(AGENPARL) – mar 06 settembre 2022 You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
09/06/2022 06:49 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:05 p.m. EDT
MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Sorry for being a couple minutes late. So I —
QUESTION: You’re only four minutes late. And, in fact, if this is any indication of your punctuality in the –moving forward —
MR PATEL: Well —
QUESTION: It’s a very good sign.
MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Well, here to – here for you, Matt.
QUESTION: And welcome.
MR PATEL: Thank you.
QUESTION: Good to see you up on the podium.
[]MR PATEL: I have one quick thing off the top, and then I’m happy to turn to your questions. So first and foremost, we congratulate Liz Truss on her becoming the new prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The UK and the U.S. are the closest of friends and allies, and we look forward to continuing our close cooperation with Prime Minister Truss and the new government on a range of important priorities, including continued support to Ukraine in the face of Russia’s war, and preserving peace, and economic security, and the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific.
Our unparalleled defense and security alliance and Special Relationship, founded on shared values and common beliefs, promote security and prosperity for our two nations and for the world.
Our countries are deeply linked by our economic ties and the bonds between our people. The UK is our largest foreign investment partner and biggest partner in the services of trade, and our respective companies directly employ more than one million workers in the other country.
So again, an immense congratulations to Prime Minister Truss.
And with that, Matt —
QUESTION: Oh, that’s it?
MR PATEL: Take us away.
QUESTION: Oh, okay. Nothing to do —
MR PATEL: I have nothing else for you.
QUESTION: Okay. Just one extremely brief one on that, do you know if in?between the time that she – while she was still foreign security, like before she went up to see the Queen and became appointed, do you know if the Secretary, who she had a close, really professional relationship with – do you know if the two spoke between the time that she was chosen and the time that she was —
MR PATEL: You mean today?
QUESTION: Well, between yesterday and today —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — while she was still foreign secretary. Do you happen to know?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any calls to —
QUESTION: All right.
MR PATEL: — read out right now.
QUESTION: Okay. I want to start in the Middle East. I want to start with Israel.
MR PATEL: Okay.
[]QUESTION: And your guy’s response to the IDF report on the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh but also on the situation with the Palestinian NGOs. So number one, on the IDF report yesterday, I’m a little confused as to what your actual response and what your actual position is. This is an American citizen who was killed. You have called for accountability, and yet there does not seem to be any accountability there. And the statement that came out yesterday in Ned’s name mentions accountability, but are you satisfied that this is – that the Israelis have done what they need to do in terms of this case?
MR PATEL: So we continue to underscore the importance of accountability in this case, and we’re going to continue to press our Israeli partners to closely review its policies and practices on rules of engagement and consider additional steps to mitigate the risk of civilian harm, protect journalists, and prevent similar tragedies in the future. Ultimately, that is a key goal for us, as the statement from Ned yesterday, is to underscore that similar actions and similar occurrences don’t happen in the future. And that’s what we continue to reiterate with our Israeli partners.
QUESTION: Well, but do you think that accountability has been achieved?
MR PATEL: So again, we’ve continued to underscore the importance of accountability in this case, and we’re continuing to press our Israeli partners on that.
QUESTION: Well, forgive me for not accepting – that doesn’t mean anything. I mean, I continue to underscore the fact that it’s important that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but – and which it does. But there is – do you consider that – do you believe that Israel has taken steps to hold whoever is responsible for her death accountable?
MR PATEL: We’re —
QUESTION: And then if I could – and I’ve just – actually back up. What does accountability mean to this administration?
MR PATEL: Look, Matt, so I’m not going to categorize that in one way or the other from here. That’s for our Israeli partners to determine. What for us to do – and what we’re – the role we’re continuing to play is pressing Israel to closely review its policies and practices to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.
QUESTION: Okay. But that’s not what accountability is, unless you guys have a different definition of it than the dictionary does. So what does accountability mean for this administration? An apology? We’re sorry. It happened maybe – it looks like it happened by accident.
MR PATEL: So —
QUESTION: But it won’t happen again. That’s the – that’s what accountability is, or is it something more?
MR PATEL: We are continuing to press Israel to review its policies and practices and that is what accountability —
QUESTION: How does that – but that doesn’t – reviewing their practices and policies does not mean accountability for this woman’s death, does it?
