(AGENPARL) – mer 22 marzo 2023 You are subscribed to Collected Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
03/21/2023 08:07 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:18 p.m. EST
[]MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. I am sorry we are a little tardy today. We’ll try to avoid that as best as we can. I have a couple things off the top before I dive into your questions.
So first, yesterday, the U.S. Consulate General in Hyderabad opened a new state-of-the-art facility in the city’s bustling Financial District.
The move brings our government closer to U.S. companies that have invested billions of dollars in the India’s tech, defense, aerospace, and pharmaceutical sectors. Five of the highest valued companies in the world – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta – host their largest presence outside the United States in Hyderabad.
Our consulate in Hyderabad is a key to linking businesses and people from the United States and the Indian states of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha. We continue to welcome Indian visitors, businesspeople, and students from those states, and this new facility puts us in a position to increase Mission India’s consular services in the future.
The new facility, with a project budget of $340 million, pays respect to the local landscape, and through the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation, we are working with local partners to preserve historic monuments. The new space will help consulate staff work with local journalists, it will increase reporting on climate change, and share information on educational opportunities. The new consulate in Hyderabad will also host countless visitors, as our militaries regularly team up for joint exercises based out of India’s Eastern Naval Command.
Put simply, this dynamic region plays a critical role in the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership, and our new consulate chancery in Hyderabad represents a tangible investment by the United States in the growing bilateral relationship.
[] I also wanted to offer an update on some of the earthquake efforts on behalf of Türkiye and northern Syria.
We support and applaud our international partners who raised $7.5 billion in earthquake assistance pledges for Türkiye and Syria at yesterday’s EU-hosted International Donors’ Conference in Brussels.
During this conference, the United States announced we are providing an additional $50 million in urgent humanitarian assistance to help earthquake-affected communities in Türkiye and Syria. This brings total U.S. humanitarian assistance to support the earthquake response to 235 million. With this additional humanitarian assistance, U.S. partners are expanding existing deliveries of food, relief items, shelter, safe water, sanitation, clothes items, and other things to reach millions impacted in []Türkiye and Syria.
We are grateful for the successful efforts of the organizers of this meeting, which was co-hosted by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and by the Prime Minister of Sweden Ulf Kristersson, for the Swedish presidency of the European Council.
As Secretary Blinken said, the U.S. will remain committed to providing necessary assistance to those impacted by these earthquakes. The U.S. will continue to support those impacted in Türkiye and Syria, and we welcome and encourage continued support from our international partners in this time of great need.
[] And lastly, the United States is extremely troubled that the Israeli Knesset has passed legislation rescinding important parts of the 2005 disengagement law, including the prohibition on establishing settlements in the northern West Bank. At least one of these outposts in this area, Homesh, was built on private Palestinian land, which is illegal under Israeli law.
It is all the more concerning that such a significant piece of legislation passed with just 31 “yes” votes out of an assembly of 120 members. De-escalating and reducing violence are in all parties’ interests, including Israel’s. The U.S. strongly urges Israel to refrain from allowing the return of settlers to the area covered by the legislation, consistent with both former Prime Minister Sharon and the current Israeli Government’s commitment to the United States.
We have been clear that advancing settlements is an obstacle to peace and the achievement of a two-state solution. This certainly includes creating new settlements, building or legalizing outposts, or allowing building of any kind on private Palestinian land or deep in the West Bank adjacent to Palestinian communities, all of which would be facilitated by this legal change.
The action also represents a clear contradiction of undertakings the Israeli Government made to the United States. Nearly 20 years ago, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on behalf of Israel affirmed in writing to George W. Bush that it committed to evacuate these settlements and outposts in the northern West Bank, in order to stabilize the situation and reduce frictions.
The amendments to the disengagement law are also inconsistent with Israel’s recent commitments to de-escalating Israeli-Palestinian tensions. Just two days ago, Israel reaffirmed its “commitment to stop discussion of any new settlements for four months and to stop authorization of any outposts for six months.”
Coming at a time of heightened tensions, the legislative changes announced today are particularly provocative and counterproductive to efforts to restore some measures of calm as we head into the Ramadan, Passover, and the Easter holidays.
With that, Matt, happy to kick it off with you.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, that was quite a mouthful, wasn’t it?
