(AGENPARL) – gio 04 maggio 2023 You are subscribed to Collected Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
05/03/2023 08:57 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
1:45 p.m. EDT
MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Wednesday. I don’t have anything off the top. Matt, do you want to kick us off?
QUESTION: No? You don’t want to recap the Secretary’s —
MR PATEL: Well, you all —
QUESTION: — comments about World Press Freedom Day this morning?
MR PATEL: I know you all tuned in very closely.
QUESTION: Yes, we did.
[]MR PATEL: And we’ll echo what the Secretary said as well. The – we strongly believe the importance of a free press. It’s a – we believe a bedrock of democracy. It’s why – one of the many reasons why we travel with all of you, we do this daily press briefing. I think engagement with the media is critically, critically important for both of us to do our jobs.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PATEL: But Matt.
QUESTION: So then can I ask you, as was raised perhaps a bit abruptly at the very beginning of his comments this morning, whether or not the State Department regards Julian Assange as a journalist who is – who would be covered by the ideas embodied in World Press Freedom Day?
MR PATEL: Matt —
QUESTION: I’m not asking for the DOJ point of view. I’m asking for what the State Department thinks.
MR PATEL: The State Department thinks that Mr. Assange has been charged with serious criminal conduct in the United States, in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in our nation’s history. His actions risked serious harm to U.S. national security to the benefit of our adversaries. It put named human sources to grave and imminent risk and risk of serious physical harm and arbitrary detention. So, it does not matter how we categorize any person, but this is – we view this as a – as something he’s been charged with serious criminal conduct.
QUESTION: Well, but it does matter actually, and that’s my question. Do you believe that he is a journalist or not?
MR PATEL: Matt, I’m just not going to offer a prescriptive assessment from here. Our view on Mr. Assange —
QUESTION: How about a non-prescriptive assessment?
MR PATEL: Our view on Mr. Assange is that he’s been charged with serious criminal conduct in the United States.
QUESTION: Yeah, but anyone can be charged with anything. Evan Gershkovich has been charged with a serious criminal offense in Russia, and you say that he is a journalist, and he is obviously. And I just want to know whether or not you, the State Department – regardless of any charges that he faces – believe that he is a journalist, or he is something else.
MR PATEL: Well, first, I would say, Matt, that these two cases are very, very different.
QUESTION: Of course, they’re completely different, but —
MR PATEL: The United States doesn’t go around arbitrarily detaining people, and the judicial oversight and checks and balances that we have in our system versus the Russian system are a little bit different. But again, I’m not here to offer a specific assessment. What I will say is that he’s been charged with a serious crime, with serious criminal conduct in the United States that has seriously put and seriously put in harm’s way U.S. national security, and that continues to be the case.
QUESTION: Okay. So, basically, the bottom line is that you don’t have an answer. You won’t say whether you think he is a journalist or not.
MR PATEL: I think I’ve sufficiently answered your question, Matt. As I’ve said, we believe that he has been charged with a serious – with serious criminal conduct in the United Sates.
QUESTION: Okay. You only answered the question for yourself, but I – but not from me. Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR PATEL: All right.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR PATEL: Anything else?
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on —
MR PATEL: Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: On Freedom Press Day – I mean, it’s been almost a year since Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by the Israeli army. And yesterday apparently a call by Senator Chris Van Hollen to you guys that there was a new report by the security coordinator that was sent to Secretary Blinken. First of all, can you share any information with that – about that with us, if there is any? And is there anything new in this report, or is there any reason why it should not be released?
[]MR PATEL: Said, let me say a couple of things. First, you’ve heard us say this before: We condemn the tragic killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, and our hearts remain with her family. As you know, Secretary Blinken has had the opportunity to speak to her family before and continue to extend our personal sympathies to them. As you all know, Shireen was not only a U.S. citizen but a reporter who had earned the respect of audiences around the world, including many – almost all, I assume, in this room.
