the U.S. and ROK alliance. What would the United States do to counter China’s economic retaliation against its allies?

MR PATEL: What – we certainly are not going to preview or get ahead of any actions or designations from here, but we will continue to work in lockstep with our allies and partners in the region and across the world, including the Republic of Korea. And we’ll continue to take prudent steps that we believe are integral to peace, prosperity, and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world. And we – you’ve seen us done – do so quite clearly. The most recent state visit that the administration hosted, in which we hosted the Republic of Korea and President Yoon – you saw a number of steps and active policies come out of that, including the Washington Declaration. And so we’ll continue to pursue those lines of effort.

QUESTION: Do you think it is necessary to establish a U.S.-ROK-Japan alliance consultative group to respond to China’s economic retaliation?

MR PATEL: There are, of course, benefits to working these issues in a bilateral mechanism; there is, of course, benefit to working these issues trilaterally as well. We have important, close partnerships with both the ROK and Japan. We also have important work to be done in the trilateral auspice as well. Secretary Blinken has had the opportunity to engage with his foreign minister counterparts both in a bilateral setting as well as trilaterally, and will continue to do so.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News, Pakistan. There is a political unrest in Pakistan since long, and after the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan we have seen some charged crowds attacking on the military offices and their homes. How Washington observing the situation in Pakistan?

MR PATEL: Well, we continue to monitor the situation in Pakistan closely, and as the U.S. has said before, we don’t have a position on one candidate or one political party versus another. What our interest is is a safe and secure, prosperous Pakistan. That is in the interest of the U.S.-Pakistan relations, and we call for the respect of democratic principles and the rule of law around the world.

QUESTION: Sir, the Government of Pakistan also shutting down social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and others, and there are some strict restrictions on Pakistani media channels, like what to show and what not. When State Department officials engage with the Pakistani authorities, is this subject the part of discussion, media freedom?

MR PATEL: Well, this is something that the Secretary has emphasized pretty clearly before. He has been clear that access to information and diverse ideas make for a more prosperous and democratic society, and access to internet connection, for example, connects the public to information they need to advocate for themselves, to communicate with one another, to make informed decisions, to hold government officials accountable, and to exercise their freedom of expression.

QUESTION: Sir, one last question: Many analysts believe in Washington that due to the rifts in Pakistani military, and growing extremism, and the political unrest posed a big threat to the safety of Pakistani nuclear assets. I mean, does U.S. Government also have same concerns, or you think that they are perfectly in safe hands?

MR PATEL: There’s no – I’m just not going to speculate on that. That is a – something internal to Pakistan.

Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: So the same thing, but I want to understand it, because I heard this from Mr. Kirby as well, that the U.S. wants a stable Pakistan, and the other day I heard from Karine as well when she said that we don’t have a favorite candidate, and you said this as well today. But I am just personally trying to wonder if the – if stability is really, like – the U.S. is appreciating it or not, because you have a prime minister who runs two of the largest cancers hospitals in the world, who takes millions of donation from the U.S. every year, and then you have another prime minister who was convicted on the Panama Papers. And journalists have been killed since last one year in Pakistan. Meanwhile his colleague – my colleague who was just asking question earlier, Jahanzaib.

I mean, the U.S. has no stand on these things? The like favorite – like, you have no favorite candidate, we understand that. But, like, the U.S. is not taking any stand on some of the atrocities which has taken place since last one year?

MR PATEL: I would reject the premise of your question. I – let me say a couple things. That is true, we do not have a favored candidate or a favored political party, not just in Pakistan but as it relates to any government system around the world. And I will reiterate what my colleagues Admiral Kirby and Karine said, that the – a prosperous and strong, democratic Pakistan is critical to U.S. interests. That remains unchanged.

But on some of these areas, such as press freedom, human rights, things of that nature, we have consistently raised these issues with our counterparts not just in Pakistan but in other countries where we have a perspective to offer on that. But to give you some examples, what the United States is interested in is we look – are looking to continue to strengthen economic ties between our two countries by expanding private sector trade and investment, and there’s also an important security collaboration and areas of collaboration on renewable energy, addressing the climate crisis, increasing agricultural trade, and a number of areas. That’s what we mean by a strong, prosperous, and democratic Pakistan that is critical to U.S. interests.

QUESTION: How is it that a stable Pakistan is in the interest if, after the U.S. withdrawal – the Prime Minister Imran Khan was the prime minister at that time. The U.S. President did not call him about it. Then he gets shot, the President does not call him about it —

MR PATEL: Are you – which withdrawal are you referring to?

QUESTION: From – the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

MR PATEL: Got it. Got it.

QUESTION: At that time, Imran khan was the prime minister. I mean, President Biden has – is known for a long time in expertise in foreign policy.

MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to get into a tit-for-tat of who’s called what or when.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s fine.

MR PATEL: What I will say is that Pakistan continues to be an important partner in the region – an important trade partner, an important security partner – and even in that time period we continued to engage with our Pakistani counterparts on a number of issues.

QUESTION: Okay. Just one different one.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Modi is coming to the U.S. next week. The same podium, I had asked Mr. Kirby again when he was coming here during President Obama’s days – that was President Modi’s first time coming to the U.S. after being rejected U.S. visa for 20 years. Now he’s coming again. This time President Biden had said in his elections days that he will raise the issue of Kashmir with them, he will raise the issue of how minorities are being treated in India, especially the Muslim, and especially how the journalists are being treated under his leadership. So my question is: Is President or the Secretary going to raise these issue with him here, or no, they are going to be —

MR PATEL: First, I think you meant the visit is next month, not next week.

QUESTION: I did, next month. I’m sorry, June.

MR PATEL: Secondly, we very much look forward to hosting Prime Minister Modi and members of the Indian Government at this next upcoming state visit. I’m not going to get ahead of what’s going to be discussed, but we have an important partnership with India, and we look forward to continuing to take steps to deepen that. And this next state visit will be an immense opportunity to talk about a number of shared priorities, including addressing the climate crisis, addressing trade issues, deepening our security cooperation, and a number of other areas as well.

QUESTION: Ukraine?

MR PATEL: All right, I’m going to go to – then I’ll go to you.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, on Syria, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers introduced a bill today to bar the U.S. Government from recognizing the Assad regime, and the bill moves to expand the Caesar —

MR PATEL: Did you say to bar recognition?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: And the bill moves to expand the Caesar Act and asks the administration to be more aggressive in implementing it. Any reaction to that, and is the administration ready to implement Caesar Act against the Arab countries who normalized with the Syrian regime?