MR PATEL: I know. Sometimes we have things to share.
[]QUESTION: Yeah. So I do want to – before I get back to that, let me just ask one real quick question about —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: What’s your understanding of the status of detained American citizens in Saudi Arabia? Then I’ll go right to Israel.
MR PATEL: Sure. So Matt, the welfare and safety of U.S. citizens overseas is the – as you know, the highest priority of the Department of State. We are aware of reports that a U.S. citizen was released from prison in Saudi Arabia, and of course we welcome this news. But there’s a limit to any further detail that I’m able to get into, given privacy considerations.
QUESTION: So you can’t say at all whether it is correct that Mr. Almadi, whose son has talked publicly about his father being released —
MR PATEL: What I would say is that we’re aware of these reports and we welcome this news, but I’m not able to get into any further details.
QUESTION: Okay. Then on your opening statement about Israel and the Knesset law, I’m just wondering – those are strong words but are you going to do anything in response?
MR PATEL: Matt, this is —
QUESTION: Or is it just something that you’re going to criticize verbally?
[]MR PATEL: Matt, this is – these are topics and issues that we raise directly with our Israeli counterparts. As I outlined in my topper, we did so as recently as over the course of the past two days, at the Aqaba meetings, as well as the meetings taking place in Sharm el-Sheikh. This is something we have raised consistently through channels in this building, through Ambassador Tom Nides. It’s something that President Biden had the opportunity to discuss with Prime Minister Netanyahu. It’s something the Secretary has raised as well, and this is something that we’re going to continue to remain deeply engaged and vocal about.
QUESTION: Okay. So the short answer is no, you’re not going to actually do anything, other than make statements like – critical statements from the podium? Is that —
MR PATEL: Matt —
QUESTION: Is that a fair assessment?
MR PATEL: Like I said, this is something that we’re going to – we continue to raise directly with our Israeli counterparts and remain engaged on. And it’s why, quite frankly, as an administration we continue to remain deeply committed to a negotiated, two-state solution.
QUESTION: Right. But you’re not actually going to do anything about it, other than say that you don’t like it. Is that correct?
MR PATEL: Matt, we continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to engage with our partners and to make our viewpoint quite clear.
QUESTION: So other than this one, you speaking from the podium right now, can you give us one or two examples of what those tools are?
MR PATEL: Matt, this is something that we raise directly. It’s something our allies and partners in the region also raise directly with Israel and other countries as well.
QUESTION: So just – are you on the same topic?
QUESTION: Same topic, yeah. Just one sec, one thing to clarify. You said that this was raised at the – in the Aqaba meeting but also like recently. I mean, what was the highest level of engagement from State Department to Israelis?
MR PATEL: Again, this is something that we raise regularly, the desire to take steps to calm tensions, especially as it relates to the growth and expansion of settlements and outposts. You’ve seen our Ambassador Tom Nides speak openly about his engagements on this subject with our Israeli partners. We’ve done so through Assistant Secretary Leaf and others. The Secretary had the opportunity to discuss this when he was in Jerusalem. And by “this” I mean specifically the – just the growth of outposts and settlements, not – I’m not talking about this legislation specifically.
QUESTION: Right.
MR PATEL: Right.
QUESTION: But does the Secretary now have any plans or any other high – any other plans for any other high-level engagement on this specifically on the settlements —
MR PATEL: I don’t have any calls to preview or to get ahead of. But again, this is something that we remain deeply engaged and in close contact on.
I’m going to go to Said, and then I can come back to you, Leon, since he’s had his hand up.
QUESTION: I just wanted to have a – try again what Matt just asked you. So aside from the really strong words – and they were – what can you do? I mean, how can you leverage your statement? How can the United States of America leverage its anger at this decision by the Israeli Knesset?
MR PATEL: Said, first what I would say broadly is that the comments from the United States, they’re not going into some sort of abyss or vacuum. When the United States speaks about something, countries around the world are listening. And when the United States is engaged on something and committed to something, I believe that the rest of the world is paying attention.
And as I have said, this is something specifically we have been very clear about, that the growth of settlements and outposts is inconsistent with our views on what steps are necessary to get us to a negotiated two-state solution in a peaceful way. I was just quite clear about that.
QUESTION: So countries around the world may be listening. Is Israel listening? Is the Government of Israel listening?