As it relates to this reporting, Said, I have seen it. I don’t have any additional assessment to offer. I have not seen this report. My understanding is that the U.S. Security Coordinator has not changed the same conclusion that was released last summer that we released when we put out a statement about this, which is that IDF gunfire was likely the reason – unintentionally. But, again, I don’t have any additional updates or assessments to offer on this report.
QUESTION: So, no one was ever held accountable, and I don’t believe that – do you expect anyone to be held accountable?
MR PATEL: Said, we – the – as we – we noted in our statement about this last summer was that our findings, that are consistent with the U.S. Security Coordinator’s, is that this was unintentional and due to incredibly tragic circumstances. And so, what we continue to raise with our Israeli partners and with others around the world is ensuring what we can do to take appropriate steps to ensure that when it comes to rules of engagement, that civilians, reporters, members of the media just trying to do their job, are not placed in harm’s way.
QUESTION: Just – just for the record, there are today, as we speak, there are 16 Palestinian journalists that are in prison without any charges. Do you call on the Israelis to let them go, so they can go about doing their jobs?
MR PATEL: Said, we have been very clear about the need for journalists to not be arbitrarily detained and to be able to do their job. I’m not – I’m not aware of these specific cases or reports, but we have been clear and consistent about this.
Humeyra.
QUESTION: Follow-up —
QUESTION: Vedant, just on that. Based on the answer that you’re giving to Said, you’re saying this wasn’t intentional, our investigation found – and you’re saying we’re engaging with our Israeli partners about rules of engagement. That almost sounds like you’re saying you’re sorry for what happened to Shireen, but you’re moving on – and you’re engaging with Israeli partners so that this wouldn’t happen again. I had not heard anything about U.S. pursuing accountability for her. Can you tell me if I’m wrong, or can you elaborate?
MR PATEL: Humeyra, we have been very clear and consistent about first, condemning the tragic killing of Shireen, but also when both the U.S.’s report, as well as the IDS report last summer went public, we have spoken consistently about the need and the call for accountability in this case. And we continue to do so. However, as is consistent from the IDF’s finding as well as the finding of the U.S. security coordinator, is that this was not intentional. It was a tragic – due to very tragic circumstances.
So yes, we continue to seek accountability for Shireen —
QUESTION: So how – how –
MR PATEL: — let me finish – and that is the – one of the ways in which we are doing so, ensuring that when it comes to rules of engagement, we’re working on those issues in concert and in partnership with our Israeli counterparts to ensure that civilians and journalists and members of the media are not put in harm’s way. These are all things that we have said before consistently.
QUESTION: Yes, these are things you’ve said before. So, I’m wondering if you’re doing anything actively to seek accountability from the Israeli side for Shireen’s killing – like, not for – “rules of engagement” sounds like it’s something to deter and prevent this happening again. But I mean, are you able to say, is there an active effort of U.S. seeking accountability from Israel on their case?
MR PATEL: There is – there is an active effort. And since Shireen’s —
QUESTION: What is that?
MR PATEL: Since Shireen’s tragic death, we have continued to press Israel to closely review its policies and practices on rules of engagements and consider additional steps to mitigate risk of civilian harm and protect journalists. The Department of Defense in the immediate following of – not immediate, but in the months following Shireen’s death, underscored the need to improve its own assessments and practices to ensure civilian harm mitigation.
So, this is something that we continue to pursue and push directly with our counterparts in Israel, but also in other parts of the world where journalists often are found in harm’s way.
QUESTION: I’ve got a couple of things on China, but I’ll let others to —
MR PATEL: Okay. Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. One more question on press freedom. In light of the Press Freedom Day, did the embassy in Moscow today attempt to meet with Evan in jail?
[]MR PATEL: Alex, we have continuously, since Evan’s detention, called for the Russian Federation to offer consistent consular access, consistent and regular consular access that is in line with the Russian Federation’s consular convention with us. And that continues to be the case, and we’ll continue to raise that directly.
QUESTION: Including today, have you guys reached out to Russian officials?