MR PATEL: I just, as a general matter, am not going to get into pending or active legislation. But what I will say is that that is already our policy. We have been very clear that we do not seek to normalize relations with the Assad regime, and we would not support our allies and partners doing so either. And so that is already the posture of the United States. As it relates to any actions, I’m just not going to preview them from here, Michele, but when it has come to holding the Syrian regime accountable, when holding members of the Assad regime accountable, we have not hesitated to take actions and take steps, including through the Caesar Act.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR PATEL: Rosiland, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Syria?

MR PATEL: On – okay, can I —

QUESTION: If someone has one more on Syria, sure.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Syria. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. It seems that the Assad regime will be gaining more support from the Arabic countries and also from the – some EU countries. Will that impact on your military presence in northwest Syria in the short or medium term?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any posture assessments to offer from here. But what I will say – and I spoke about this earlier this week on Monday, I think – as it relates to our efforts in the region, one of our key priorities will continue to be – despite what our partners in the Arab League may choose to do or not do, one of the United States priorities in conjunction with our partners in the Arab world is to ensure that the steps that we are taking for the degradation of ISIS and the influence that they have in the region, that that work that we are doing continues and persists.

And I will just point that in – since this administration has been in this office, we have been able to take two ISIS leaders off the battlefield, and we’ve continued to take steps to degrade ISIS’s influence in the region. And so that will continue to be our priority for this part of the world irregardless of what happens else.

QUESTION: And I have another questions on Iraq and as to —

MR PATEL: I can come back to you after.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, on Ukraine.

QUESTION: Zelenskyy said today that he doesn’t feel that his country is ready for the spring counteroffensive, and this comes just a couple of days after the U.S. announced another tranche of military equipment and support for the Ukrainian army. Does the U.S. Government share Zelenskyy’s assessment that now isn’t the time for them to mount a counteroffensive? And if so, why? If you disagree, why?

MR PATEL: Rosiland, I’m just not going to get into prescriptive battlefield assessments from up here. What I will reiterate – and this is something that you saw the Secretary talk about in his engagement earlier this week with Foreign Secretary Cleverly and yesterday with his counterpart from Spain – the U.S.’s role will continue to be to ensure that our Ukrainian partners have the assets, the training, and the pieces that they need to ensure that they can defend their territorial integrity, defend their sovereignty, and reclaim the territory that was taken from them.

There has been a group of more than 50 countries that – of course – that have come together to provide support to Ukraine. That has included the United States, and this is a coalition of countries. I will let it – leave it to the Ukrainians to speak to their own next steps and to their own assessments of the battlefield. But the United States will continue to stand with our Ukrainian partners as they endure this.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. having conversations with the Ukrainians about how to prepare for the day when there is some sort of peace negotiation? Is the U.S. stressing to the Ukrainians that they can’t fight forever?

MR PATEL: Rosiland, again, I’m just not going to get into the specifics of diplomatic engagements. Even President Zelenskyy has been clear-eyed and vocal about the fact that the resolution of this needs to happen through peace and through diplomacy. But let’s not forget that that could happen at any minute if the Russians indicated that they were willing to engage in good faith. They have not. Russia could end this war right now if they wanted to by withdrawing their troops from Ukraine. They, again, have chosen not to, and instead have taken steps to further their strikes and to further their violence and attacks that have targeted civilian and energy infrastructure across Ukraine. So we will continue to take steps to ensure that our Ukrainian partners are in the best position possible to defend themselves and to reclaim the territory that was taken from them.

Shannon, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. One more question on South Africa, if I can.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: If the State Department does come to the assessment that, in fact, arms were transferred to Russia – if that concern escalates – will there penalties that they face? Because when the administration was anticipating that China might supply lethal aid it was made very clear that they would face swift consequences.

MR PATEL: This is – I’m just not going to get into a hypothetical, Shannon. But we have not parsed our words as it comes to any country taking steps to support the Russian aggression in Ukraine. But again, I’m not going to get ahead of anything right now.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I would like to ask on coming G7 leaders meeting in Hiroshima. Yesterday President Biden touched on the possibility of attending G7 summit virtually, depending on his negotiation with Congress on debt ceiling. So I’m wondering if State Department is having any discussion with Japanese Government or other G7 member countries regarding this possibility.

MR PATEL: Look, I will let the White House speak to the President’s own travel schedule. I just don’t have anything else to offer on that. We, of course, continue to engage with our Japanese partners on a number of issues, including the upcoming G7 leaders meeting. The Secretary had the opportunity to represent the United States at the foreign ministers-level meeting, and I know that the White House will be in touch about any changes that may or may not take place as it relates to the President’s schedule. But my understanding is that the plan is still on and will proceed as normally.

Nick, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. The deadline to turn over the Afghanistan dissent cable is 6:00 p.m. today. Yesterday, Chairman McCaul said he had no alternative but to proceed with contempt proceedings if he doesn’t get it. I know you commented on this earlier this week, but today’s the deadline. So will the State Department comply with today’s deadline?

MR PATEL: Nick, we will continue to engage with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and discuss with them on their requests. As I have said before, the department has already offered a classified briefing and a summary of the dissent channel cable, as well as the department’s response. We believe that this information has been sufficient to meet what the committee has requested thus far, but we, again, will continue to engage with them. And I just don’t have any updates to offer right now.

Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Yesterday, Wednesday, the president of the UN Human Rights Council appointed the Islamic Republic of Iran as the next chair of the Council’s Social Forum. And the topic for the next session, when Iran’s going to president as the chair, is technology and human rights. Now, I’m not going to go into the past nine months’ developments in Iran, but given that the United States spearheaded the expulsion of Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, what do you think of this appointment?

MR PATEL: Well, Guita, this is obviously deeply troubling. The appointment of the Iranian ambassador, the representative of an egregious, consistent human rights violator, to chair such a group simply undermines its already limited usefulness. As you might recall, Guita, the U.S. opposed the resolution that created the Social Forum in 2015, noting at the time that it would serve limited utility and add unnecessary and additional costs. The U.S. has not participated in the Social Forum in the past and does not intend to participate in the 2023 session either.

But, of course, we are disappointed that the president of the council made this decision. And it is not appropriate for Iran to serve in a leadership position on a body that is supposed to be associated with the promotion and protection of human rights.

QUESTION: The Biden administration has, from the very beginning, sought reforms at the UN. Don’t you think there should be a criteria for appointments like this or appointments in general, or elections, even, that whatever country is being put forward as a candidate should meet some criteria to be eligible to hold that certain post?

