(C) U.S. State Dept
This story was originally published by U.S. State Dept and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Department Press Briefing – July 18, 2024 [1]

[]

Date: 2024-07

Department Press Briefing – July 18, 2024

1:03 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. I have one very brief thing at the top, and then I’m happy to dive into your questions.

So over the last nine months, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has been dire. And from the beginning of the war until now, the U.S. Government has been committed to getting aid into the Gaza Strip through every possible means – whether by land, air, or sea. The creation of the maritime pier was – helped to address the situation. Despite weather-induced limitations, nearly 19 million pounds of assistance – including food and shelter supplies – entered Gaza through the pier. This is equivalent of enough assistance to feed 450,000 people for one month.

The platform was helpful in allowing more aid to enter Gaza, both directly via the pier and through the Ashdod port, and demonstrated the value of having enhanced communication and coordination between the United States, the Israelis, and humanitarian organizations to improve deconfliction mechanisms.

This coordination cell, which supported humanitarian maritime operations, has demonstrated that ongoing coordination between multinational and humanitarian organizations is vital – it is vital to the efforts of – to improve aid worker safety. In turn, creating a safer environment for aid workers will help humanitarian partners get assistance to people in the greatest need across Gaza. This model of coordination has now been agreed upon by the Government of Israel and to be extended to all of Gaza. This new process will allow for safer movement of aid deliveries through all crossings, to include the vital land crossing we desperately need to be fully operational.

The needs in Gaza are staggering and the humanitarian conditions in Gaza are unacceptable. And very significant challenges remain for delivering sufficient lifesaving humanitarian assistance to Gaza, including the closure of multiple land crossings, insecurity, and logistical and capacity constraints.

From the early days following October 7th, the President, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Government worked to open crossings and to facilitate humanitarian assistance. And we will continue to press for the conditions to ensure the safety of humanitarian actors and activities, open additional land crossings, remove impediments to the delivery of humanitarian aid, and do far more to prevent the innocent loss of lives and the killing of innocent civilians – including, of course, humanitarian workers. We know that more aid needs to get to civilians in Gaza, which is why we are continuing to work around the clock to broker a ceasefire agreement that would allow for a massive surge in aid to all in need and to see the hostages come home.

So with that, Matt, I am happy to dive into your questions.

QUESTION: So yeah, just on – just on the pier.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So is the view of the State Department that this initiative was cost-effective?

MR PATEL: Matt, we believe that this was a successful initiative. It was able to provide —

QUESTION: Well, I didn’t ask if you thought it was successful. I mean, delivering one loaf of bread would make it a success. But was it cost-effective?

MR PATEL: In terms of the technical breakdown, Matt, I am sure my colleagues at the Department of Defense would be happy to speak to that. They, I know, are briefing in a – a little bit later this afternoon. But what I can say is that we believe that this effort was successful, and specifically because the pier and its existence and the work that happened through it impacted aid delivery to northern Gaza; it successfully delivered millions of pounds of aid to the people who need it – nearly 19 million, as I mentioned; and its use helped overall the increased flow of aid and alleviate conditions in northern Gaza. Not at all to say that the situation is resolved or conclusive or anything like that, but overall it was a effort that we believe was successful.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just at the very top of what you said —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You said, “over the last nine months, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has been dire.” Is it the view of the administration that prior to nine months ago, prior to October 7th, the humanitarian situation in Gaza was just fine?

MR PATEL: No, Matt, not at all.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. Well, then —

MR PATEL: I was, of course, speaking in the context of the months following October 7th. Of course the Gaza Strip has long been an area that has needed consistent humanitarian access, consistent humanitarian aid, and I didn’t mean to imply the otherwise with my comments.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Could I just follow up on the pier? I mean —

MR PATEL: Can I – sure. I’ll come back to you, Jenny. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, then I’ll defer to Jenny.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: But on the pier —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did it meet its goals? I mean, its goals as defined and so on – you believe that it met its goals? I know you mentioned that it fed 400,000 Palestinians for one month. That’s one-fifth of the population for one month. But that was exactly the intended goal, that it will feed 400,000 Palestinians for one month?