MR PATEL: I don’t have a specific – I’m not going to offer specific engagements. But consular access continues to be one of the things we continue to push for not just in Evan’s case, but also the case for Paul Whelan. We continue to call for both of them to be released, and that continues to be our operating procedure on this.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. Government thinking about some legal action against Russian foreign ministry for rejecting the rights of —
MR PATEL: Alex, we continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to hold the Russian Federation accountable, as you saw us last week take action in designating the FSB and the IRGC-IO in relation to their arbitrary and wrongful detention of American citizens. So, specifically, through the auspices of the Levinson Act and through the executive order that President Biden signed, we continue to have tools at our disposal. But I’m not going to speculate or preview potential actions from here.
QUESTION: Thank you. (Inaudible) move to South Caucasus.
MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little, Alex. I’ve got a couple —
QUESTION: Please come back to me later.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: Thank you so much.
MR PATEL: Camilla, go ahead.
QUESTION: So, Press Freedom Day. I know you mentioned Austin Tice yesterday. Wall Street Journal is reporting that there are U.S. negotiators who have been in touch with Syrian Government officials and couched this as a renewed effort to engage with Syrian officials on trying to secure his release. Do you have anything further to add from what you said yesterday?
[]MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics, Camilla. But I will reiterate what you heard President Biden speak and talk about pretty clearly on Saturday night, which is that we are engaging extensively to try and get Austin home. Because of Austin’s work as a journalist and his immense efforts to uncover and show the world the truth of what war can look like, he has been locked up in Syria for more than 11 years now. We have pursued every channel we can to seek his safe return to his family, and will continue to do so, and that includes discussing the case with a number of countries in the region. And we will continue working this until we’re able to get his safe return to the United States.
Nick, go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you have anything more on the reporting of a drone strike on the Kremlin? The Secretary said anything coming out of the Kremlin should be taken with a “shaker of salt.” I was wondering if you had any more fidelity on what did or didn’t happen.
[]MR PATEL: Well, I would echo what the – what Secretary Blinken said this morning. We are aware of these reports but unable to confirm the authenticity of this. But also, as the Secretary said, I would take anything coming from the Kremlin and the Russian Federation with a shaker of salt. But throughout this, it’s important to remember a couple things, Nick. First, Russia invaded Ukraine. It did so unprovoked. They started this war, and they could end it today if they pulled their troops out.
Number two, Russia continues to fire missiles and drones at Ukraine every week. And they have done so and targeted scores of Ukrainians, including children, and they have been – targeted places like hospitals, apartment buildings. And we have been very clear that we’re going to continue to support Ukraine, as it defends itself from Russia’s invasion on this.
Kylie, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that specifically. You said that the U.S. has been unable to confirm the authenticity of these reports. Do you believe that the U.S. will be in a position over the course of the coming days to say what the U.S. believes happened here?
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speculate or get ahead of the process here, Kylie. What I will say, though, is that we’re continuing to assess this and confirm the authenticity, and when we have more to update or if we’re in a place to, we shall.
QUESTION: And then we heard from President Zelenskyy this morning in response to this alleged attack saying, “We don’t attack Putin or Moscow.” How significantly should we weigh President Putin’s denial that Ukraine was involved here?
MR PATEL: You mean President Zelenskyy’s?
QUESTION: President Zelenskyy, sorry.
MR PATEL: That is for President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to speak to. I will let them speak to their own battlefield assessments and decisions; that’s not something that we have ever spoken to from here.
QUESTION: And then just a final question.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: From the White House podium earlier this – earlier, like a few minutes ago, we heard the press secretary talk about the U.S. not providing capabilities for the Ukrainians to strike inside Ukraine or encouraging the Ukrainians to strike inside Ukraine. So, going forward, if there are further Ukrainians strikes inside of Russia, should we expect that that could somehow impact continued U.S. support for Ukraine?