MR PATEL: Guita, I’m not going to be prescriptive about reforms from up here. But as you know, as someone who’s followed this very closely, when we have seen inconsistencies with the makeup of various multilateral bodies – and a recent example being this Commission on the Status of Women – the U.S. has not hesitated to take steps to ensure that the values that such a group is supposed to be working on is consistent with the values of the countries that are made up of its membership. And so I will just leave it at that.

QUESTION: JCPOA question really quick.

MR PATEL: Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Is there anything ongoing behind the scene or overtly with the JCPOA? Where is Envoy Malley? Is he conducting any kind of talks with either signatories to the deal or anything? Can you update us?

MR PATEL: Said, as you know, President Biden is absolutely committed to ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. And as we have said repeatedly, we believe diplomacy is the best way to achieve that goal, but have nothing to announce or nothing to share or preview at this time.

Joseph, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. It’s also on Iran and Yemen. There was a bipartisan bill introduced, I think earlier this week, on the Hill calling for sanctions on Iran’s missile and drone programs because of the looming expiration of the UN resolution that expires in October on the UN – the UN missile ban on Iran – on Iran expires. Is the – do you – is the State Department looking at extending that, seeing as it expires in a couple of months?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview or get ahead of any actions from here, Joseph. What I will say is that as it comes to the Iranian regime and the malign influence that Iran has had, and of course Yemen and the role that they have played in the – when it comes to destabilization in that conflict, of course continues to be of immense concern to the United States. And so we will not hesitate to take action in holding the Iranian regime accountable, but I am just not going to preview from here.

QUESTION: Okay. And just to follow up on that, this morning Special Envoy Lenderking said that Iran was still smuggling weapons and drugs into Yemen. From this podium before, you guys have stated or revealed those violate – previous violations of that. Have you seen – can you elaborate on the special envoy’s comments this morning? Has there been any recent incidents that you can point to in terms of Iran smuggling those weapons into Yemen?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific metrics to offer from here, but certainly you are right; we have not parsed words from this podium when it comes to the destabilizing influence and actions that the Iranian regime has taken in Yemen. And it continues to be an area of deep concern to us, and we will continue to work through UN-led efforts that we’re undertaking of course with our partners in Saudi Arabia as well. We’ll also continue to take steps to hold the Iranian regime accountable if and when necessary.

Simon, you’ve had your hand up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, this issue has come up before, but some lawmakers, including Senator Durbin, have raised the question – or criticizing the Pentagon primarily for blocking the sharing of intelligence with the International Criminal Court for the investigation into Russia’s actions in Ukraine for war crimes, alleged war crimes in Ukraine. I wonder, as part of this it would also seem to be said that the State Department is cooperating with the ICC, so I wonder if you can clarify. Is State providing intelligence to that ICC investigation, or is the Pentagon’s opposition to that preventing the entire U.S. Government from sharing materials that could be evidence in those cases?

MR PATEL: Simon, I don’t have any updates on this from when this was last raised at the briefing. But if you’ll allow me, the U.S. of course strongly supports pathways to justice and accountability for international crimes committed in Ukraine, and we support a range of international investigations and inquiries into war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine. This includes those conducted by the ICC prosecutor; it includes the UN Human Rights Council-created International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine; it also includes auspices through the missions under the Moscow Mechanism of the OSCE as well.

International courts such as the ICC can play an important role as the part of international efforts to ensure accountability for atrocities, and the U.S. will continue to take steps to empower organizations to collect, preserve, analyze, and disseminate open source and comprehensive information. But I just don’t have anything additional to offer on this.

QUESTION: But does that support – specifically regarding the ICC, does that support include sharing what might be evidence?

MR PATEL: There is a number of mechanisms in which we are working to support international organizations who are working on the issue of accountability for these atrocities. I am not going to get into the specifics of what those partnerships and engagements are, but I will leave it at that.

Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: A question – unless Alex wants to jump in. It’s Armenia and Azerbaijan.

QUESTION: Yes, I do. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just I want to see if you had any comment about the violence there.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Obviously this comes after the Secretary’s —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — discussions with the two top diplomats. Now, do you see this as setting back the diplomatic process?

MR PATEL: Well, Shaun – and Alex, I guess – we – this kind of violence, we believe it undermines the progress made by Armenia and Azerbaijan toward a durable and dignified peace, and we call on the leaders of both of these countries that when they convene in Brussels on the 14th to a – that these two parties agree to distance their forces along the border, as discussed by Secretary Blinken during their participation of these negotiations that we hosted here in Washington, D.C., at the beginning of May.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up, if you don’t mind.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And Shaun, if you have one. Does the Secretary view the upcoming meeting on the 14th as a continuation of Washington dialogue or that was a separate track?

MR PATEL: We – of course we see – we see the dialogue that we hosted as important, positive steps in which we felt the two countries had the opportunity to engage on some important issues, see the other side’s point of view. And we believe that there continues to be a durable path forward. We believe that there is a peaceful solution to this. It’s why we, from the Secretary on down, have continued to be so deeply engaged on this. But I’m not going to get ahead of these talks themselves.

QUESTION: And I can’t help but ask about Russia’s position on this, because your Russian counterpart today questioned the Secretary’s optimism on the results of Washington talks. And also she laid out rules – let’s say her standards that there is no success outside of trilateral agreement they had, which, according to local experts, is about freezing a conflict, not solving a conflict. So how do you see Russia’s position in this?

MR PATEL: Alex, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about what my Russian counterpart says from her podium. What I can say, though, is that, as it relates to this very important issue of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is something that this department will continue to remain deeply engaged on. We believe that there is a clear path forward. We obviously were happy to host these two countries at the beginning of May. We believe that those talks were fruitful and laid the groundwork for a continuation of these talks beginning in Brussels, and we’ll let that process play out.

I’m going to work the room a little bit, Alex.

QUESTION: Just very quickly.

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you expect Secretary’s phone call to the sides —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any calls to preview or readout.

QUESTION: Please come back on Georgia.

MR PATEL: Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Any comments related to the Iraqi draft budget revealed that Hashd al-Sha’bi, the Popular Mobilization Forces paramilitary —

MR PATEL: I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time hearing you.

QUESTION: Yeah, your comments related to the Iraqi budget, draft budget, shows that the Hashd al-Sha’bi – it’s a paramilitary groups umbrella, which there are some prominent Iranian-backed groups are in this Hashd al-Sha’bi group. And their number, in the past two years, have doubled in size. And if the budget’s passed, now it will give 2.7 billion to the Hashd al-Sha’bi, which a part of these forces they were working so hard to expel the U.S. forces in Iraq. And then don’t you have any concern about the future of the nature of the role it will play in the future in Iraq?

