(AGENPARL) – mer 17 maggio 2023 You are subscribed to Department Press Briefings for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
05/17/2023 06:56 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
1:30 p.m. EDT
MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for being a couple minutes late. I have one quick thing at the top and then we’ll get started.
[] First, we welcome President Erdogan’s announcement of the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. As we’ve said before, we strongly support the U.N.’s and Türkiye’s efforts on the deal which keeps global food and grain prices low.
But as Secretary Blinken has previously said, we should not need to remind Moscow every few weeks to keep their promises and to stop using people’s hunger as a weapon in their war against Ukraine. We should not need to remind Russia to stop obstructing inspections to allow grain to flow to vulnerable people who need it.
The world needs the Black Sea Grain Initiative. What’s more, the world needs Russia to end its illegal war against Ukraine, which would allow farmers to return to their fields, return agricultural trade to normal, and immediately and significantly improve global food security.
With that, Matt. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So I’m think let’s start with Nigeria.
MR PATEL: Okay.
QUESTION: And if I – I have one very small nit to pick with you guys, which is: Why put out a statement from the Secretary literally a minute before we get the two-minute warning for the briefing?
MR PATEL: We wanted to make sure that you all had it before we came out.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s hardly enough time to even digest it before we get in here to ask you questions about it. So anyway, let me start with that, if I could.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: So your understanding – well, I assume you don’t – you’re not going to have a whole lot more to add than —
MR PATEL: Correct. And if —
[]QUESTION: But has there been any discussion with the Nigerian authorities about this? I understand that Secretary Blinken, when he was speaking to the president-elect yesterday, it was before this had happened and so that hadn’t come up because he had plans to talk —
MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any calls to preview for you, Matt. And of course, we continue to be in touch with Nigerian authorities on this. But if you’ll allow me just to reiterate what the statement says, on the afternoon of May 16th, unknown assailants attacked a convoy of two U.S.-Government-operated vehicles in the Ogbaru local government area of the Anambra state in Nigeria. This convoy was carrying nine Nigerian nationals, five employees of the U.S. mission to Nigeria, and four members of the Nigerian police force.
They were traveling to advance a visit by U.S. mission personnel to a U.S.-funded flood response project in Anambra. At last four were killed based on the information we have now, and U.S. mission personnel are working urgently with Nigerian security force counterparts to ascertain the location and condition of other members of the convoy. We condemn in the strongest terms this heinous act, and we will work closely with our Nigerian law enforcement colleagues in seeking to bring those responsible to justice.
We express our heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed in the attack and pledge to do everybody possible to safely recover those who are unaccounted for. The U.S. reaffirms its commitment to the people of Nigeria to assist in the fight against violence and insecurity.
QUESTION: Okay. And so you don’t have any more indication about potential motive, whether they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time —
MR PATEL: We have no reason to believe that this convoy was targeted because of its connection to the U.S. mission or because of its connection to the embassy or anything like that, though an investigation continues.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
[]MR PATEL: All right. Humeyra, go ahead.
QUESTION: Chairman McCaul scheduled a committee meeting for next Wednesday to consider holding Secretary Blinken in contempt of Congress over the dissent channel cable. I’m wondering if – how the State Department is going to respond.
MR PATEL: Thanks for your – thanks for your question, Humeyra. First let me say it is unfortunate that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has continued to pursue this even before the State Department had the opportunity to respond to the chairman and the committee. We will be sending a response to the committee later today, and as you know, we continue to engage with the committee and discuss accommodations on the request for this information.
To take a step back, we believe that we have provided sufficient through our classified briefing, through the written summary, and we believe that these efforts already should have and would satisfy their request for information. But that being said, in our letter to the committee today, we will invite Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks to view the dissent channel cable here at the State Department, in camera, with appropriate personal information redacted. Chairman McCaul himself has said that this is what he is interested in, and so it is our sincere hope that our offer here will sufficiently satisfy their request for information.
Anything else on this topic before we move away?
QUESTION: I’m just —
MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering why it took us so long to get here.
MR PATEL: Can you —
QUESTION: Why didn’t you guys just offer – if you’re now offering up this dissent cable with the names redacted, why didn’t we just do that from the get-go versus kind of having weeks long of this political fight between the department and the committee?
MR PATEL: Well, we’ve spoken to this a little bit, Kylie. First, to take a step back, you’ve heard me say this before: The dissent channel cable is something that is really integral and sacred to this department. It is an avenue for personnel across the world to engage with senior leadership on very important issues and for senior leadership to engage back. It’s not an avenue to inform or convey policy to Congress. And we wanted to ensure that we are taking steps to respect and protect the integrity of that channel.
