(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 You are subscribed to Collected Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
02/16/2023 06:37 PM EST
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:37 p.m. EST
MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Give me one second.
QUESTION: Ditto. Happy rainy Thursday.
MR PATEL: I know. I have two very brief things at the top, and then we’re happy to dive right into your questions.
[] Today at the Summit on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain, which is being held at The Hague, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, on behalf of the U.S., announced a Political Declaration on the Responsible Use of AI and Autonomy.
The aim of the declaration is to respond to rapid advancements in technology by beginning a process of building international consensus around responsible behavior and to guide states’ development and deployment and use of military AI.
We applaud our Dutch and Korean hosts for convening the summit, which provided us the opportunity to discuss responsible military use of artificial intelligence in the military domain.
This conference provided an opportunity to highlight the importance of developing a common understanding around the benefits and risks of using AI for national security purposes. And we encourage other states to join us in building an international consensus around the principles we articulated in our political declaration.
[] And lastly, the United States welcomes the appointment of Dorin Recean as the new prime minister of the Republic of Moldova. We look forward to working with the prime minister and his cabinet as they continue to pursue political and economic and anti-corruption reforms.
The U.S. firmly supports Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, democracy, and prosperity. We appreciate President Sandu’s continued leadership as Moldova builds its democratic, European future.
And with that, Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you. So I don’t have a lot of hope that you’re going to have any information to offer on this, but following the President’s remarks just now, two brief questions. One is that he said he was directing the Secretary of State to consult with counterparts around the world to come up with some kind of global standard for balloons, surveillance or weather, whatever type. Can you extrapolate? Can you offer any more detail on that? My understanding was that this – these kinds of talks have been going on for years now.
[]MR PATEL: Well, first, Matt, I – we all saw the President’s comments, and I know the Secretary is looking forward to and eager to working with his counterparts to help develop and work on some of these standards as it relates to maneuverable and non-maneuverable objects, whether they be balloons or otherwise. I don’t have any specific updates to offer on —
QUESTION: But this is not a – this is not some kind of a new initiative? This is pretty much carrying on from debates that have been going on in Geneva and elsewhere about vertical limits of national sovereignty and that kind of thing.
MR PATEL: I don’t believe it’s intended to be for the discovery of new policy or anything like that.
QUESTION: And then the second thing is that he said – the President said that he would be – hoped to or expected to be talking to President Xi. Is it your understanding, is it this building’s understanding, that rescheduling the Secretary’s trip to Beijing would require another conversation between the – President Biden and President Xi?
MR PATEL: I —
QUESTION: Or could he just take off? My visa’s still good for a week or so.
[]MR PATEL: I don’t want to speculate on the sequencing, Matt. The Secretary was pretty clear. He looks forward and intends to continue on with his visit to China when conditions allow.
QUESTION: Yeah, but do you think – but is it possible that he would go without there – that he would reschedule and go without there being a leader-to-leader —
MR PATEL: I just don’t want to speculate. I think broadly, over the course of this – these past couple of weeks, we have maintained channels of open communication with the Chinese. Obviously the Secretary had the opportunity to speak with Wang Yi and others have been engaging at a working level. But whether the two leaders will speak prior to any potential visit, I just – I’m not going to speculate.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR PATEL: Yeah. Shaun. Sure.
QUESTION: Can I go to the Israeli-Palestinian issue?
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: Actually, can I follow up if you don’t mind on this?
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Two questions on this one.
MR PATEL: On China?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR PATEL: Go.
QUESTION: This very topic.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: Just – I was hoping that we could backtrack a little bit. So last week you said that you are aware of Chinese plan to spy on 40 countries. One week in, no country has been forthcoming so far. There’s a belief on your end privately you experience a different traffic? Other countries are approaching to you? Are you in the midst of any consultations with them?
MR PATEL: Well, Alex, I’m not – I’m just not going to speak for other countries. But if you look to just public commentary that some of the foreign dignitaries that we’ve hosted in this building over the past couple weeks, when they’ve asked about – been asked about the high?altitude surveillance asset that was found, discovered over the United States rather, they – there has been convergence on the United States approach and our handling of the situation. And of course, a big part of this is our close consultation with our allies and partners and the robust engagements and dialogues that have taken places in the days and weeks afterwards. But I’m not going to get anything beyond that.
QUESTION: Okay. And back to Matt’s question. The President used a phrase – common global norms. So we are at the zero level at this point or there have been norms, just they’re downgraded?