MR PATEL: This is largely an internal domestic matter for Iraq. I don’t have an assessment to offer from here. What we support is a stable, prosperous, and democratic and unified Iraq. We have a Strategic Framework Agreement, and that remains the foundation of our bilateral relationship, but I don’t have anything else to offer.

Go ahead, in the back.

QUESTION: Andrew Thornebrooke with The Epoch Times.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I actually have two questions, both about ASEAN.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: So this week, ASEAN announced that it seeks to strengthen cooperation with China, including hastening the development of a cooperation agreement regarding behavior in the South China Sea. Two questions on that. One, what is the administration’s hopes, if any, that China will adhere to the tenets of such an agreement? And if the agreement is solidified, how will the capabilities – maritime domain awareness capabilities – that the U.S. provides to ASEAN be used to enforce it?

MR PATEL: What I will say is that – I’ve not seen this reporting, but what I will just say – and you’ve seen us talk about this before – is that as it relates to the South China Sea, there is important work being done as it relates to maritime boundaries and international delineation. We believe that there is important space for those kinds of talks to continue, to have some kind of framework and rules of the road as it relates to that part of the world, but I don’t have anything else to offer.

All right. I can probably do a couple more. Ryo, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Today White House announced a meeting between National Security Advisor Sullivan and Chinese Official Wang Yi happened in Vienna. And at the meeting, do you think there were any progress on the future engagement with China, including possible phone call between President Biden and Xi Jinping and the possible Secretary Blinken visit to China?

MR PATEL: Well, these talks between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Foreign Affairs Commissioner Wang Yi, they are a part of ongoing efforts to maintain and open lines of communication and responsibly manage competition. That continues to be the case. And as you’ve heard the Secretary say previously, we intend to get this trip back on the books when conditions allow, and we’ll continue to work through that process.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Georgia?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Earlier today, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin described the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. Is that an assessment that you share?

MR PATEL: We have been very clear in our designation of the Wagner Group as a group that is a transnational threat group. Again, our assessment of the Wagner Group is that they are motivated by profit, not necessarily fame and some of the other metrics and assessments that are made in an FTO process. That being said, processes as it relates to designations, those processes continue to be ongoing, and they are not some kind of moment in time snapshot. So I don’t have anything additional to offer.

On Georgia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Very quickly on Georgia. Russia has lifted visa regime and direct flight ban with Georgia. I’m just wondering if there’s any concern on your end that this might add up to Georgia’s sidestepping of sanctions.

MR PATEL: Look, Alex, the – many Western countries, including the U.S. prohibit, Russian aircraft from entering their airspace. If direct flights between Russia and Georgia resume, we of course would be concerned that companies at Georgian airports could be at risk for sanctions if they service aircraft subject to import and export controls.

The entire Western community has distanced itself from the Russian regime, and now is not the time for any country to increase its engagement with Russia. The people of Georgia would likely prefer that President Putin withdraw Russian troops from the 20 percent of Georgian territory that Russia occupies, rather than see direct flights restored or the visa regime changed.

All right.

QUESTION: If I understood you correctly, you call on Georgia to align with the sanctions against Russia, right?

MR PATEL: Again, it would be of deep concern to companies at Georgian airports should flights between Georgia and Russia resume.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:27 p.m.)

# # #

Department Press Briefing – May 8, 2023

1:12 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

QUESTION: You’re early.

MR PATEL: I know, I’m telling you.

QUESTION: Three minutes early, it’s a new record.

MR PATEL: Three minutes early. I’m just trying to deliver, picking up what you guys were putting down.

I don’t have anything off the top, so I’m happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Really?

MR PATEL: Really. You’re always surprised, Matt.

QUESTION: Well, I know. But it’s a Monday, and with stuff happening over the weekend. But okay.

MR PATEL: I have no doubt you’ll ask about it, so –

QUESTION: Well, I’m sure someone will. Can I just ask you if you have anything to add to the comments that were put out earlier under your name on the response to Chairman McCaul on his –

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything additional to add, Matt, but I will reiterate what we shared this morning, which is that it’s unfortunate that after being provided a classified briefing and being provided a written summary of the contents of the dissent channel cable as well as the department’s response, that the House Foreign Affairs Committee continues to pursue this. Our viewpoint is that the materials and briefings that we’ve offered and provided have sufficiently met the mark when it comes to the committee’s legitimate oversight request.

Now, that being said, we’ll continue to engage with Congress and the committee when it comes to correspondence and things of that nature. But you’ve heard me say, you’ve heard the Secretary speak about the importance of the dissent channel cable and the integrity to which it holds here in the department, and we’ll continue to do what we can and what we need to to protect it.

QUESTION: Is it your view, or the Secretary’s view or the department’s view, that actually giving them the cable would not add anything to what they already have?

MR PATEL: Matt, what – you’ve heard me speak about this before. This is not just necessarily about this dissent channel cable. It is about the dissent channel writ large.

QUESTION: I know that. But do you think that giving them the cable would give them anything – would give them any additional information that you haven’t already provided?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I’m not going to get into the contents of –

QUESTION: I’m not asking you about the content.

MR PATEL: You – you –

QUESTION: I’m asking you if you think that it would give them any additional information.

MR PATEL: I am just not going to make that assessment from here. It’s a – the dissent channel cable is a classified document.

QUESTION: Well, then, if you can’t make that assessment, if you think that you’ve already given them everything that they need in terms of this cable in both the briefing and the summary form of it, then shouldn’t you be able to say that there is nothing else they could learn from getting the entire thing?

MR PATEL: We have said that. I’ve said that – I’ve said that in the – through the – by saying that we’ve provided a classified briefing as well as we’ve provided a written summary that covers the entirety of the contents of the cable as well as the department’s response.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.

QUESTION: Vedant, I want to ask you about Ambassador Burns’s —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — meeting. I mean, how useful does the State Department think this meeting was to stabilize U.S.-China relationship?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to put a metric on one specific engagement or not, Humeyra. What I will say, though, is that maintaining open lines of communication with the PRC has been a key tenet of our approach as it relates to this very complicated bilateral relationship. You have seen even the Secretary speak about the importance of that even in – after his trip was postponed. You saw him talk about the importance of these open lines of communication remaining open and being used as a way to discuss things that are critical and important to the bilateral relationship. And just as the Secretary does when he speaks to his counterpart, the ambassador spoke in his meeting about the areas where our two countries can cooperate, such as addressing the challenge of the climate crisis, such as addressing cooperation when it comes to global health and public health, as well as important opportunities on food security and other things.

So our belief is that with the PRC, we want to and intend to open – keep lines of communication open. We do that through the Secretary, we do that through Secretary Krittenbrink, we do that through Ambassador Burns, and we do that through a variety of others who are working day in and day out on this issue.