Also, in any information request with a congressional body, there is a natural accommodation and discussion process, and we were engaged deeply in that and continue to be engaged deeply in that.
I will also note that at every turn the State Department has offered legitimate and sufficient steps forward to convey the information that was requested. We have – even before this new Congress was sworn into office, we have understood the importance of legitimate oversight requests and requests for legitimate information on the time period of our evacuation from Afghanistan, but on other foreign policy issues as well. And so we have engaged with Congress on all of those matters in good faith.
QUESTION: And just one more question.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: The concerns that you guys have stated, have pointed to – the sanctity of the dissent cable channel in this building and not wanting to disrupt that – so you believe that the action that you guys are following through with now, providing them this cable without the names, still protects the sanctity of that channel in this building?
MR PATEL: We do. We believe that. We also believe, Kylie – and I want to stress this – that the steps that we had taken previously – a classified briefing, an in-depth written summary of these documents – sufficiently met the mark when it came to their information request as well.
MR PATEL: Anything else on this before we move away?
QUESTION: Yeah, just one more thing on this, and that is Chairman McCaul also wants to see Secretary’s response to the dissent cable. Is that included in this offer, or has – have you guys already turned that over because it is not protected in the same way as the —
MR PATEL: I’ll have to check on the specifics on that, Matt, but we can get back to you on that piece. Anything else on this before we move away?
Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have a couple of questions on the Palestinian issue and one question on Syria.
MR PATEL: Sure.
[]QUESTION: There’s apparently very severe restrictions imposed by the Israeli foreign ministry on the entry of foreign nationals, including Palestinians, and – per the reform that was introduced back in 2020. So I know that you talked from this podium on this issue before, but is this is something that you raise with Israelis while discussing the waiver issue?
MR PATEL: Of course, Said. We engage with the Israelis on a number of issues, including this one, and we engage with them on these procedures that I know you’ve asked me about before that were unveiled, I believe, in the fall that, as you know, impact the entry, the study, and the work, and residence of potentially thousands of people to and in the West Bank. Our view is that we seek equal treatment and freedom of travel for all U.S. citizens regardless of national origin, religion, or ethnicity, including, of course, Palestinian Americans seeking to enter or transit through Israel. And we fully expect the Government of Israel to ensure transparency as well as fair and equal treatment for other foreign nationals traveling to and in the West Bank.
QUESTION: Thank you. I know I asked you about the march yesterday. But in view of what the prime minister said apparently in a TV interview a couple days ago, that they will continue their assassination and – I mean, he said those words – and that we will assassinate anyone who disrupts the march, and so on. I mean, it’s – it is really a very volatile issue. Are you more concerned today than you were yesterday?
MR PATEL: I’ve not seen those comments specifically, Said, so I’m not going to comment on those themselves. But what I will say generally is that – you heard me say this yesterday – we are urging all parties to maintain calm, to exercise restraint, and to refrain from actions or activities or rhetoric that would escalate tensions.
QUESTION: And lastly, let me ask you on Syria, if I may.
MR PATEL: Sure.
[]QUESTION: Okay. There were reports that the U.S. and Syria are engaged in some sort of negotiation in Oman. First, is this true? Can you confirm that? And did these – that these talks are ongoing, they took place in the past? And what was the nature of these talks? What did they include?
MR PATEL: Let me say a couple things to that, Said. As you’ve heard me say before, the U.S. is willing to engage with anyone who can help secure progress toward the release of U.S. nationals. In order to protect any avenues of progress, I’m not going to get into specific details, but broadly speaking, we are engaging extensively across the board to try and get Austin Tice home, and we have pursued every channel we can to seek his safe return to his family and will continue to do so. And that of course includes discussing this case with a number of countries in the region. And we will keep working until we see his safe returned in the United States. As President Biden and Secretary Blinken have said, we are not ceasing our efforts to find Austin Tice and to bring him home.
QUESTION: So these talks are ongoing now or —
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into further specifics, Said.
QUESTION: On Syria, Vedant?
MR PATEL: Let me get to Michele, then I’ll come to you, Alex. Go ahead. Go ahead, Michele.
QUESTION: Now it’s confirmed that President Assad will attend the Arab Summit after tomorrow in Jeddah. What’s your reaction to that, and how do you feel about that?
MR PATEL: Well, Michele, you saw the Secretary speak to this last week when he was standing with his counterpart, Foreign Secretary Cleverly. I’ll just echo his words. We do not believe that Syria merits readmission to the Arab League, and it’s a point that we have raised directly with our regional partners, with our partners in the Arab world. And – but ultimately, these are their own decisions that they’ll make. But our position is clear – we are not going to normalize relations with the Assad regime, and we certainly don’t support others doing that as well.