MR PATEL: What I will say, Kylie, is that we have been pretty clear and consistent throughout this that we will continue to support our Ukrainian partners for as long as it takes. In fact, we as recently as last week announced another presidential drawdown, and we will continue to do so. But that being said, I think it’s also really important to take a step back. I don’t want to speculate about the authenticity of this. But we also have been clear and consistent, as you said, that – about not encouraging or enabling the Ukrainians to strike beyond its borders.
Guita.
QUESTION: On Afghanistan. Vedant, do you have a readout from the Doha Conference?
[]MR PATEL: So, as you know, Gitta, the UN convened this meeting in Doha for key international stakeholders to reinvigorate international engagements around common objectives within Afghanistan, and how to best support the Afghan people. The U.S. and other stakeholders continue to be deeply concerned about the deteriorating human rights conditions in Afghanistan, especially as it relates to women and girls. And the UN Security Council unanimously adopted last week a resolution that sends a clear signal that the international community is united in condemning the Taliban for its egregious repression of Afghan women and girls.
QUESTION: So, any decisions on how to go forward, to bring the Taliban in line, and —
MR PATEL: Well, the envoys representing their various capitals discussed a variety of shared concerns – specifically, the presence of terrorist organizations; the lack of inclusivity which, importantly, includes human rights; the sheer concern that when more than 50 percent of Afghanistan’s population is being left out of participating in the economy, left out of participating in education, that it is tough to see a credible path forward for the country.
So, this is something that, of course, this department and key leaders within this department are going to continue to remain deeply engaged on.
Raquel? Welcome to the briefing room, by the way.
QUESTION: Hello. Thank you so much. It’s good to be here, Vedant. So, the federal police in Brazil raided this morning former President Bolsonaro home. They are investigating if Bolsonaro used fake vaccination card to travel to the United States. So, can you tell us if the former president had to present any kind of vaccination proof in the U.S., while he was not on a official visit?
[]MR PATEL: What I will say, Raquel, is that visa records are confidential. So, I’m just not going to get into discussing specific cases. What I can say is that at that time in history, there was a requirement of being vaccinated to enter the United States in addition to whatever appropriate paperwork and documentation is needed to enter the United States, but I won’t say anything more than that, and, of course, the CDC can speak to you about the various cadences of vaccination requirements that have existed in relation to entering the country.
QUESTION: Could you say if the American authorities will work or are helping the Brazilian police in this investigation in – that is in concern that Bolsonaro committed a crime here, if he was not vaccinated and showing around when he was here for 90 days his fake vaccination card?
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speculate or get into the specifics of an investigation that’s ongoing in another country, and I don’t have anything to – additional to add on that.
QUESTION: Did the Brazilians ask for help in this investigation?
MR PATEL: Again, not that I’m aware of or anything that I can speak to from here, but if we have anything additional to offer, we’ll let you know.
Leon, go ahead.
QUESTION: I want to pursue that, but I don’t think it’ll (inaudible) very much. I want to speak about Haiti. The UN rights chief today, Volker Turk, warned of – said Haiti is basically dangling over an abyss. The secretary-general also recently had comments basically saying Haiti is going to pieces. As you know, talk about potential force or doing things, but we haven’t seen really any movement whatsoever since last fall. What – what are you specifically doing now and with whom to potentially do something about the situation in Haiti?
[]MR PATEL: Leon, we remain deeply concerned about the spiraling violence and its impact in all aspects of life in Port-au-Prince. We have made it clear that we believe the security and humanitarian situation in Haiti is worsening and the conditions on the ground will not improve without armed security assistance from international partners. And any decision about a security force would be done in consultation with the United Nations and the Haitian Government. And those discussions continue to be ongoing, and we remain in coordination with partners on next steps on the force and other actions to address the security situation in Haiti, including the needs to support the Haitian National Police.
I’ll also remind you, Leon, that when – we have not hesitated to take action to not just support the Haitian National Police, but also support the Haitian people. Since July of 2021, our INL Bureau has allocated $92 million to support security in Haiti. In – as of April 2023, INL has donated 40 patrol vehicles to the Haitian National Police, and we’ve delivered approximately a thousand sets of protective equipment, 36,000 MREs – and you’ll recall, Leon, last fall, in close coordination with our Canadian partners, we facilitated the delivery of vital security-related equipment to Port-au-Prince. So, this is something that we’ve continued to engage on directly, and we – it’s something we continue to work towards in coordination through multilateral auspices as well.
