(AGENPARL) – ven 07 ottobre 2022 You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
10/07/2022 06:14 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
Washington, DC
2:09 p.m. EDT
[]MR PATEL: I have two very brief things for you at the top and then I’m happy to take your questions.
So first, I wanted to share that yesterday, USAID Administrator Samantha Power visited Ukraine to convey the United States’ steadfast support for the people of Ukraine.
During this visit, she met with President Zelenskyy, where she reaffirmed the U.S. Government’s unwavering commitment to help Ukraine prevail in the war and reiterated that the U.S. will never recognize Russia’s purported annexations of Ukrainian territory.
The administrator also had an opportunity to meet with farmers in Ukraine to hear firsthand about how the conflict has affected their livelihoods.
Additionally, she met with the mayor of Kyiv and visited a neighborhood and school which was previously used as a makeshift bomb shelter.
Administrator Power also took the opportunity to announce an additional $55 million investment in Ukraine’s heating infrastructure that will keep – that will help support repairs and keep the heat on through the winter.
This new assistance will directly help up to seven million Ukrainians across 19 regions.
[] And one more thing. As many of you may have saw earlier today, our administration released the United States’ new National Strategy for the Arctic Region. This comes after extensive consultations and addresses several of the most pressing issues of current.
Stakeholders from state, tribal, and local governments, our allies and partners, congressional leaders, and others have come together to address a new geopolitical environment, the alarming impacts of climate change, and paths forward on economic development in the Arctic.
The National Strategy reaffirms that the U.S. seeks an Arctic region that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and cooperative.
It is based on four mutually reinforcing pillars: security; addressing climate change and environmental protection; sustainable economic development; and international cooperation and governance.
In response to tensions made worse by Russia’s brutal and unprovoked war against Ukraine, the National Strategy ensures deterrence against threats to the U.S. homeland and to our allies by enhancing the capabilities required to defend our interests.
The National Strategy also directs significant investments be made in partnership with the State of Alaska and Alaskan communities. These investments will focus on addressing the impacts of climate change through resilience and investing in infrastructure. And such efforts will be integral to improving the livelihoods in Alaska, including those of Native Alaskans.
Despite the challenges to international cooperation resulting from Russia’s war, the National Strategy will help us sustain institutions for Arctic cooperation, including the Arctic Council, for years to come.
And with that, Matt, I’m happy to have you kick us off.
[]QUESTION: Thanks. Happy Friday. So going back to Russia-Ukraine or related to it – and I realize that your White House colleague has spoken to this already and a bunch of other people have as well, but I just wanted to ask you about the President’s comments last night about Armageddon and whether this building sees that – or thinks that, believes that the world is on the precipice of an apocalyptic nuclear disaster.
MR PATEL: Sure, Matt. So the President’s comments —
QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait.
MR PATEL: Oh, sorry.
QUESTION: “Sure?”
MR PATEL: No, no, no.
QUESTION: Yes?
MR PATEL: “Sure” as in let me answer your question. No, no, no, no.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Okay, good, all right. Thank you.
MR PATEL: No, to – as in “Sure, let me get to your question.”
QUESTION: All right.
MR PATEL: Pause. The President’s comments, if you saw the transcript, but they reinforce how seriously this administration takes these threats and takes the threat of nuclear weapons. And we have been quite clear about that when Russian officials have made this threat over the course of this conflict. This kind of irresponsible rhetoric is not something that should be coming from a leader of an armed nuclear state. It’s no way that such a leader should speak. But we have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture and nor do we have any indication that Russia is preparing to eminently use nuclear weapons.
But again, the President’s comments were indicative of how seriously we take these threats and how mindful we are of them, and we’re continuing to monitor the situation very carefully and we’re staying in close consultation with our allies and partners on this.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I mean, even in President Putin’s comments, which may or may not – you say irresponsible and saber-rattling and all that kind of thing – hasn’t suggested, like, an end-of-the-world type scenario. And I – so I’m just wondering, when you talk about his irresponsible rhetoric, when the President of the United States talks about Armageddon being closer than it has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and then contrast that with what many Democrats, including members of this administration, said about former President Trump’s comments regarding North Korea in terms of fire and fury, accusing the leader of North Korea of being – mocking him as “Little Rocket Man,” that kind of thing, and the derision that was directed at him by many on the other side, I’m just wondering, how you – how do you square the – how do you square those things? Do you not think that President Biden is adding to —
MR PATEL: I don’t think so at all. And I’m certainly not trying to – I would agree with the notion that you alluded to that the words of a president matter. And what President Biden was speaking to yesterday was how seriously we take these threats and how seriously we take the threats of nuclear weapons. And we have raised these similar concerns when Russian officials have used this kind of language previously. And we’ve also communicated directly with the Russian Federation the kinds of consequences should such an action take place.