MR PATEL: Said, we engage with the Government of Israel quite regularly on a number of issues, including these ones.
QUESTION: Vedant, I mean, only yesterday Smotrich said there is no such thing as the Palestinians. I mean, he – and he said he wants this heard in the White House. He made sure to underscore the White House. He’s telling you that we’re not listening to you; we’re not taking anything that you might say into account. That’s what he is saying.
MR PATEL: Well, what I would say to that – Finance Minister Smotrich is not the only individual in the Israeli Government, but what I would say to his comments broadly, Said, since you’ve given me the opportunity, is the latest comments by Mr. Smotrich, which were delivered at a podium adorned with an inaccurate and provocative map, are offensive, they are deeply concerning, and, candidly, they’re dangerous. The Palestinians have a rich history and culture, and the United States greatly values our partnership with the Palestinian people. And as President Biden said last summer in Bethlehem, the U.S. remains committed to two states for two people, both of whom have deep ancient roots in the land, living side?by?side in peace and security.
We also affirmed that two states along the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps remain the best way to achieve equal measures of security, prosperity, and freedom and democracy for Palestinians and Israelis alike. We underscore the importance of the U.S. strategic relationship with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the second Arab state to take the courageous step of making peace with Israel. And we welcome Israel’s reaffirmation of the 1994 peace treaty with Jordan.
QUESTION: Well, just if I may follow up, I mean, this person – this Israeli minister was here only ten days ago. Are you – is this administration willing to declare him a persona non grata, for instance?
MR PATEL: Said, I —
QUESTION: What measures can you take against such a statement?
MR PATEL: Said, I’m not here —
QUESTION: I am sure if somebody – if somebody denied the existence of another people elsewhere, you would take a very strong statement against such individual?
MR PATEL: Said, we’re taking a strong statement now, and I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about what we would do if another government official in another country did something hypothetical. What I am here to tell you, as I just said a moment ago, is that we found those comments to not only be inaccurate but also deeply concerning and dangerous. So –
QUESTION: But the Knesset action ?-
QUESTION: He simply does not care. He said that, I want this heard in the White House. He said that exactly. I mean, you have no response to him? You can’t say this person is not welcome in the United States?
MR PATEL: Again, I don’t have any designation or characterization to offer, Said. What I will just leave it at is that those comments were concerning, they were dangerous, and they were offensive.
QUESTION: But the Knesset vote is not a hypothetical. It’s happened. They clearly were acting at the behest of the government, of the prime minister, of the finance minister. How can they be held accountable? Where – to repeat what Matt and Said have been asking, where is the leverage? What is the discussion in this building about how to hold Israel accountable, keeping in mind that the U.S. has a vested interest in protecting it from a security standpoint? But how can this government allow Israel to undermine the goal of a two-state solution when things such as this have now happened?
MR PATEL: Well, first, you are absolutely right. Our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s security concerns are ironclad, but I will also note that we have, when we need to, very frank and honest conversations with our Israeli partners.
And there is no hypothetical about it. You’re right. This kind of legislation does undermine what we think could be required for a negotiated two-state solution. We have been clear that advancing settlements is an obstacle to peace and an obstacle to achieving a two-state solution and that certainly the – what this legislation would do would be create new settlements or buildings and legalize outposts. All of this would further incite tensions and put a negotiated two-state solution further away.
I’m not going to stand up here and offer a litany list of all the ways in which we can and hold our Israeli partners accountable, but – beyond to say that we raise these issues directly. We raise these issues regularly. We do it through this building. We do it through the President. We do it through Secretary Blinken. We do it through our ambassador. All of those ways are opportunities for us to engage on this issue, which is very, very important to us.
QUESTION: But the point is, even granted that the President had a discussion with the prime minister this past weekend, given that ten days ago the finance minster was in this country and no one in the U.S. Government made a point of meeting with him, not to mention all of the affinity groups that pointedly did not meet with Mr. Smotrich, it looks like it’s all talk.
What are the things that are being looked at? Could there be travel restrictions on those members of the Knesset who voted for this legislation? Could there be a restriction on funding provided to the Israeli Government that does not affect the security portfolio? Could there be anything done – does this mean that it makes it more likely that the Palestinian consulate is reopened in Jerusalem? What are the things that this government is prepared to do in order to send the message? Because clearly, all of the talk has not given what the U.S. would like to see change in the situation.