QUESTION: Okay, I understand that, but as you said, these —
STAFF: Down in front. Down in front.
QUESTION: Excuse me?
MR PATEL: You’re good. Someone was standing. Please continue.
QUESTION: These negotiations – you said the discussions are ongoing. So, with whom, exactly, and what is the sticking point? Because – or several sticking points, because these conversations have been ongoing since at least last fall – last October, I recall – with the sense of urgency at the time, and now we’re eight months later.
MR PATEL: Leon, I’m not going to get into the specifics of diplomatic negotiations and engagements, but these engagements continue to be ongoing. We have continued to done – do so through the UN. We have done so with partners in Haiti. You saw both President Biden and Secretary Blinken speak about this during their travels to Canada recently, as well. So, we continue to engage with this through appropriate allies and partners, through appropriate multilateral mechanisms, and that continues to be the case.
QUESTION: I understand that very well, but since there hasn’t been any real progress, what are the sticking points? What are the issues that you’re (inaudible)?
MR PATEL: Again, Leon, I’m just not going to get into our specific engagement.
QUESTION: Why not?
MR PATEL: We have never read out specific diplomatic engagements from here, as it relates to very sensitive conversations that we’re having with partners in Haiti, partners in – in this specific case partners in Haiti, partners through the UN, and other allies and partners as well. That’s just not something I’m going to start doing from here.
Michel.
QUESTION: Yeah, on Syria, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have – first, do you have any comments on the Iranian president visit to Damascus today?
[]MR PATEL: What I would say is that the Iranian regime and the Assad regime continuing to deepen their ties should be of great concern to not just our allies and partners and countries in the region, but also the world broadly. These are two regimes that have continued to partake in malign, destabilizing activities – not just in their immediate countries but also in the region broadly. We continue to believe, Michel, that we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime. And we do not support others normalizing with Damascus either, and we’ve made this abundantly clear to our partners. The U.S. believes that a political solution that is outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254 is the only viable solution to this conflict in Syria.
QUESTION: And was that your reaction to the statement made by Arab countries regarding a peaceful solution in Syria?
MR PATEL: We have conveyed our concerns about the May 1 meeting in Jordan to Jordan, and others, and although we don’t agree with – that the Assad regime merited this kind of statement, we note that Jordan and others have incorporated some of the United States’s key priorities in this process. What I will reiterate again: we don’t support normalization with Damascus, and we do not support others normalizing this as well.
QUESTION: Could I just – a Syria refugee question. It’s been reported that Syrians in Lebanon are going into hiding, have gone into hiding because of an anti-refugee campaign; now Lebanon has to endure a great deal of the refugee issues and it has its own problems to contend with. So, do you feel that maybe the time has come for the refugees to begin going home? I mean, would you facilitate with the – with Syrian refugees going back to their villages and towns and so on? The government, the Syrian government, says that the refugees are welcome to come back.
[]MR PATEL: Said, we are still looking into these specific reports, but what I will note is that all refugees and all deplaced – displaced persons should be treated humanely, and anyone detained should be afforded all applicable legal protections. And any refugee returns to Syria should be voluntary, they should be safe, they should be dignified. The conditions in Syria today do not allow for such returns, and we have been very clear about this with our foreign partners, including our partners in Lebanon.
QUESTION: Sorry, can I just – 2254?
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: What year was that passed?
MR PATEL: I will have to double-check the exact year.
QUESTION: Well, I’ll tell you. It was 2015.
MR PATEL: That’s what I was going to – yes.
QUESTION: Which is like, what, eight years ago. (Inaudible.) Okay.
MR PATEL: Is there – is there a question?
QUESTION: Yeah. Well, my question was what year was it passed?