So these are apples and oranges, the situations, Matt. And to be quite candid, in this scenario there is only one country and one president that is infringing on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of another, and illegally attacking and invading another. And in the context of the use of nuclear —
QUESTION: Just one – just one —
MR PATEL: In the course of this context, Said – sorry, I lost my train of thought. But what this is about is President Biden’s comments were quite clear that this is about how seriously we take this threat. But I would again reiterate that we’ve not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture, nor do we have any indications that Russia is preparing to eminently use nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: Imminent.
MR PATEL: Yeah. Anything else on the region before we move away?
QUESTION: I have a question.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Has the U.S. expressly communicated to Russia what the repercussions would be if it used nuclear weapons? And can you detail, like, what that would look like?
MR PATEL: I am certainly not going to detail what they would look like. But yes, we have communicated directly with Russia about the catastrophic consequences that would take place should they decide to use nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: President Zelenskyy – can I ask a question?
MR PATEL: Sure, go – I’ll come back to you, Shannon. I promise. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: President Zelenskyy suggested that the West ought to do preemptive strikes. I’m sure you’ve heard his statement.
MR PATEL: Right. Right. So —
QUESTION: So is that kind of pushing the envelope a little bit?
MR PATEL: So, Said, President Biden and Secretary Blinken have been very clear about this, that so – as long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we are not going to get directly engaged in this conflict either by putting American troops to fight in Ukraine or attacking Russian forces.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one question on the referendum?
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: I mean, you call it a sham and so on. But quite honestly, it’s not much different than the referendum that you supported back in Kosovo when Kosovo broke away from Serbia. I mean, all Serbs that lived in the region boycotted it at the time, but the Kosovars voted for it. Is there any similarity between the two?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any comparisons to offer. But as it relates to the referenda in Ukraine, it’s very clear that these are a sham and these results are – have been puppeteered and manipulated by Moscow, and they are certainly not something that this administration or this country will ever recognize.
Go ahead, Shannon.
QUESTION: Thank you. There’s a report out today that Vladimir Putin was confronted by a member of his inner circle, according to U.S. Intelligence. Does the State Department assess that there are fractures within the top levels of the Kremlin?
MR PATEL: I’ve seen that reporting. It’s certainly interesting. But I’m not going to prognosticate or try to get in the mind of those – the Kremlin or President Putin. This is – it’s a better question for them.
Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: I had a couple questions to – just to clarify.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: You mentioned 55 million. That heating package is only for this winter. Is there any timeframe involved here?
MR PATEL: I will see if our USAID colleagues can get you some additional metrics on the humanitarian assistance announced and see if we can get you some more.
QUESTION: Thanks so much. And back to nuclear question.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: It has been a number of times that we have heard administration officials, including yourself on this podium, that are referring to some indications. Does that mean the administration believes that there might actually be clear indications out there or warning lights will turn red that you will refer to? I’m not an expert on these issues. But do you guys really – are there any particular indications that you are looking at?
MR PATEL: Alex, I’m certainly not going to get into what assessments, as a government, we look at when determining our strategic nuclear posture or other things. But what I will use this opportunity to reiterate is that we have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture, and nor do we have any indications that Russia is preparing to eminently use nuclear weapons. But —
QUESTION: Thanks so much. Thank you.
QUESTION: Imminently. Imminently.
MR PATEL: Imminently use – imminently using nuclear weapons. What I would say, though, again is that the President’s comments and our paying close attention of this is just indicative of how seriously we take this issue.
QUESTION: I —
MR PATEL: Anyone else on —
QUESTION: On this —
MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex. One more.