MR PATEL: Said, there was not a technical goal or a logistics or a flow – inflow or a throughput goal. What we are talking about, and when the President announced this at the State of the Union, what we were talking about was a all-of-U.S.-Government effort to ensure that we were leaving no stone unturned and that we were looking at the issue of getting more humanitarian aid into Gaza through every angle. That includes land crossings. That includes air drops. That included this pier option as well. That’s what this is about, is us trying to pursue every possible alternative to ensure that we can get humanitarian aid into Gaza. And in that effort, this pier was successful for all the reasons that I laid out.

Now certainly, as I said to Matt, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be dire, and we will continue to work with humanitarian partners, with partners in Israel, partners across the region, to look at what other avenues are at our disposal to get humanitarian aid into Gaza. I believe Ashdod port will continue to play an important role, especially for aid that is moving through Cyprus. We’ll continue to work closely with our partners in Israel and others in the region to do everything we can to get more land crossings open. So this is not at all —

QUESTION: Are the —

MR PATEL: — not at all to say that the humanitarian picture in Gaza is perfect. What I mean to say is that this pier served a purpose. We believe that purpose was successful in what it was able to accomplish, and we will continue to work hand-in-hand with partners at USAID, at the Pentagon, and in the region to make sure that there are other avenues being looked at also.

QUESTION: I defer to Jennifer, then I’ll take my turn afterward.

MR PATEL: Sure. Jen, go ahead.

QUESTION: Was this aid actually distributed within Gaza, Vedant? Because WFP had to suspend its operations due to security issues, and I know they did a one-off thing to move it all to their warehouses, but was it actually distributed to the people in —

MR PATEL: My understanding is that there has been – some of the aid has been able to be distributed. I would defer to USAID and humanitarian partners to, again, speak to the specific throughput. But yeah, I don’t have any updates on that beyond —

QUESTION: And then the coordination cell you mentioned, when did the Israeli Government agree to —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics on diplomatic engagements on that, Jenny. I will just – know that this is – this is separate than the cell that we have talked about previously when we talked —

QUESTION: So this is an – this is a new cell?

MR PATEL: Correct, correct. This is specifically catered around humanitarian aid and as a out-product of this pier.

QUESTION: Isn’t this something that the Israelis had said they were going to be working on after the deadly strike on the World Central Kitchen convoy?

MR PATEL: It’s something that we – it’s something that we continue to engage on with the Israelis when it comes to ensuring that there is clear coordination. And like I said, this is a separate endeavor than —

QUESTION: And then —

MR PATEL: — what was being talked about then.

QUESTION: Are there any updates on the opening of the Rafah crossing? Where do those discussions —

MR PATEL: I have no updates for you. Again, we’ve talked about this before. Obviously, the closure of the Rafah border crossing is a logistical hurdle but also – we’ve talked about this before – was an important conduit for humanitarian aid. We’re continuing to work and have discussions around that. But broadly, we are doing everything we can to get a ceasefire agreement across the finish line because we continue to believe that it is the most potent way to get a surge of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.

QUESTION: And then my last question on Gaza. There was a very disturbing BBC report earlier this week about a man who had Down syndrome whose mother said he was attacked by IDF dogs and left to die. Is the State Department tracking this report? Have you asked the Israeli Government to investigate —

MR PATEL: I’m not – I’m not aware of this specific report, Jenny, and I’d let the – defer to the IDF to speak to it specifically. Broadly though, not speaking to this specific instance, it has been our clear call that rules of engagement, that protections for civilians be respected and abided by throughout the course of this conflict. But I don’t have or – much about these – this specific incident, but I’m happy to check.

Said, then I’ll come to you, Nick.

QUESTION: Yeah. The Israeli Knesset yesterday voted against a Palestinian statehood ever. Do you have any comment on that? Would that sort of make you adopt a different approach, or would you have to, like, looking to ensure that there is going to be a Palestinian state despite now it is legislated into law, or will be legislated —

MR PATEL: I —

QUESTION: — into law, that no Palestinian state will ever emerge?