QUESTION: Right. I have a couple more on this. So there is a specific line from the Chinese side saying – it says that the United States must correct its handling of the Taiwan issue, and stop the hollowing out of “one China” principle. I’m curious – what was Ambassador Burns’s response to this, or what’s your response to this? I mean, do you – does the United States see that there is anything for it to correct here?

MR PATEL: There absolutely isn’t, and the ambassador conveyed privately what you’ve seen myself, the Secretary, and others say publicly and clearly, not just from this podium but other corners of this administration. There has been no change to our policy with China. There has been no change to our “one China” policy, which is guided by more than four decades of the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We have been very clear-eyed about that. And we’re also going to continue standing with our friends and allies across the Indo-Pacific to advance our shared prosperity and security and values. There is no – we do not intend to change the status quo. That has never been the approach that the United States has attempted to take.

QUESTION: Right. And was the possible rescheduling of Secretary Blinken’s trip discussed during this meeting? And was there any decision or like, at least, like a tentative date that both sides would plan on?

MR PATEL: I certainly wouldn’t get into the specifics of diplomatic discussions like that. But you heard the Secretary talk about this just last week when he sat down for Washington Post Live. He would like to go. He would like to get this trip back on. And we’ll intend and work to do so when conditions allow. But I don’t have any additional updates beyond that.

Nike, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Also staying on China, if I may.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: China is sending a peace envoy to Ukraine, other countries. Can you provide the U.S. assessments on the latest diplomatic effort?

MR PATEL: What I would say is that any diplomatic effort relating to a peace between Russia and Ukraine needs to be undertaken and conducted in close coordination with our Ukrainian partners. We’ve long felt and long believed that the PRC has an appropriate role they can play, and we also strongly believe that the PRC needs to hear not just from the Russians but also from our Ukrainian partners. The PRC – for any country that – belief that territorial integrity and territorial sovereignty are important values and important principles to be governed by, it is critically important to be in close coordination and to hear from our Ukrainian partners, who have been subject to barbaric and unjust and unlawful invasions and attacks since February of 2022.

QUESTION: Given the special – the close ties between the Chinese envoy to Russia – he is among the very few foreigners that received the friend – medal of friend – friend-ness from Russian President Putin – do you have any assessment on the neutrality?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment. But in any – through this lens of Russia and Ukraine, the important perspective to remember is that actions from any country are going to speak louder than words. And I’ll reiterate again that any undertaking of diplomacy by any country needs to happen in close coordination with our Ukrainian partners. The terms of diplomacy and the terms of these negotiations, or of any negotiations, and the path forward is for our Ukrainian partners for – to decide. It is their country that is being invaded. It is their country that’s being subjugated to Russian drones and missiles and attacks on a week-by-week basis.

So we’ll continue to support our Ukrainian partners. You saw us announce another presidential drawdown late last week. We’ll also continue to take steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable.

Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On the contaminated water in Fukushima, Japan. What is the position of the United States regarding the release of contaminated water in Fukushima, Japan?

MR PATEL: I’d have to check on that, Janne. I’m not tracking that. But I can check with the team and see if we can get back to you.

QUESTION: One more.

MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: South Korea and United States and Japan cooperation will be more effective if Korea-Japan relations are stronger in order to respond to North Korean nuclear issue. But the public opinion of the Korean people is that Japan should not give indulgence to Japan’s brutal act, such as forced labor of South Koreans in the past. How does the United States evaluate this?

MR PATEL: Janne, what I’ll say is that we welcomed the news from this past week that the Japan-ROK summit took place, and we commend Prime Minister Kishida and President Yoon for their leadership. This is an important new chapter and a new beginning for our alliance partners, and an example of real leadership. This produced new momentum between like-minded countries that respect rule of law and are equally committed and share commitment to advancing peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region. And we’ll continue to work with – through the alliance, with the ROK and Japan and other partners, to advance these interests as well.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Follow-up to Ambassador Burns —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Follow to – up – his meeting. So Ambassador Burns, last week he called for cabinet-level talk to be reopened between United States and China, and then we saw this meeting just took place today. Do you see this as a sign that the United States and China will reopen the high-level leadership conversation?

MR PATEL: We believe that there are important areas of potential cooperation between our two countries, like in areas of climate change, like in areas of food security, as well as global health. There’s also important work to collaborate on addressing the precursors for the fentanyl crisis. So there’s a number of areas where we believe it will benefit the both of our countries to continue to communicate, and our intention has always been to maintain lines of communication with the PRC.

QUESTION: We know there are other secretary, like secretary of treasury, secretary of commerce, who also – they are willing to visit China. Is there going to be a sequence, of which Secretary will go first?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to any potential cabinet travel. What I will say is that I will reiterate what Secretary Blinken said so clearly last week, is that he intends to go, and he intends to go as soon as conditions allow and we’re able to get that trip back on the books.

QUESTION: Lastly —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — this wasn’t the first time Ambassador Burns meet with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang. They had met before when he was an ambassador to the United States. So how do you characterize this second meeting between both of them?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to characterize this meeting any further than what I’ve said. What I will say is that we maintain important lines of communication with a number of officials across the PRC. Obviously, that will relate to the respective individual and who their appropriate counterpart was. As you know, when Secretary Blinken was Secretary and, obviously, when Foreign Minister Qin Gang was ambassador to the United States, they had a number of opportunities to engage as well. But the important thing here is that we would like there to continue to be open lines of communication between our two countries.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Oh, certainly. And I’ll come to you after. Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: A couple questions. Let me start with Ukraine. Last night was the heaviest – most intense, I would say – drone attack on Kyiv since early this year. Do you have any reaction to the fact the Russians are shifting and retargeting Kyiv again?

MR PATEL: What I will say, Alex, is that this is just another line item in the litany of list of Russian aggression on Ukraine. You saw me speak to this a little bit last week, but there was an instant in which Kyiv and Ukraine were subject to numerous missiles and drones. And this kind of action and activity is just unacceptable and another example of Russian aggression.

QUESTION: The latest – last couple of days, let’s say – have they changed your calculus on Wagner, the fact that they announced they’re going to leave and they stayed to – probably to spin our heads about their tactics? Has there been any change in terms of recognizing Wagner Group as a terrorist group, as it is?

MR PATEL: We have – as you know, Alex, we have designated Wagner, the Wagner Group, as a transnational threat group that – we’ve previously done that – because we continue to believe that the group is largely motivated by profit, not motivated by fame or some of these other things that are made when assessments are happening for a potential FTO designation. What I will also say is that we know that the Wagner Group, when they are active in a country, that country is less stable, less secure. It often finds its natural resources and minerals exploited upon.