[]QUESTION: Yeah, Iranian drones are becoming increasingly problematic. So just yesterday, the Ukrainians put out some numbers out there saying that they have shot down 20 drones. In terms of legality of this issue – I know that there are several bureaus or units at the State Department are involved in war crimes. Are you also to planning to bring Iran into this picture when you are looking into war crimes in – because the Iranians’ drones are —
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speculate on the legal aspects of that yet, but I will check and see if we can offer additional assessments.
Janne, go ahead.
[]QUESTION: Thank you. On North Korea, the United States continues to demand unconditional dialogue with North Korea, but far from convincing North Korea, China and its pro?North Korean followers is shifting the blame to the United States. Who do you think is responsible for tensions on Korean Peninsula when North Korea is taking military actions instead of dialogue?
MR PATEL: Well, if your question is who is responsible for the destabilizing actions, that is very clear: it is the DPRK which this week we have seen a number of ballistic missile tests, all of which are in clear violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions and not just pose a threat to its immediate neighbors but also the region.
On October 5th at the UN Security Council, we held a meeting to join our allies in denouncing these actions, and as many of you saw earlier today, the Department of Treasury announced a new package of sanctions newly designating individuals and entities connected to the unlawful delivery of refined petroleum to the DPRK. So we are going to continue to pay close attention to this and engage with our allies and partners. As a matter of fact, Special Representative Sung Kim had the opportunity to speak to his counterparts within the ROK and Japan today, and so this is, again, something we’re going to pay close attention to and continue to monitor.
QUESTION: One more —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: — on North Korea.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have independent sanctions against the North Korea, including military sanctions?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any new actions to preview other than the actions that the Department of Treasury through OFAC announced earlier today.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Guita.
[]QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. As the demonstrations in Iran continue, the Iranian suppression continues as well. What’s new now today, and yesterday basically, is that the Islamic Republic is giving one version of the cause of death with at least two of the people who have been killed, whereas the family members of these two are providing a totally different reason. They’re denying the Iranian claim that these two were – had medical issues to begin with, and so they’re fabricating – the Islamic Republic is fabricating the cause of death. France and Denmark are sending stronger messages. As you know, France and – a French national has been detained recently. Denmark today issued a travel warning to its citizens. So is it time for a stronger message to Iran?
MR PATEL: Well, Guita, we have been sending a very strong message to Iran from not just the public comments coming from this administration but also through various interagency sanctions and packages. And we continue to have tools in our toolbelt to hold the Iranian regime accountable.
To the deaths that you mentioned, the Iranian Government has now killed more than 100 people in its bloody crackdown on peaceful protestors across the country. And this is according to credible human rights organizations. The nationwide protests, as you know, were sparked by the so?called morality police’s murder of Mahsa Amini, who should be alive right now, but now even more young girls have been added to the list of those dead, including teenagers Sarina Esmaeilzadeh and Nika Shakarami, which is just horrific.
We condemn Iranian authorities’ arrest of peaceful protestors, the targeting of journalists, the crackdown on human rights activists, teachers, and others, as well as the continued disruption of internet inside Iran as well. This cruel and ongoing suppression of peaceful protestors is – it just shows that the regime is – clearly fears its people. We are going to continue to coordinate with our allies and partners and respond to Iran’s violent crackdown, as well as frankly its state sponsored violence against women that we’re seeing take place all across the country.
QUESTION: You said that you’re going to be consulting with partners and allies. Would that include taking action on the international organizations?
MR PATEL: What do you mean?
QUESTION: Like where – like I asked yesterday that Iran is – has a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, and this whole development in Iran is about women – started with women.
MR PATEL: Sure. So I don’t have any actions to preview, but Iran’s membership on the UN Commission on the Status of Women is, frankly, laughable. We have been always clear that it is outrageous that some of the worst human rights abusers, like Iran, sit on certain UN commissions. And this is a perfect example. And we’ve been clear in joining the global condemnation of Iran’s violent oppression of women and the violent suppression of protests. As you saw, we were one of the 54 countries that issued a joint statement at the Human Rights Council calling for Iran to stop this violent crackdown.
So again, I don’t have any specific actions to preview, but we are going to always work with our partners in the international community to respond to Iran’s actions.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Vedant, do you have – when you mentioned the credible human rights organizations that – can you be more specific which ones they are?