MR PATEL: So look, Said, I’ll let Israeli officials speak to their own legislative chamber and the actions that that chamber takes. But the United States is committed —

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: — to advancing enduring peace and security for Israeli and Palestinians alike. And we believe that the practable – practical and – way for that is a two-state solution, a Palestinian state that is standing side-by-side with Israel. We believe that is the only way to advance an enduring peace, and it is also something that we believe it is in Israel’s security. To realize this vision Israel must be a partner to the Palestinian people and Palestinian leaders. And as we have said before, we will continue to engage Israeli leadership at the highest levels on making this clear.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the Knesset makes the laws for Israel like our Congress makes the laws for us in this country. So I mean, with all due respect, if it remains contained to a rhetorical commitment, I mean, it doesn’t make any difference. Would it make any difference? Is the United States, in other words, willing or able to take some steps to actually make this happen?

MR PATEL: Said, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that neither you nor I are experts in Knesset law and legislation and things and products that come out of the Knesset, so I will leave that analysis to others. What I can say is that the United States’ approach to a two-state solution has not changed. Our prioritization of that has not changed.

QUESTION: So can I just – sorry to —

QUESTION: Go ahead, no problem.

QUESTION: So you have no opinion at all on this?

MR PATEL: We certainly have an opinion, Matt. I just —

QUESTION: Okay. What is it?

MR PATEL: What I don’t have is an —

QUESTION: What is it? What is the opinion?

MR PATEL: Our opinion is that we believe that a two-state solution is necessary —

QUESTION: No, no, no. What is —

MR PATEL: — not just for Israel’s security —

QUESTION: I know what your opinion on a two-state solution is. What’s your opinion on the legislation?

MR PATEL: It – I think it can be safely implied that a piece of legislation that is in opposition to a two-state solution is not something that we would be thrilled about. But again, I don’t have the expertise or the analysis of this legislation to know what —

QUESTION: Okay. Because —

MR PATEL: — bearing it would have on the overall process. What I can say though, Matt, is that this is something that we’re going to continue to engage directly with Israeli leaders on. We believe that this is the direct and most credible and real path forward for Israel’s security, to get the region out of an endless cycle of violence. And that’s why we have continued to call on a two-state solution being a cornerstone of every iteration and conversation that we have when we talk about the future of this region and the future of the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: Okay. But I’m just – it’s interesting to me that you don’t want to come out – you wouldn’t come out and say right —

MR PATEL: This —

QUESTION: — off the top, off the top in response to the first question that this is something that you oppose and that —

MR PATEL: This is not —

QUESTION: — because I can recall less than two months ago you guys weighing in very significantly on Georgia’s parliament passing a law that you didn’t like, on Uganda’s parliament passing an anti-LGBTQ law that you didn’t like. And there was no reticence at all —

MR PATEL: Matt —

QUESTION: — for you guys to call it out. And now —

MR PATEL: We —

QUESTION: — it’s like pulling teeth to get you to say something on this.

MR PATEL: I don’t think it’s like pulling teeth. This – first, this is something that my understanding is just passed earlier today or within the past 24 hours. What the full contents of this legislation are – I certainly haven’t had time to read it. I can’t imagine Said or – has – or you have either, Matt. Correct me if I’m wrong.

That being said, our longstanding position on a two-state solution is quite clear, and we believe it continues to be the only way to advance enduring peace. And it’s something that we have made clear with Israeli officials across its government, and it’s something that we will continue to make clear —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: — across —

QUESTION: All right. Fair enough.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: But I don’t think that you can cite chapter and verse of the Georgia law or the Uganda law either. So – and so don’t – when you throw it back and say, well, you haven’t read it, we know what’s —

MR PATEL: Matt, the —

QUESTION: — the essential outline is —

MR PATEL: These —

QUESTION: — which is basically what you knew about the two laws that I’ve just mentioned in other countries so —

MR PATEL: These are different circumstances, different countries.

QUESTION: Of course they are.

MR PATEL: These are a little bit apples and oranges.

QUESTION: But the point is, is that you are not shy about weighing in —

MR PATEL: And we are —

QUESTION: — about other countries’ legislatures’ decisions or votes —

MR PATEL: And we —

QUESTION: — and in this case, you are.

MR PATEL: We are not shy about making clear that how vital we believe a two-state solution to be —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: — about being the only way for an enduring peace.

QUESTION: I have a follow up.

MR PATEL: Nick’s patiently been waiting, Said.

QUESTION: I have a couple more questions. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: It’s a different topic, so —

QUESTION: Sorry about that.