But the important thing to remember here, Alex, is that this conflict has not gone to plan according to Putin. The Russian Federation has had to scrape around for additional personnel for this conflict. Now they are relying on the Wagner Group and its band of ex-convicts to do much of this work. And rather for Putin to withdraw from Ukraine and stop the needless loss of life, the Russian Federation has chosen time and time again to escalate. And this – unfortunately we are seeing that wreak havoc across Ukraine, including on Kyiv, as you so mentioned.

So the United States will continue to take steps to support our Ukrainian partners – as I said, we announced a drawdown late last week – and we’ll continue to take steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable.

Jackson, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have two more – please come back to me.

MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. Actually, let me go to Leon, who’s had his hand up, Jackson, and then I’ll come to you.

Leon, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah – no problem. This is onto Saudi Arabia. So the National Security Advisor, of course, was there this weekend – sorry, last week. And I was wondering, the readout of – from the White House, of course, mentions the help of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, with the troops in Yemen; of course, in Sudan, for the evacuation. It doesn’t mention any other subjects – for example, human rights or what have you. We’re a far cry from a couple of months ago, where the President was saying there would be consequences and re-examination of the relations with Saudi. So where do we stand now? Is everything good with Saudi Arabia right now?

MR PATEL: Leon, what I will say and what you’ve heard me say before is that we have a multiplicity of interests as it relates to our relationship with Saudi Arabia. There are a number of factors at play and they’ve also been an integral partner in a number of endeavors, including, as recently, they’ve played an immense role in welcoming American citizens who are seeking safety from Sudan. They also played a role in facilitating these ongoing initial negotiations between the SAF and the RSF.

But beyond that, Leon, we do have a multiplicity of interests, whether they be a security interest, an economic interest. I will also note that we have nearly 80,000 American citizens living in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And so our bilateral relationship and the avenues that we choose to pursue and the areas that we choose to focus on keeps those individuals in mind, as well as their safety and security.

QUESTION: So precisely given the fact that there are 80,000 Americans in Saudi Arabia, given the fact that Saudi is helping out – has helped out and is – in Sudan, for the evacuation of American citizens – and in Yemen and all there, is – are your hands tied precisely because of that?

MR PATEL: Our —

QUESTION: To deal with other issues with Saudi Arabia, which there are?

MR PATEL: We can walk and chew gum. When there are areas of concerns between any partner, we raise them and we discuss them privately. We raise them in appropriate diplomatic channels. But what I will say again is that Saudi Arabia has been an important partner on a number of fronts, including welcoming American citizens from Sudan, as well as welcoming these talks. They also have played an integral role in the peace and stability and security of the region as well, and have taken appropriate steps in the conflict with Yemen also. And so they – we’ll continue to work with them on a number of these issues.

QUESTION: Okay, just one follow-up —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — and then I’ll finish. By sending Jake Sullivan to Riyadh this weekend, what – after several months where there were really not so many back and forths, what is the message you’re sending right now? Are you – is it back to normal with Saudi Arabia?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak for the White House from here, Leon, but the message is the same message that we have said all along, is that Saudi Arabia is an important partner in the region of which the United States has a multiplicity of interests in front of, whether they be security interests, trade interests. I’ll also note that Saudi Arabia has played an important role in conflicts like Sudan, in the crisis in Yemen. They’ve also played an important role in – when the President visited in June through steps like the welcoming of flights from Israel and other places. So this is of course something that we’re going to continue to engage on.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: On this, were you able to make any progress regarding the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and will Jake make any progress —

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything additional to add beyond the White House’s readout, but of course this is something that is not just important to the United States but it’s important to the region and it’s something that we’ll continue to focus on as well.

QUESTION: And on Arab League decision yesterday —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — to bring Syria back to its council, what’s your view on that?

MR PATEL: You’ve heard me talk about this last week, Michel. We do not believe that Syria merits readmission to the Arab League at this time, and it’s a point that we’ve made clear with all of our partners. I will note that we share a number of the same goals with our Arab partners with respect to Syria, including reaching a solution to the Syrian crisis that is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We believe that there is a strong need to expand humanitarian access to all Syrians, build security and stability to ensure ISIS cannot resurge, create safe conditions for the eventual refugee returns, and releasing the – clarifying [the] fate of those that are unjustly detained and missing, as well as there’s an important opportunity to reduce the influence of Iran as well, as well as countering the Captagon trafficking that’s taking place from Syria.

So there is a number of issues in which we believe that our partners will use direct engagement with the Assad regime to further and push and demand in these issue areas.

QUESTION: The Jordanian foreign minister has said last week that Jordan and the Arab countries coordinated their initiative with the U.S. before they put it on the table. Can you confirm that? Did you give any green light to the Arab countries to move forward with their normalization with Syria?

MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of diplomatic discussions, Michel, but I just said that we have made clear to all of our partners that Syria does not merit readmission into the Arab League, and we continue to believe that we will not normalize our relations with the Assad regime and we don’t support our allies and partners doing so either.

QUESTION: Final one on the strike that targeted a drug dealer in Syria today and killed – killed him and his family. Do you have any reaction?

MR PATEL: I’ve seen those reports, Michel, but I don’t have any confirmation or assessment to offer on that from here.

Jackson, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So regarding the calls, right, to hold Secretary Blinken in contempt of Congress, could the State Department provide a version of the cable that redacts confidential material or whatever may compromise sources of methods? Is the State Department prepared to – or prepared or willing to fight the subpoena in litigation?

MR PATEL: We’re going to continue to engage with Congress appropriately as it relates to their legitimate requests for information and oversight function, but we also have already provided a classified briefing as well as a summary of the dissent channel cable as well as a summary of the department’s response. And so we feel that that has sufficiently conveyed appropriate information.

QUESTION: And ahead of Title 42 expiring this week, is the State Department prepared to do its part in what will likely be a huge influx of asylum seekers?

MR PATEL: Well, you saw Secretary Blinken and Secretary Mayorkas speak to this last week or the week before, where you saw us announce a number of lines of effort that the State Department is undertaking in coordination with regional partners, in coordination with, of course, the Department of Homeland Security – actions like Regional Processing Centers and ensuring that relevant legal pathways for illegal migrants are on the table. And so we’ll continue to work in close coordination to do that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Camilla, go ahead. Go ahead, Camilla.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much. I just wanted to get back to —

MR PATEL: I meant Camilla Schick from CBS.

QUESTION: Oh, for her?