MR PATEL: Certainly, I don’t think that’s what the President was trying to insinuate. Obviously, there have been and are standards and protocols and policies in place, as it relates to the air and aviation, whether it’s manned, unmanned, or otherwise. But it’s clear that – and the President alluded to this – that given the heightened sensitivity and our discovery of these three additional objects that there is more for us to discuss with our allies and partners, with countries around the world as it relates to these things. And so the Secretary looks forward to doing that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can we go on to the Israel and Palestine issue?
MR PATEL: Yeah. Sure, Shaun.
QUESTION: The – at the UN, as you probably know, there’s a draft resolution that would call on Israel to immediately and completely cease settlement activities. The administration and the State Department has been critical of the latest settlement moves. Does the U.S. have a stance on this resolution?
[]MR PATEL: Thanks, Shaun. We remain focused on supporting the conditions necessary to advance the prospects for a negotiated two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians which is – our belief is the only path to a sustainable end to the conflict, and we continue to engage with all parties on this. The introduction of this resolution is unhelpful in supporting the conditions necessary to advance negotiations for a two-state solution. We are aware of the introduction, and we’re coordinating closely with our partners in New York on next steps.
QUESTION: When you say unhelpful, does that mean that the U.S. is ready to veto it? Is it looking to change it before it gets to that point, or not be introduced at all?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to get ahead of the process, Shaun. We are coordinating closely with our partners in New York and are assessing our next steps. But when I say that it is unhelpful, we have been clear as it relates to both the Israelis and the Palestinians – and you saw us be very clear about our stance on this after the events of Sunday, on Monday from this podium about the – about actions, including settlement activity could undermine a two-state solution and also further incite tensions. These are the kinds of things that would do the opposite of that.
QUESTION: Can I just take one more stab?
MR PATEL: One more, Shaun, and then —
QUESTION: Just a – if I can just take one more stab at that, on the veto possibility. If it does come, is the veto an option? Is that something that the U.S. is willing to do to not have this see the light of day?
MR PATEL: Shaun, I’m just not going to speculate or hypothesize on – or get ahead of the process here. I think what I will reiterate is that our view is that the introduction of this resolution was unhelpful in supporting the conditions necessary to advance negotiations of a two?state solution, just like we believe that the news out of Israel on Sunday was unhelpful and something that would further incite tensions as well. And our viewpoint has always been that both sides should avoid taking steps that puts us further away from a two-state solution and further incites tensions, which these are the kinds of actions that do that.
Let me do Said, and then I’ll come to you, Simon.
QUESTION: Is – are you on the same topic, Simon?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’ll defer to you. Then I’ll take it.
QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry. Sorry, just to drill down on what you’re saying is unhelpful. I mean, if you look at the wording that’s been reported from this draft text, it seems to be things that you agree with. So what exactly is unhelpful about a resolution that condemns something that you condemn and restates things that you also agree with regarding the occupation of those territories? So what exactly is unhelpful about this?
MR PATEL: Simon, we have been fairly consistent in – over the course of this administration that the – we don’t view the UN as the most practical or useful forum for discussing this issue, and that this is something that the two sides need to discuss and engage and negotiate and work on among themselves and that steps like settlement activity, steps like the introduction of such a resolution are unhelpful and put us further away from a negotiated two-state solution, which has been our consistent viewpoint in where we would like this to end.
QUESTION: And you’re still – your position is still – or the administration’s position is still that with regards to – as it was with regard to Russia in the last year that vetoes in the Security Council should be used sparingly as possible?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any new policy to announce or a new strategic assessment to offer on our approach to the UN Security Council, if that’s what you’re asking.
Said.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I think I’m going to belabor the issue of the effort of the UN. I mean, I don’t understand: Israel was founded by the United Nations. It ought to be obligated to what the United Nations – in this case, a record of UN resolutions is calling for it to stop settlements, to end the occupation, to start treating Palestinians humanely and so on. I mean, I have the UN Security Council Number 2334, the last time an issue like this came up in the Security Council, where the United States abstained and hence the resolution passed. I suspect that the resolution on Monday will be pretty much the same thing. Why wouldn’t the United States at least abstain, like they did the last time?
MR PATEL: Said, I am just —
QUESTION: I mean, I know you don’t want to, I mean, jump the gun and so on, but —
MR PATEL: Said, we’re – we – first of all, I am not going to get ahead of the process, and the text that both you and Simon were referring to, they are draft texts. But broadly, we have been very clear about our views on this. And to – I will say two things, is that the United States is committed to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. And we continue to believe that the two-state solution is the best way for Israelis and Palestinians to preserve, realize, and – their national aspirations.