MR PATEL: All right. Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: But I just want to ask you a couple more —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — on the Mossad leader, the Israeli intelligence leader said that Netanyahu is really intent on thwarting any deal. Do you have any comment on that? Did you hear the Mossad chief, what he said and so on?

MR PATEL: So for obvious reasons, Said, I’m not going to negotiate or speak about the deliberative process from up here. What I can say is that we are working to get a deal. We’re working to get —

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: — a ceasefire and bring the hostages home. And we continue to believe a diplomatic resolution is achievable and urgent. We are hopeful about the direction that things are progressing in, and we believe, as I said, something is achievable. But I am not going to get more specific or offer commentary beyond that.

QUESTION: But Mr. Barnea, the head of the Mossad, is the guy who is really heading the negotiations. So he knows. He knows exactly what’s going on. He knows that his prime minister is not allowing him to go forward with a deal. You don’t have a comment on that?

MR PATEL: I am just not going to negotiate on this process in public, Said. That would be unhelpful to the process. What I can say is that we are hopeful about the direction that things are progressing in. We believe a deal is both achievable. It’s something that we have been working around the clock. It’s an urgent priority for Secretary Blinken, and this is something that we’re working to get across the finish line. But I don’t have more for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Anything else on the region before I —

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PATEL: — let Nick go?

Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: This is on Iran.

MR PATEL: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: State’s re-upped the four-month sanctions waiver for Iraq to buy —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — electricity from Iran without being subject to sanctions. Is now really a good time to be granting or extending sanction waivers, when Iran is plotting to assassinate the former president and others? And what, if any, ramifications will Iran face for that?

MR PATEL: So – oh, what ramifications it will pay – it will face for —

QUESTION: Plotting to assassinate U.S. officials —

MR PATEL: Okay. These are two separate questions. First, let me just say on the issue with Iraq, what this is about, is this is something – we have renewed this waiver for the 22nd time, and it is about the department permitting Iraq to purchase Iranian electricity while Iraq continues to develop its domestic generation capacity and continuing to create its own independence off of Iranian energy. These waivers are short-term, and they are stopgap measures to provide energy stability. That’s ultimately what this is about, is we want the Iraqi people, as we would want in any country, to have access to consistent, safe energy, which is vital to so many civilian infrastructure projects, civilian establishments. It probably would be a waste of time for me to list them off.

Simultaneously though, Nick, we are also encouraging the Iraqi Government to take meaningful steps to accelerate its effort to wean itself off of Iranian energy sources. And over the past number of years, we have also seen that. Currently our estimates are that it relies on Iran for about 25 percent of its energy. Just a few years ago, that number was 40 percent. And in recent years we have seen our partners in Iraq double its capacity for its own electrical generation. So we are seeing progress and steps in the right direction, and we want to continue to see a clear plan, including realistic and measurable milestones.

Now, Nick, separately on the other question that you mentioned, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice can speak to questions pertaining to the attempted assassination of former President Trump, as well as how other threats may or may not impact efforts that are undertaken to protect the former president.

We’re going to continue to do what is necessary to protect our people, protect our interests, from threats emanating from Iran. That of course includes protecting former officials from any threats that may potentially emanate from Iran. And you have seen us not hesitate to take appropriate actions against the Iranian regime or its proxies when American interests, its people, or American officials have been threatened or been put in harm’s way, and that continues to be the case. And for obvious reasons— it should be no surprise to you – I’m not going preview what actions and steps we would take from up here.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: Follow up on that?

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex. Yeah.

QUESTION: Vedant, the White House this morning said that this threat is credible. So if it’s credible, getting back to Nick’s original question, what actions are you taking to, first of all, deter it; second, to make Iran pay a price?

MR PATEL: So in answering – I addressed this when speaking to Nick’s question, Alex. I’m not going to speak to actions from up here. I’m not going to preview them. That would be not in the interest of our national security. What I can say though is that we will not hesitate to take appropriate action to hold the Iranian regime accountable and to ensure that we’re doing whatever is necessary to protect our people, including former officials and to protect our interests from threats that are emanating from Iran – it’s simple as that.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. Government reached out to Iranian new leadership in order to tell them knock it off?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to – I don’t have any – I don’t have any diplomatic conversations to read out. We’ve made this message – we’ve made this message quite clear.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more questions, different topics. Evan Gershkovich – please come back to me.