MR PATEL: Look —
QUESTION: Maybe it does in your view. I don’t know. You tell me.
MR PATEL: Our thoughts remain with the Abu Akleh family as they grieve this tremendous loss. Not only, as you all know, Shireen was a U.S. citizen, and she was a fearless reporter. And part of our vision of accountability is ensuring that activities like this – that something like this does not happen again. And that’s something —
QUESTION: Right. What’s the rest of it?
MR PATEL: — and that’s something that we continue to raise directly with Israel, that it closely review its policies and practices on the rules of engagement, to take additional steps to mitigate risk, to protect journalists, to protect civilian harm, and to ensure that similar tragedies don’t happen in the future.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, what is then the other part or other parts of accountability and from your perspective?
MR PATEL: Matt, I think I’ve answered your question a couple of times. I will just reiterate again that —
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you’ve said some stuff in response to my questions a couple times. I don’t think you’ve answered them. Let’s move – let’s —
MR PATEL: We —
QUESTION: I’ll let someone else go on. I just want to move to the NGOs.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: So you had said that you were looking for additional information to support the Israelis’ allegation that – support the Israelis’ decision to close down these offices, and I’m wondering if you ever got that.
MR PATEL: We continue to engage directly with our Israeli partners on that. We strongly believe that respect for human rights and the importance of a strong civil society are critically important. And we can make clear to the Israeli Government and the PA that independent civil society organizations in the West Bank must continue their important work. I don’t have any updates on this beyond what Ned briefed on this a couple weeks ago. We continue to seek additional information from our Israeli partners, but don’t have an update beyond that.
QUESTION: So they never brought the information that they said that they were going to?
MR PATEL: I just don’t have any other updates on this.
QUESTION: But – okay. When you were referring back to what Ned said a couple weeks ago, that was before the Israelis had brought this – what they said was going to be this – they promised that they were going to bring you – they haven’t done that as far as you know?
MR PATEL: We are in direct communication with the Government of Israel and we’re continuing to seek additional information.
Said.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. It’s great to see you behind the podium. Welcome.
MR PATEL: Thank you.
QUESTION: Let me press Matt’s question a bit further. I mean, the Israelis obviously know who the solider is and they said basically they are not going to press any charges. There will be no accountability, and that’s the Israelis’ statement that you have supported. There will be no accountability. So how is that – how does that juxtapose with – you talk about the family and your thoughts are with them, all this good stuff. But how are they going to receive accountability or justice in this case?
MR PATEL: Again, Said, we continue to press Israel directly and closely at the senior-most levels to review its policies and practices on this to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again in the future. That’s something we’re continuing to be really engaged on.
QUESTION: But you know what? It happened right after Shireen Abu Akleh – there were two journalists that have been killed. It happened time and again. There are 21 Palestinian journalists in Israeli prisons and so on. The Israelis are killing kids every day, teenagers and so on. So I don’t know when you say that we’ve talked to them at the highest level – I mean, do they heed your call? Do they listen to you? Or they just pretend that you’re not saying anything?
MR PATEL: Said, I’m not going to read out every diplomatic engagement that we have. But I will mention again that we continue to press Israel to closely review its policies and practices on the rules of engagement, to take steps to mitigate risks, to take steps to protect journalists, to take steps to protect civilians and prevent similar tragedies like this happening in the future. We, the United States, continue to support press freedoms and the protections of journalists in carrying out their work, and we call on democracies and all responsible actors to ensure that journalists can conduct the vital work that they do.
QUESTION: If this – excuse me. I have a couple more questions —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: — on Palestinian issues so we don’t have to come back to it. So hypothetically, I mean, they could be listening to you and they will heed you, your warning to them not to do it again, and so on. But in fact, they do it again. And hypothetically if this had happened elsewhere, would your position be the same? If an American journalist was killed, let’s say, somewhere else, in another democratic country, that the police gunned her down in the street, let’s say in India or elsewhere. Would your position be the same, in your opinion?
MR PATEL: Said, I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth on hypotheticals. In any situation, we continue to support press freedoms and the protection of all journalists. And in this situation, we, again, are pressing Israel to closely review its policies and practices to address the rules of engagement, to take steps to mitigate risk, to take steps to protect journalists and civilians, and to ultimately ensure that something like this does not happen again.