MR PATEL: There are a number of options that we continue to look at in which we can and do engage with our Israeli partners. I’m not going to get into previewing them, but what I will just say again and reiterate is that this is an issue that is of utmost concern to us and something that we have, quite directly and candidly, will continue to raise with our Israeli partners.
QUESTION: I mean, I’m not suggesting that the administration might want to consider the James Baker solution of ’91, but you have to get the government’s attention if you’re serious about trying to reach a solution that goes back to ’67 with the Green territory talks.
MR PATEL: We are serious about a solution and we have – this administration has taken a number of actions and the comments that we’ve offered have indicated how serious we are. And when either side has taken steps that we think put us further away, whether that be the Israelis or the Palestinians, we have been quite vocal about how those steps are unhelpful to getting us to what the United States views as our – as a goal.
As I just was at the beginning of this briefing, we have not parsed words when we have felt that certain actions take us away towards what we believe is the best solution for the Israeli and Palestinian people as well as the best solution that will offer a long-term stability, security, and peace for the region as well.
Leon and then I’ll get to the back of the room. Go ahead, Leon.
QUESTION: Yeah, I was going to ask on Israel, but my question has been answered, so I’m going to move on to another region. Is —
MR PATEL: Anything else on the region before we move on?
QUESTION: The —
MR PATEL: On Israel or —
QUESTION: No, no, no. The —
MR PATEL: No? Okay, then I will come back to you, Janne. Go ahead, Leon.
[]QUESTION: Okay. I was wondering, Vedant, if you have any information, detailed insight you could give us to the Secretary’s role in the liberation of – well, two hostages, one French, one American in Niger which were released yesterday. And since, of course, the Secretary was in the region in Niger just last week.
MR PATEL: Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Leon. So the U.S. is pleased to confirm the release of U.S. citizen Jeffery Woodke, who had been held hostage in West Africa for more than six years. This release is thanks to the extraordinary cooperation of the Government of Niger and the sustained efforts of countless organizations and individuals around the world. We want the American people to know that the U.S. Government has no higher priority than their safety and security, and the Biden administration will continue to work aggressively using a wide range of tools until all U.S. citizens being held hostage or wrongfully detained are brought home.
I’m not going to get into the specifics of sensitive diplomatic conversations, Leon, but at this point in this administration, it should be no surprise to you that in any country where U.S. nationals are being held hostage or wrongfully detained, we, the State Department, raise those cases at every opportunity. And as I said, this release is thanks to the extraordinary cooperation of the Government of Niger.
And you all had the opportunity to hear from Secretary Blinken yesterday from this very podium, and later in the day, we are able to share that he was able to speak to Mr. Woodke’s family and share in their excitement for his return. He also reiterated that the United States will continue to provide all appropriate assistance.
Janne, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions on China and North Korea.
MR PATEL: Sure.
[]QUESTION: First question in North Korea issues: The United Nations Security Council’s condemnation statement and adoption of sanctions against North Korea’s ballistic missile launch violations failed due to China and Russia’s use of their veto power. How does the U.S. respond to poor role of the UN Security Council?
MR PATEL: So first, Janne, let me say that the United States condemns the DPRK’s March 19th ballistic missile launch which came just three days after the DPRK’s most recent ICBM launch. This launch is in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions and is the latest in a series of launches that pose a threat to the DPRK’s neighbors and undermine regional security. And it’s particularly concerning that the DPRK categorized – characterized this launch as the simulated use of a tactical nuclear weapon.
As it relates to the UN Security Council, we continue to believe that all members of the Security Council have a role to play in holding the DPRK accountable, especially those that have influence over Pyongyang, and particularly that now is not the time to be using vetoes to cover up for the DPRK.
QUESTION: On China.
MR PATEL: Sure.
[]QUESTION: China is secretly supplying weapons to Russia and ignoring North Korea’s series of missile provocations. Do you see any objection to China’s role as a peace mediator?