MR PATEL: I’m going to – I think there’s a couple other on – in this region, then I will come back to you.

Diyar, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Just going to back to the sanctions waiver to Iraq.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s a lot of concerns in the Congress that transactions is fungible. And what restrictions and what limitations have you placed in this renewing sanctions waiver to Iraq that Iran is not getting any single dollars from that waiver?

MR PATEL: So let’s just remember that as it relates to these funds, none of these funds from Iraq’s purchase ever enter Iran. The terms of the electricity waiver – any notion that these kinds of funds are being released to Iran is fake. And the important thing to remember here, Diyar, is that what we’re talking about is not a specific dollar amount. It is a waiver authority that allows the purchase of electricity over a certain period of time, in this case 120 days. So it’s permission for an activity over a period of time. And that’s what this is.

QUESTION: And one more question on that.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Per sources – per people that I’ve talked at the State Department and the Iraqi government, the renewing sanctions is based on the progress that the Iraqi Government is making towards the energy independence from Iran. Since 2018 you are renewing this sanctions waiver to Iraq.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you speak of the nature of this time’s renew? Is there any change? Is there any limitation that how much energy Iraq could buy from Iran in this – the —

MR PATEL: So the Government of Iraq can speak to how much energy they may or may not need over the course of this 120-day period that was just approved. But to the first part of your question I just talked about it in answering Nick’s question, we have, over the past decade, have seen some measurable steps of Iraq weaning off Iranian electricity. Like I said, currently we anticipate that they are relying on Iran for about 25 percent of their electricity. A number of years ago, that number was 40 percent. Also in recent years we have seen Iraq double its electricity generation capacity at home. So we are seeing steps in the right direction when it comes to weaning itself off of Iranian energy, and we’ll continue to keep a close eye on that plan.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up on my question yesterday, the photo of Israeli soldiers holding in front of the Turkish-Palestinian hospital in Gaza. What is your reaction to this photo and the reports that the IDF is using this hospital as their military base in Gaza?

MR PATEL: So we’ve seen the reports on the Turkish hospital, and we are in touch with Israeli counterparts to learn more, and that’s really all that we can say at the moment on that. I think at face value, when looking at that image, what we see is we see servicemembers posing in front of the hospital, so I don’t want to draw any conclusions beyond that. But we have asked the IDF for additional information, and we look forward to receiving that.

QUESTION: And —

MR PATEL: But beyond that, that does not change the position that we have held for quite some time now that Israelis need to conduct their operations in such a way that civilian infrastructure – like hospitals, like schools – that harm to those kinds of infrastructures are not brought about by their operations, and that continues to be our position.

QUESTION: Will the – will the U.S. make its own assessment in this case on whether or not IDF is violating international law?

MR PATEL: At this point —

QUESTION: Because this is not the first time we are seeing photos —

MR PATEL: At this point we are —

QUESTION: — of Israel’s soldiers posing in front of —

MR PATEL: At this point we have asked our —

QUESTION: — civilian infrastructure and using hospitals as their military base. There were many reports about that.

MR PATEL: We’re – we’re in touch with our Israeli counterparts and we’re looking to understand more, and that’s where we are in the process on this for now.

Go ahead. Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: Great. So Russia’s deputy foreign minister said today that Russia does not rule out the new deployment – new deployments of nuclear missiles in response to the planned U.S. stationing of long-range conventional weapons in Germany, with Interfax (inaudible) as saying that the defense of Kaliningrad between Poland and Lithuania was a particular focus. Would you be concerned about such a deployment or do you view this as posturing, and have you thought through possible responses?

MR PATEL: So certainly wouldn’t speak to responses from here, and obviously colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that in greater detail. Of course, any kind of rhetoric, language in talking about the use or deployment of nuclear warheads is, of course, concerning and something that we’ll continue to pay close attention to. This is something that we have seen the Russians do and say and thump their chests a little bit on for a number – for quite some time now, dating back to even the early months of their aggression into Ukraine. So I just don’t want to – I don’t want to speculate. But we are of course continuing to monitor closely.

QUESTION: Okay. And then Germany next year —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — plans to cut in half its military aid to Ukraine, saying it hopes that Ukraine will be able to meet the bulk of its military needs with 50 billion in loans from the proceeds of frozen Russian assets. Do you think those loans will be sufficient?