And to be clear, Ned, the Secretary, our allies and partners, countries around the world were very clear about our opinion as it relates to the news from Sunday. We view the expansion of settlements as an obstacle to that peace, as an obstacle to that two-state solution. We view that as an action that undermines a two-state solution.
Similarly, we believe that – also that the introduction of this resolution is unhelpful in supporting the conditions necessary for a two-state solution, for the two sides to come to a negotiated solution. And as I said, we’re working closely with our partners in New York to determine our appropriate next steps.
QUESTION: I mean, I understand, but how you put muscle or you put some strength or some leverage behind your opinion? I mean, you have a very clear opinion on the issue of settlements and so on. But the United States has historically fallen short of making its opinion materialize, or felt by the Israelis. So I mean, is the United States exploring ways and means to effectuate its opinion?
MR PATEL: Said, we – our opinion is one that we have made clear publicly, but it’s also one that we have made clear privately. The Secretary has done so through his counterparts; so has Ambassador Nides and others working on this issue as well.
QUESTION: You know what? Senators, like Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, they issued a statement, a very strong statement. So you’re likely to find a lot of support if you were ever to take actions that can show Israel that this may be costly, correct?
MR PATEL: Said, I am not going to contextualize or parse the words of the senator. I will defer to him and his staff. But we’ve made our view very clear, and we view the expansion of settlements as an obstacle to peace. And we view it as something that undermines the viability of a two-state solution.
QUESTION: Let me ask you one last question. The Knesset just passed by a huge majority, like 94, a new law that would actually deport or take away the citizenship of those who commit acts of terrorism or violence against Israelis and so on, and physically deport them. So there is an element of ethnic cleansing or relocation of population. Are you aware of this, first of all? And second, do you have an opinion on it?
MR PATEL: Let me —
QUESTION: Does that fall under the definition or designation of collective punishment?
MR PATEL: Let me say a couple of things on this, Said. First, I saw the reporting on this this morning. We understand that the law is passed in the Knesset, and we’re working to gather more information and understand the implications of the law. I don’t want to offer an interpretation of that from here, as our teams are still assessing it from a policy standpoint.
But broadly, Said, we have been clear that the practice of paying Palestinian prisoners who committed acts of terrorism against Israelis is abhorrent. And we continue to engage the Palestinian Authority to end this practice, which both our partners in Congress and this administration, we clearly oppose.
QUESTION: But taking it out on the families of those who commit such acts, that would be a collective punishment, correct?
MR PATEL: Said, I am just not going to offer an interpretation on this; that is still being worked out through policy channels.
QUESTION: Can I – I’m sorry, but do you see any difference between an action that one side takes that changes the reality on the ground, and an action that the other side might take that is basically just a statement, words on paper, rhetoric that doesn’t actually do anything? Because when you say – you’re making what sounds like – you’re making a – you’re saying that the Israeli settlement decision and the legalization of outposts was unhelpful. But that actually changes the reality on the ground. A UN Security Council resolution is – it is what it is, but there have been so many UN Security Council resolutions. How many does North Korea agree with? How many does Israel agree with? How many – or do they follow? How many does Russia agree with? How many does Burma agree with? Right? It doesn’t actually do anything.
So I’m not sure I understand how you say that they are the same. How can you oppose something that you – that you just agreed to —
MR PATEL: Matt —
QUESTION: — with five other countries in a statement the other day, and put out a very critical statement about on your own just a day or two before that?
MR PATEL: Matt, I certainly am not nor have we tried to make the case that they are the same. They are not. What I am saying, though —
QUESTION: You’re saying that they’re both unhelpful, and I don’t see how —
MR PATEL: They are. They —
QUESTION: I don’t see how – well, explain to me how a UN Security Council resolution is as unhelpful as the Israelis expanding the settlements and legalizing what had been illegal outposts.
MR PATEL: I’m not going to put a metric on this, Matt, but we have been very clear. I’m not —
QUESTION: That’s probably a good thing, because I don’t think you can.
MR PATEL: I am not saying anything new or trying to represent a new position of this administration.
QUESTION: And that may be the problem here.
MR PATEL: We have been —
QUESTION: Because you’re not – because it – I find it difficult to believe that you guys think that the two are equatable, that they’re the – that they’re equivalent.
MR PATEL: Matt —
QUESTION: One is literally taking land away and the other is a piece of paper.
MR PATEL: The point that I have been trying to make, and the point that Ned has made earlier this week, and others across this administration have been made – making, is that any step that puts us further away from a negotiated two-state solution, any step that further incites tensions, any step that makes a two-state solution more difficult and less viable we would take issue with, and we have issue with these steps. We are not saying —
QUESTION: Which step takes – takes you further away from that goal?