MR PATEL: Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you. Senator Van Hollen has written to the Secretary asking for a new report by the U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority on last year’s death of American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. He wants it to be handed over for congressional review. Has the Secretary responded? Will State hand it over? And what’s the difference between this new report and what the security coordinator’s conclusion was put out last year?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into the specifics of our engagements with Congress, Camilla. We of course will work closely with congressional partners for the provision of any new document, but I don’t have any additional updates on that at this time.

Now go ahead in the back.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks, Vedant. It’s good to see you, by the way, Vedant. And I’d like to bring you back to the question of Sudan, if you will.

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: I’m going to share some sentiments from my audience members. One of them is a doctor in Sudan, and this is likely the same sentiments that thousands of people in Khartoum are feeling right now. She says that, “The choices are stay home and die or step out and be shot or bombed. Pearl, my home and my aunt’s two houses down the road in Khartoum Amarat area were bombed.” Another audience member has said – shared this and said, “Would it not have been better,” quote, “if we had heard directly from the resident ambassador?” Now, I’d like to hear your comments given that John – Ambassador John Godfrey’s work.

And Vedant, please speak a little bit about your specific work with your ally the United Kingdom on Sudan. Where are you guys at? And was there any assessment – or what is your current assessment as to why there was no sort of early warning response, particularly through the mechanism of the African Union? So where are we specifically here? What are you doing?

There is a sense from the Sudanese people who say that it seems unfair that even here in Washington – they’ve attended events that Secretary Blinken was at and they said, quote, “Pearl, it’s so unfair the United States is making sure that they – that the Ukrainian people receive all the help, but Sudan is getting nothing – no help, no attention, people are dying in their homes, no water, no electricity, no food.” How are you working with your PD department to kind of be transparent and increase understanding about what you’re doing, what outcomes, where do these things stand right now, and speak to my audiences here in Africa, Vedant?

MR PATEL: Let me say a couple of things. First and foremost, Ambassador Godfrey has personally been deeply engaged on this issue and continues to be, and his leadership and the way in which the suspension of operations procedures and operation was conducted is a testament to, of course, the broad interagency effort as well as our – the entirety of our workforce in Khartoum, but especially a testament to Ambassador Godfrey’s hard work and leadership. So let me first open with that.

As it relates to any pre-warning, the United States – I’m not here to speak to any other multilateral mechanism, but what I can say about the United States is that since August of 2021, we have been clear and consistent with the world and clear and consistent with American citizens and LPRs who happen to be in the region that Sudan is a ‘Level 4 – Do Not Travel’ country. We have not parsed our words about the delicate security situation that has existed in Sudan for some time. It didn’t start being a Level 4 country in April. It’s been a Level 4 country since the Fall of 2021. And we have not been naïve or have not hesitated to make that clear to American citizens through all the communicative mechanisms that exist through our Travel Advisory websites.

Number three, we – the anecdotes and quotes that you offered are the exact reason why we are so deeply engaged in ensuring that we can get a ceasefire that lasts, and it’s why we welcome the initial start of negotiations between the SAF and the RSF that began over the weekend. And we – like I said earlier, we appreciate the role that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has played in hosting and facilitating these talks.

It’s our understanding that the parties began a review of a proposed declaration of commitment to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian actions in Sudan. We also are continuing to engage civilian leaders, resistance committees, and civil society to work towards the shared goal of establishing civilian, democratic governance in Sudan as soon as possible. We believe that is the will of the Sudanese people. And so the United States is not hesitating to get its hands dirty, to be deeply engaged in this process. The Secretary personally has engaged with both of these generals a number of times, has engaged with his counterparts in the UK, in the United Arab Emirates, in Saudi Arabia on these very important issues, and we’ll continue to be deeply engaged on this.

QUESTION: Vedant, can I give you a follow-up? There is some question as to why the United States embraced even talking to these two generals, right, given that arriving at this country did not come through democratic means. So could you not have used alternative methods or innovative methods maybe through some network diplomacy pressure or working with your allies in the international community, perhaps more additional pressure and engagement with Saudi Arabia so that you did not have to have this direct engagement —

MR PATEL: I’m going to – I’m going to stop you right there.

QUESTION: — sort of (inaudible)?

MR PATEL: I’m going to stop you right there to say it was the direct engagement of the United States that allowed the creation of the security conditions so our allies and partners and American citizens and LPRs and others had the opportunity to get to safety through a variety of mechanisms that had existed in Sudan to get to safety. So that is why the United States was so keen on engaging directly and why we take responsibility in this matter so seriously and why we’ve been so deeply engaged. There are multiple avenues of pursuit here. One of them, of course, is the continued ceasefire to get us to establishing a civilian democratic governance in Sudan. But the other piece of this is ensuring that security conditions can persist so American citizens, LPRs, the citizens of our allies and partners, can get to safety.

(Inaudible), go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Secretary Blinken is meeting today with the prime minister of North Macedonia. Can you please preview Secretary Blinken’s expectations for today’s meeting and the main themes, like what you can expect that they talk about?

MR PATEL: Well, I’m going to – I’ve been doing this long enough to know to not get ahead of the Secretary, but let me just say a couple of things.

North Macedonia is a strong NATO Ally partner. It is NATO’s – one of NATO’s newest members and current OSCE chair, and it has been a strong and vocal supporter of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. North Macedonia has provided military, humanitarian, and energy infrastructure support to our Ukrainian partners.

And we are also a strong supporter of North Macedonia’s integration into the EU, and we believe that the future of the Western Balkans is squarely within the European Union. And so I expect the Secretary will raise a number of these issues, but I’m not going to get ahead of that and I’m sure we’ll have a more formal readout following.

Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. In Iran today, the authorities executed two people on charges of blasphemy. I was wondering if you have any comment and what, if anything, the U.S. can do to put a stop to capital punishment in that country.

MR PATEL: We condemn these executions, Guita, and these latest executions are a grave reminder of the Iranian regime’s penchant for abusing and violating the human rights of the Iranian people. All that – [all] blasphemy laws remain an affront to human rights worldwide, including in Iran. And so the United States will continue to take appropriate action in accordance with our allies and partners to continue to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its egregious human rights abuses. You have seen, Guita, since I have been here, us not hesitate to take action when it comes to this, specifically targeting some of the human rights atrocities that we have seen take place from the regime in Tehran.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. I would like to follow up on Japan-South Korean summit yesterday. Both leaders also discussed about having China-ROK-Japan trilateral meeting reportedly by the end of this year. And obviously, China is not comfortable to see growing U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral cooperation these days. So from your standpoint, how do you assess the potential restart of China-ROK-Japan trilateral summit?