MR PATEL: So obviously we’re – when we’re talking about the use of those sovereign assets, that’s something that the G7 worked very closely on. So we have – we no doubt believe that that is something that will be able to bolster Ukrainians’ – the Ukrainians’ efforts when it comes to defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty. As it relates to the Germans and their own budgetary decisions, that’s an internal process for them to speak to.

What I can say is that over the course of this conflict, our German partners have been irreplaceable and amazing to work with when it comes to supporting our Ukrainian partners. And broadly, our allies and partners across Europe have continued to shoulder an immense burden when it comes to supporting the Ukrainian people, and we have no reason to think that that kind of support across Europe, including in Germany itself, would not continue.

QUESTION: And Germany’s plans come despite concerns that U.S. support for Kyiv could potentially diminish if Trump returns to the White House. Have you had conversations with your German counterparts about these plans to cut aid in this context? And —

MR PATEL: Oh, we talk to our – it’s important to remember Germany is one of our most key and important partners in Europe. We talk to them regularly, around the clock. I don’t have any specifics to share on this news, though.

QUESTION: But does this increase your concerns about the future of military aid for Ukraine?

MR PATEL: Like I – like I just said, we have no reason to believe that aid from across Europe will not continue to be robust in supporting our Ukrainian partners. Leaders of these European countries have themselves said that, including Chancellor Scholz. And the United States has also – since the passage of the supplemental, we also have continued to show our support to our Ukrainian partners through PDAs and other kinds of support, and we have no reason to think that that won’t continue over the coming months as well.

QUESTION: Okay. And sorry, just quickly —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — on Evan Gershkovich.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: His trial moved quickly through the witness testimony behind closed doors today.

MR PATEL: Yes.

QUESTION: Was the embassy able to have access to his trial, and when was the last time the U.S. had contact with him?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: And then what’s the latest on a potential prisoner exchange for him and Paul Whelan?

MR PATEL: So a couple things. First, we are obviously watching this trial very closely. Embassy Moscow was not able to be at the courtroom given the short notice that they were provided of its date and some additional logistical hurdles that they faced. In terms of the most recent consular visit, Ambassador Tracy visited Evan on May 23rd. And on – broadly, let me just say that we have been clear from the get-go that Evan did nothing wrong and should not have been detained. To date, Russia has provided no evidence of a crime and has failed to justify Evan’s continued detention. Evan should not be detained, Paul Whelan should not be detained, and both of them should be immediately released.

As it relates to where we are in the process, I’m not going to speak to negotiations in public. We are seeking the release of Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan as soon as possible. The timeline of the trial and what route that takes does not have a bearing and has no impact on the urgency that the United States has been prioritizing in this effort. We want both of them home immediately, and we’ll continue to work in this area until they’re reunited with their loved ones.

Go ahead, Shannon. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Follow-up on that, actually.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So Evan Gershkovich is due in court again tomorrow. Will U.S. diplomats be on hand for that hearing or attempt to gain access?

MR PATEL: We will certainly attempt to gain access. I don’t have any more specific than that, but I’m happy to check with the team in Moscow and see if we can follow up with you.

QUESTION: Thank you. And the timeline of the trial that seems to have rocketed forward, does the State Department have any insight into why this timeline has been moved up? Is it because perhaps Russia is hoping to secure a deal?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment on why Russia moved the trial up to this month. What I can say is that this timeline – first, I think it is important for us to note from here that this whole legal process is a sham for Evan. He is being wrongfully detained; he did nothing wrong. We have been clear about that from the onset. Again, I will use this opportunity to echo that Russia has provided no evidence of a crime and failed to justify the reason behind Evan’s detention. Now, that being said, this fake, sham legal process that we are seeing play out has no bearing on the urgency that we have placed on seeking a release of Evan’s detention and seeking a release for Paul Whelan as well. And we’ll continue to work that process tirelessly.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, Vedant?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: When was the last time there was any active, substantive discussion between the U.S. and the Russians on this matter?

MR PATEL: I – it should be no surprise to you I would not speak to those kinds of negotiations or process from up here.

QUESTION: Has there been any other offers put on the table after the ones that you guys publicly alluded to?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to negotiate in public. Thanks.

Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On North Korea, recently a series of North Korean diplomat overseas are defecting to friendly countries such as South Korea and the United States. The reason is stated to be Kim Jong-un’s pressure to fund nuclear and missile development. How do you view this situation?

MR PATEL: Well, it certainly should come as no surprise that there are people in North Korea who want to leave the crushing oppression of the DPRK regime. Specifically, though, Janne, I don’t have anything to offer on the process. I am sure our colleagues in the ROK MFA may have more to speak to any specific defections. But from our vantage point, it is – should be no surprise that there are members of the North Korean community who want desperately to be somewhere where their basic human rights are protected, where they have ease of access to democracy and basic human principles and freedoms.

QUESTION: In past year and a half, 20 North Korean diplomats have defected to South Korea. How many North Korean defectors have recently come to the United States?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of such a number. I – as in I’m not aware, but I’m happy to check with the team for you, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Goyal, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. Thank you so much. One, as far as U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy is concerned, this senator’s story from New Jersey has become a global issue now. My question is that many countries may have affected or may have benefited from his being on a long time on a foreign policy or a committee, on international committee on foreign policy issues. How the relations will be with those countries who may have benefited from his being on the committee on —

MR PATEL: So Goyal, I appreciate your question, but I am just going to defer to the Department of Justice given that continues to be an ongoing law enforcement matter.

QUESTION: And second, sir, as far as U.S.-India relations again, Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Moscow, meeting with Russia’s President Putin, was criticized here, even by the Ukraine president and many others during the NATO summit in Washington. So how our relation – the relations with the U.S. and India is concerned as far as the visit and NATO here is concerned today, if you have any talks with the Indian authorities or foreign minister or any others, sir, as far as his visit to Moscow is concerned?

MR PATEL: Well, look, broadly, India continues to be a country in which we partner with on a number of key areas, and that was clearly on display last summer when we hosted Prime Minister Modi for a state visit. But beyond that, in the context of Ukraine and Russia’s ongoing aggression and its infringement on Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, we continue to ask all our partners, including India, to support efforts to realize an enduring and just peace for Ukraine, and we urge Russia to withdraw troops from Ukraine’s sovereign territory.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. It’s a Bangladesh issue. Student demand quota issue is in danger now. They killed more than 50 people today and seven on 16th – seven people killed on 16th, so big cowards going on there. While you have – the prime minister is ordering police to kill students, innocent students, they are demanding for quota. They showed up like – your wealth should be your knowledge, not the quota. So they are demanding whole Bangladeshis is cowards now. What you – what do you have? What does the United States of America stand for it?

MR PATEL: So Matt spoke a little bit about this earlier in the week, so I will just echo that we are continuing to monitor the reports of violence from the ongoing protests in and around Dhaka. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are essential building blocks to any thriving democracy, and we condemn the recent acts of violence in Bangladesh. Our thoughts are with those who have been killed or injured by this, and we’re continuing to rely on media and contacts on the ground for information.

QUESTION: Number two is, like, military and (inaudible) on the road, so do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: So again, we need to make sure that the – any kind of freedom of expression is happening safely and people are free from violence. That’s something we’re continuing to pay close attention to, but I don’t have any additional updates on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Jalil, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank very much, Vedant. First, a quick thank you from these two dozen Pakistani girls who visited State Department just two weeks ago. It’s a student program (inaudible). They especially emailed me as well. These are some unrecognized State Department workers who play a wonderful role in doing these projects and something the U.S. Government does for these poor countries, so thank you on behalf of them.

Just two questions. Fifty thousand Afghans in Pakistan are waiting to be brought to the U.S.; $20 million, according to my banking information, is every month spent on them by the State Department. Your comment on that, whether it’s a good use of the taxpayers’ amount? And also whether you are aware that these individuals that are there, they’re involved in some anti-state activities in Pakistan, like —

MR PATEL: Are you talking about specifically those who are SIV —

QUESTION: Those 50,000, not those millions of Afghans. This – the specifically 50,000 Afghans that the U.S. has – they are holding them in Pakistan because the U.S. is doing the process to be brought to the —

MR PATEL: Right. So for Afghan allies and partners who may be eligible for relocation to the United States through the various sort of pathways that may exist, whether it be SIVs or others, we continue to focus on doing everything we can to process those applicants as swiftly as possible. We of course appreciate the partnership of certain host countries, in this case of Pakistan, and we’ll continue to do everything we can to process those quickly and efficiently.