QUESTION: I have a couple more question. Let me ask you about the new rules that Israel is imposing on those who visit the West Bank and Palestinians who are going to get married and so on, that they are demanding like a time, date on romance, if you will, and so on. Do you have any comment on that?
MR PATEL: Yeah. So I think you might have seen that Ambassador Nides spoke a little bit about this over the weekend, but to reiterate: Since February, the State Department, including through our embassy in Jerusalem and the Office of Palestinian Affairs, have engaged directly with the Israeli Government on these rules and will continue to move so – do so going forward.
We continue to have serious concerns with the published protocols, particularly the role in determining whether individuals invited by Palestinian academic institutions are qualified to enter the West Bank and the potential negative impact on family unity, as you mentioned. It’s important to ensure that all of these regulations are developed in a way that’s coordinated with key stakeholders, including the Palestinian Authority, and we fully expect the Government of Israel to make necessary adjustments to ensure transparency as well as the fair and equal treatment of all U.S. citizens and other foreign nationals traveling to the West Bank.
QUESTION: So if myself or my brothers or members of my family and so on that hold both – that hold an American citizen – citizenship go back, and there are – or they get interrogated almost on issues of land ownership – well, who are they visiting, why are they there, where will they be staying and so on – do they have a recourse? Could they come to you and say this has happened to me, I demand accountability?
MR PATEL: Said, we are continuing to engage with Israel on these pilot procedures that were published this weekend that, as you said, impact the entry, study, and work or residence of potentially thousands of people in the West Bank. We understand that Israel plans for them to go into effect on October 20th. We note that there are some improvements in some of these regulations from the original draft in February, but we remain concerned about potential adverse impact for these procedures and how they could impact Palestinian civil society, how it could impact tourism, impact family unity, investment, and other health care and academic institutions.
QUESTION: Honestly, Vedant, on – the problem is with the pilot program. You should look into that.
MR PATEL: Daphne.
[]QUESTION: Vedant, welcome to the podium. If I could switch over to Russia, the White House said today that President Biden has made a final decision against designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Designating Russia was something that Ukraine has pushed for. What has been Kyiv’s response to this final decision being made?
MR PATEL: What has been —
QUESTION: Kyiv’s response?
MR PATEL: I am not going to speak to the response for – from Ukraine. I’ll let our Ukrainian partners speak to that. But as the President has said, we don’t think that a state sponsor of terrorism is the most effective or strongest path forward to hold Russia accountable. The designation could have unintended consequences for the world and Ukraine as well.
I’ll note that according to humanitarian experts and NGOs who have spoken on this, it could seriously affect the ability to deliver assistance to Ukraine, it could drive critical humanitarian and commercial actors away from facilitating food exports and engaging in the country. It could also undercut potentially multilateral coordination that has been very critical in holding Putin accountable and doing our part in ensuring that Ukraine is in a position to defend itself.
QUESTION: Can you tell me —
QUESTION: Does State have a legal analysis —
MR PATEL: We’ll work everybody. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Does State have a legal analysis of whether Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism?
MR PATEL: Well, as you know, that’s a process that is determined by the Secretary of State, and I don’t have any updates to offer on that right now.
Alex.
QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Congratulations on your debut, although you’re not a stranger to the room.
[] According to U.S. intelligence, Russia is purchasing North Korean weapons. We also discussed how Russia is cooperating with Iran on drones. If imposing secondary sanctions and calling the terrorism the way it is is not the best way to address the problem, then what is?
MR PATEL: Sorry, I couldn’t hear you. Say that —
QUESTION: If calling Russia – if, let’s say, given the fact that Russia has been cooperating with North Korea and Iran purchasing weapons against Ukraine, if calling Russia what it is, which is a state sponsor of terrorism, then what other means do you have in mind to call for accountability?
MR PATEL: Well, there are a number of lines of effort that we have at our disposal to continue to hold Russia accountable, our sanctions being one of them. And I think just last week we briefed out some metrics on the economic consequences that are directly being put upon Russia’s economy because of their barbaric and unjust actions in Ukraine.
But to go back to the crux of your question, as you said, the Russian Ministry of Defense is in the process of purchasing millions of rockets and artillery shells from North Korea for use in Ukraine. This purchase indicates that the Russian military continues to suffer from severe supply shortages due in part because of export controls and sanctions – another example of the lines of efforts that we have to hold Russia accountable.