MR PATEL: Well, that is a question for our partners in the ROK and our Japanese partners. We have been very clear that we do not ask countries to choose between the United States and the PRC or the United States and any country. What our relationships and our bilateral engagements are and the foreign policy we choose to pursue is about what a partnership with the United States can look like. And we are very confident in the deep partnerships that we have with Japan as well as the ROK. As you now, the Secretary just had the opportunity to return from Japan a number of weeks ago, where he had the opportunity to not just meet with Prime Minister Kishida but also Foreign Minister Hayashi. We just hosted the Republic of Korea for what I think was a very successful state visit where the President and President Yoon had the opportunity to announce the Washington Declaration.

So we will continue to work through bilateral mechanisms with our relationship with both of these countries, but also trilaterally with the ROK and Japan about deepening our relationship and enhancing peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region as well.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: On Russia, on Saturday General Kyrylo Budanov – he is the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence – gave an interview to Yahoo! News, and he was asked whether Ukraine had anything to do with the killing of Daria Dugina in August in Russia. And he refused to reply, but he said that Ukraine has been killing Russians and Ukraine will continue killing Russians all around the world. Do you have any comments here?

MR PATEL: So we have been very clear that we do not condone the targeting of civilians, whether that be in Russia or whether that be in Ukraine or in any part of the world, and that continues to be the case.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, the question is about Victory Day in Moscow. Tomorrow, leaders of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus will attend a Victory Day parade in Moscow. So are there any concerns from the perspective of Department of State that such multilateral visits undermine the U.S. efforts to isolate Russia?

And a follow-up quickly. Does the U.S. Ambassador Lynne Tracy has any plans to take part in any of tomorrow’s festivities in Moscow or make any public statements related to this memorable date? Thank you.

MR PATEL: I will let the team in Moscow speak to the ambassador’s schedule. I don’t have anything offer to here – from here. And on your first part of your question, I just don’t have an assessment to provide. Countries are at their whim to participate in any celebratory activity that they choose.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I would like to move to Türkiye.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Next week on Sunday, presidential and general elections are taking place in Türkiye. I’m sure that the State Department will be following election closely, so how will the election results affect Turkish and American relations?

MR PATEL: They won’t. We will continue to work together with whatever government is chosen by the Turkish people, and we’ll continuing to deepen those relationships, work on a number of areas of cooperation and shared priorities. Türkiye is, of course, an important NATO Ally and has played an integral role in a number of issues that are important to the United States. I will just point the role that Türkiye has played in convening and making the Black Sea Grain Initiative a reality – because of their leadership and convening role, that there is a mechanism now so that Russia does not weaponize grain.

But broadly, the U.S. does not take sides in elections. Our only hope is to see a free and fair election rooted in a democratic process.

Go ahead in the back. Ryo.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up question on the Japan-South Korean summit held on Sunday.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And regarding the Washington Declaration you just mentioned, South Korean President Yoon said that Washington Declaration is a bilateral agreement between Korea and the U.S., but they do not rule out Japan’s participation in the Washington Declaration. My question is: How do you see the possibility to expand the Washington Declaration to trilateral cooperation including Japan, or the possibility to make a new trilateral consultative mechanism on extended deterrence including Japan?

MR PATEL: Look, Ryo, I don’t have any changes to the Washington Declaration to announce today, but we of course welcome increased collaboration between our partners in the ROK and our partners in Japan, as well as increased collaboration trilaterally as well. We believe all of these things are good for all three of our countries. They are good for advancing peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region, but I don’t have any new policy to announce today.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. The Kurdistan region Deputy Prime Minister Talabani met with his prime minister, Barzani, today, and this comes after the – Barbara Leaf’s meeting with them last week. My question is that – what’s your comment on this meeting, and is there any pressure from the U.S. on the Kurdish political party, first, to come together, and second, to have an election this year?

MR PATEL: I’m going to have to get back to you on that one.

QUESTION: On the second question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Last week, the U.S. State Department officials, including Ambassador Leaf, spoke at the same event in Iraqi Forum in Baghdad as some of the Iranian-backed forces leaders that are listed in FTO were a keynote speaker. Is there any change in your policy towards those leaders and groups?

MR PATEL: There’s no change in policy.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Moving to South Caucasus, if you don’t mind.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary stand by his early assessment that last week’s dialogue in Washington was successful? I’m asking because I’ve been hearing different – let’s say conflicting – comments from both sides.

MR PATEL: Our view, Alex, is that last week’s discussions were constructive, and we believe that the delegations from Armenia and Azerbaijan made significant progress in addressing difficult issues. Both countries, as you know, agreed in principle to certain terms and have a better understanding of each other’s points of views. And we believe that with additional goodwill and flexibility and compromise, that an agreement is within reach, and we continue to provide full support and engagement from the United States as the two countries continue to engage in dialogue and continue to secure a durable and sustainable peace.

QUESTION: Are there further steps that both sides, Armenia and Azerbaijan, should take or should refrain from taking to maintain the momentum?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into the specifics in the discussions, Alex, but as I’m sure you’re aware, there’s reporting out there that the parties have continued their talks, and we welcome those reports that those parties are continuing to engage in these discussions. And we reiterate our conviction that peace is within reach and that direct dialogue is key to resolving issues and reaching a lasting peace.

QUESTION: Finally on Azerbaijan, human rights came up in this room from time to time. Did the Secretary have a chance to discuss the topic with his Azerbaijani counterpart? Today there was a pardoning, but they did not include Bakhtiyar Hajiyev and other thousands of political prisoners in that list.

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into the specifics of last week’s talks beyond what we’ve shared publicly. But of course, we raise human rights regularly and consistently with our counterparts when we engage with them.

QUESTION: Any reaction to today’s decision?

MR PATEL: Nothing else to offer.

Jackson, go ahead.

QUESTION: Two China-related questions.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Senate Democrats plan to introduce a new China competition bill in the coming months to address a wide range of economic and security issues, including technology transfers, the Belt and Road Initiative, and Taiwan. Does the State Department support any effort by Congress to resolve these China issues? Does it hold a different opinion on this?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into potential and pending legislation from up here.

QUESTION: And China’s foreign minister said on Monday it is imperative to stabilize Sino-U.S. relations after a series of, quote, “erroneous words and deeds,” end quote, threw ties back into deep freeze. Any reaction to that?

MR PATEL: Threw what? The – what was the second part of your question?

QUESTION: Threw ties back into a deep freeze.

MR PATEL: Our viewpoint has always been that there is an importance to continue to maintain open lines of communication with the PRC, and you have seen the United States do so. The United States has acted responsibly. We have continued to engage with PRC officials and have kept lines of communications open. We have no change to our “one China” policy.

Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)

U.S. Department of State

The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future