QUESTION: But what I’m saying is, are you aware that some of them are involved in supporting (inaudible) —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment on that (inaudible).

QUESTION: Just one more question, sir: In Pakistan several journalists have now started using this term “emergency,” which is basically a sweet word for martial law in the country. Has it passed your ears, that these discussions are going on in Pakistan, and your thoughts on that?

MR PATEL: It has not.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: In the pink, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Please give us an update or maybe details about U.S. envoy Brett McGurk’s visit to Middle East.

MR PATEL: Brett McGurk works at the White House, so I will let them speak to any of his engagements. What I can say broadly about the efforts to get a ceasefire, as I said when answering both Matt Lee and Said’s question, is that we are continuing to work this around the clock. We think that it is a vital step that’s necessary to do everything we can to get the region out of endless cycles of violence. It will be irreplaceable in surging humanitarian assistance into Gaza and it will be critical to making sure that all of the hostages are released as well.

QUESTION: Follow-up in the region?

MR PATEL: Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. On the humanitarian truce in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, what specific moves is the U.S. taking to ensure that this truce holds?

MR PATEL: So this is something that we are working closely on with the parties. We’re going to work closely with the Government of the DRC, Rwanda, and Angola to support regional diplomatic efforts to reach a durable cessation of hostilities and set conditions for the voluntary return of displaced populations. We’re closely monitoring the truce and we are going to work closely with the ad hoc verification mechanism.

Since you’ve asked the question, I also want to offer that through USAID and the Department of State and others, we’ve allocated more than $620 million in humanitarian aid to the DRC in Fiscal Year 2023, as well as that – and that does not include our support to the UN – U.S. – UN peacekeeping mission in MONUSCO.

QUESTION: And then what outreach is the U.S. administration making to Rwanda, which has been accused of supporting M23?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific diplomatic engagements to share, Daphne, beyond just saying that this is something that we’ll continue to work closely with appropriate governments.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have two questions on China.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: If I may – human rights issues. This Saturday, July 20th, marks the 25th anniversary of the Chinese regime’s persecution of Falun Gong. Will the State Department take any action against Beijing to mark this occasion?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have any actions to preview from up here, but look, broadly, we have seen the PRC take a number of steps as – over the past many years that we view as a crackdown on basic human rights. One, it is something that we will continue to raise with PRC officials directly; and two, we won’t hesitate to take appropriate actions from the U.S. Government, and you’ve seen us done so.

QUESTION: And on the second question. In a Hudson Institute event yesterday, researchers expressed alarm about Chinese authorities’ ability to freely spread propaganda about Falun Gong in the West. Is the State Department concerned about this, and what is the action plan to counter such growing influence operations in the West, specifically in the U.S.?

MR PATEL: So I will speak to this a little bit broadly because I don’t want to speak about this specific context. We continue to see, of course, that we are very vigilant about the threat that – of – certain countries pose when it comes to spreading misinformation and disinformation, not just within their own countries but in other countries. Domestically here within the United States, that is not the purview of the State Department. Of course, colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice can speak more to that.

But broadly, in combatting misinformation and disinformation around the globe, we’re deeply engaged on this. It’s something that the Global Engagement Center, it’s something that the Secretary is prioritized on as well.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. A few days ago, another Pakistani journalist, Hassan Zeb, was killed in Pakistan. Overall in 2024, eight Pakistani journalists have been killed in the broad daylight, and these killings highlighting the growing threats to be workers in Pakistan. Any comment? Any condolence you pass?

MR PATEL: Journalists – journalists need to be protected and they need to be allowed to do their jobs, whether that be the United States, whether that be Pakistan, whether that be in the Gaza Strip. That is something that we feel strongly, and it’s something that is deeply personal to the Secretary. It’s obviously personal to us and this team having – spending most of our days engaging with you all. But simply put, journalists need to be protected and need to be able to do their jobs.

QUESTION: So last year —

MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Sir, last year —

MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: One more?

QUESTION: Sir – sir, I have —

MR PATEL: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:47 p.m.)

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-july-18-2024/

Published and (C) by U.S. State Dept
Content appears here under this condition or license: Public Domain.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/usstate/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.