MR PATEL: Let me say a couple of things to that, Janne. First, the – we encourage President Xi to advocate for the point that they outlined in their own 12-point plan, which is respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. We encourage President Xi to advocate for this point, which must include withdrawal of Russian forces from sovereign Ukrainian territory consistent with the UN Charter. I think it’s quite clear that the entire world would like to see this war end, especially the Ukrainians themselves who have put forward their own plan for a just peace which draws on these very UN principles that I just spoke about. And let’s remember this war could end today if Russia withdrew its troops from Ukraine.
Camilla.
QUESTION: Thank you.
[]QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Blinken is set to testify on the Hill tomorrow and Thursday. The House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul has put out, made public, another letter that he sent the Secretary, asking for the same documentation that he’s already previously asked for related to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. I know that Ned last week said that the State Department is working to comply with providing that documentation in time for the House committee’s deadline of March 23rd, or by close of business tomorrow. Can you give us an update on whether the State Department will meet the expectations of the House committee, whether documentation will be provided, and if so, in what form?
MR PATEL: I will echo what Ned said, that we are and we intend to comply. The State Department is committed to working with all congressional committees with jurisdiction to appropriately accommodate their need for information and to help them conduct oversight for legislative purposes.
The department has provided more than 200 briefings to bipartisan members and staff on Afghanistan policy since the withdrawal of U.S. Afghanistan – U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Additionally, senior department representatives have appeared in public hearings and answered questions on Afghanistan policy. And the department has responded to numerous requests for information from members and their staffs related to Afghanistan policy.
As Chairman McCaul also has previously said, he and the Secretary have had a constructive discussion when the chairman visited the department earlier this year, and the Secretary reaffirmed his commitment to cooperate with the committee’s work. And we have since provided hundreds of pages of documents responsive to the chairman’s request regarding Afghanistan, and we will continue to do so.
We are working as expeditiously as possible to accommodate what was an extensive and detailed request, and our provision of information and documents to the committee will continue as we collect and process additional responsive records.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?
MR PATEL: Alex.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Oh, Kylie had a follow-up, then I’ll come back to you, Alex.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR PATEL: Go ahead, Kylie.
QUESTION: Just to be a little bit more specific, they’ve obviously requested a tremendous number of documents from this building. But there’s three sets of documents, or documents that they have said they prioritized or would like you to prioritize giving to them. One is the dissent cable that was written from diplomats last July, the second is the department’s Afghanistan withdrawal after-action report, and the third is multiple versions of the department’s emergency action plans for Kabul.
On those three specific things, can you give us an update as to if you think that those documents will be provided to the committee by the end of the day tomorrow?
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into a tit-for-tat litany of the work that’s been ongoing. What I will just reiterate is that we have since provided hundreds of pages of documents responsive to the chairman’s request. We’re going to continue to do so. We’re working as expeditiously as we can. As you know, this whole process requires very intensive and detailed work processing and looking at records and figuring out what is responsive to the various requests. So I’m going to let that process continue to play out.
QUESTION: And just – I assume, then, that the department is prepared to have to deal with subpoenas if those documents aren’t provided to the —
MR PATEL: We – at any turn, this department is always going to intend to comply with the law.
Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple questions, but let me just follow up with China first.
MR PATEL: Sure.
[]QUESTION: Let me get your sense on today’s second days of meeting between President Xi and Putin. Other than just lavish display of solidarity and friendship we have seen, what do you think China’s president is really after in Russia?
MR PATEL: Alex, that’s a question for President Xi. I’m not going to speculate there. You should reach out to his spokesperson.
QUESTION: Sure. You probably have seen – you probably have seen Russian officials today said that they are planning to put together a UN Security Council meeting, informal meeting, on, quote/unquote, “the truth about Ukrainian children being transferred to Russia.” Let me get your reaction to that, and also to the fact that a man who is wanted by ICC for war crimes is going to actually lead the world’s most important security body as of next week.
MR PATEL: Alex, we know the truth about what’s happening to Ukrainian children. Our colleagues at Yale University and the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations have shown immense leadership in unearthing the horrific truths of what is happening to Ukrainian children. We are seeing numerous reports, have seen numerous reports, of children being separated from their families, being sent to facilities all across Russia, some that are closer to the United States when it comes to mileage as opposed to Ukraine; Russian – Ukrainian children being forced to be adopted by Russian families. We know what’s happening to Ukrainian children. We don’t need the Russian Federation to tell us.
Nike.
QUESTION: And the second part of my question —
MR PATEL: Oh, sorry.