QUESTION: There’s a new narrative – just to stay on the same topic.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: A new narrative pushed by Russia also replicated by other countries like Turkish Erdo?an and others. They’re blaming European energy crisis on sanctions. And also at some point, Russian foreign minister named the U.S. as one of the reasons behind this crisis. Do you have a response to that? Thank you so much.
MR PATEL: Sorry, can you repeat the first part of your question?
QUESTION: That the energy crisis that Russia and allies are basically blaming the sanctions as a reason why Europe is facing this crisis. Do you have a response to that?
MR PATEL: So we’ve seen those reports, but what I would note is that these kinds of – this kind of rhetoric continues to demonstrate that Russia is not a reliable supplier of energy and that we remained with – in sync with our allies and partners and our commitment to promoting European energy security, reducing our collective dependence on Russian energy products, and continuing to place pressure on the Kremlin.
Anything else on —
[]QUESTION: Staying on that – on Russia?
MR PATEL: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: The IAEA report today – I wonder what you make of it and what the next steps diplomatically are to safeguard that facility.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: And this idea of a demilitarized zone, I mean, everyone keeps talking about that, having the Russians pull back, but it also would mean not having – having the Ukrainians pull back from that area. And I wonder what you make of that.
MR PATEL: Sure. So on the report, we received the report earlier today and our experts here at the State Department are reviewing it. I don’t have any immediate reaction to offer, but we continue to remain concerned about such military and violent activity so close to a nuclear power plant. That continues to be incredibly concerning. Some initial takeaways, though: I believe the report touched on observations of physical damage at the power plant, and that continues to be something we find incredibly troubling as well.
As we from the department have said previously, fighting around a nuclear power plant certainly presents a serious risk, which is why we have continued to call for Russia’s immediate withdrawal from the facility, and that continues to be our belief on that.
QUESTION: And do you have any ideas on who would —
QUESTION: Sorry, can I just – oh, go ahead. Sorry.
QUESTION: — enforce some kind of demilitarized zone?
MR PATEL: Pardon me?
QUESTION: Or what would – who – what would the U.S. like to see in terms of a demilitarized zone? Who could enforce that?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to qualify it one way or the other from here, but I think it’s important to note that Russia is the one that is illegally, unjustifiably in Ukraine, in Ukrainian territory, and infringing on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine by being at the ZNPP.
QUESTION: Can I – I just want to – two things.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: One, on this whole idea of holding Russia accountable for the invasion of Ukraine. So accountability – does it mean something different in the context of Russia invading Ukraine than it does for a U.S. partner and ally like Israel? Does it?
MR PATEL: That certainly is – that certainly is not what I was trying to say there.
QUESTION: I mean, I realize the two situations are apples and oranges, but the word “accountability” is the same word and it should have the same definition, shouldn’t it?
MR PATEL: Well, the two – as you noted, the two situations are apples and oranges, and so —
QUESTION: They are completely different, but accountability doesn’t change, right? Or at least it shouldn’t. Maybe – and if it does, and if there are different standards for different countries, then it would be great if you would tell us that.
MR PATEL: I was —
QUESTION: Anyway, that’s kind of a rhetorical question. The main question is: Am I correct in thinking – and I realize these reports are relatively recent and so there may not be anything on the ground, but have you seen any evidence of either Iranian drones or North Korean weapons being used in Ukraine by Russia?
MR PATEL: I’ve —
QUESTION: To this point? I realize —
MR PATEL: Specifically at the ZNPP or —
QUESTION: No, anywhere.
MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on the use of them.
QUESTION: Okay. So as far as you know, these transfers that you are saying are still in progress and these weapons, what – drones or artillery or whatever – have not yet arrived and been used in the theater?
MR PATEL: I’m just – I’m not going to speak to the specifics of that. That’s probably a better question for the Pentagon, but I would again reiterate the declassified language on both Iran and the DPRK.
QUESTION: Vedant, on state sponsors of terrorism, do you have a standard definition on that? I mean, I’m sure the State Department has. You guys have, like, a legal language on how you classify countries as state sponsors of terrorism?
MR PATEL: I’m sure we’d be happy to get you a specific definition after this.