That being said, we know that we share a lot of the same goals as our Arab partners, and while the ways of going about to do that may differ, our objectives remain the same – and that is finding a resolution to this crisis in a way that is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254; expanding humanitarian access to all Syrians; building the security and stability and infrastructure needed to ensure that ISIS cannot resurge in the region; creating the appropriate conditions required for the eventual refugee returns; as well as countering Captagon trafficking taking place in Syria; as well as steps that can be taken to reduce the malign influence from the Iranian regime.
We are aligned with our Arab partners on all of these things and we’ll continue to work those lines of efforts. The ways in which we go about them may differ, but our objectives are aligned.
QUESTION: I have two more. One on Russia and Iran —
MR PATEL: Sure.
[]QUESTION: — who signed the rail deal today for a corridor intended to rival the Suez Canal and prevent sanctions. How do you view this project?
MR PATEL: Any steps or any project being undertaken to go around sanctions is something that we of course would find deeply concerning. I don’t have an assessment to make on this specific project, but there is a reason that we enforce such a strict sanctions regime, and any efforts to go around those would be of immense concern to us.
[]QUESTION: And one more on Deputy Secretary Sherman’s meeting today with Israeli director general of the ministry of foreign affairs. Did they discuss expanding the Abraham Accords, and are you hopeful that you will be able to expand these accords?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics about the meeting to share right now. Of course, though we talk with our Israeli partners on a number of issues, we know that normalization is something that is not just important to us; it’s important to our Israeli partners. So I have no doubt it was a piece that was discussed, but I don’t have any specific metrics to offer.
Alex, and then I’ll come back to you, Humeyra. Go ahead. Alex, go ahead.
[]QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Russia – moving to Russia if you don’t mind.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: You spoke about Austin Tice. I want to ask about Evan as well, because today marks a depressing 50 days since his arrest for doing his job. I want to give you a chance to update us on what’s going on about his case, around his case. Also, Lavrov today seemed to be mocking the U.S. efforts, saying that they sometimes give us a call and raise his case. Is there anything more than just sometimes making the call to Moscow you guys have been doing?
MR PATEL: Of course. We are deeply engaged in this, Alex, and the work to secure the release of both Evan and Paul is ongoing. I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of a negotiation in progress, but we engage broadly with partners around the world to discuss wrongful detention cases, and in some cases look to their assistance and steps that we can collectively take to lead to a release. We continue to work aggressively using every means to bring home all U.S. nationals that are wrongfully detained or held hostage, and our view, again, is that Russia should immediately release Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, but beyond that there is a responsibility here consistent with the consular conventions that we have in place with the Russian Federation that they need to be offered consistent and regular consular access as well.
QUESTION: Yesterday the Secretary did not rule out designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. I was wondering if there’s any serious effort going on in this building beyond what the Secretary said.
MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on those – on any policy designation, Alex. As you’ve heard us say before, the work to specifically designate a country is a robust policy process and I don’t have any updates to offer on that. But of course there is pretty significant public reporting out there that a specific state sponsor of terror designation for Russia would significantly impact the ability for a number of NGOs and nonprofit organizations to operate in the region, so we of course are incredibly mindful of that.
That being said, what we call and what we designate a country in this situation is a little besides the point, and what is more important is the actions that the U.S. Government is taking. And when you look at the actions that we’ve taken, we have clearly and consistently since even before February 2022 offered security assistance to our Ukrainian partners so that they can defend themselves, defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty. We have taken steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable through sanctions, export controls, and other measures that we’re seeing has a clear impact on the Russian economy. Multinational corporations are leaving Russia, choosing not to do business anymore. We are seeing clear public reporting of the Russian economy shrinking. So we know that our actions are taking effect and having a real impact, and we’ll continue to do so.
I’m going to —
QUESTION: But SST designation is not off the table? That’s what —
MR PATEL: I just don’t have any update to offer on that.
QUESTION: So lastly on Ukraine, (inaudible) —
MR PATEL: I’m going to go to Humeyra – okay, go ahead. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Oh, my – sorry for that. You mentioned your thanks to the Turkish president. You also mentioned that the Secretary said we should not do that every couple of weeks. My question is, what are you guys doing to make sure that this is not – we are not back to the zero point again two months from now?
MR PATEL: Of course, on the Black Sea Grain Initiative, we think it’s really important that it was extended. We have long taken issue with Russia’s efforts to not just undermine the deal but also Russia’s efforts to weaponize hunger and weaponize food insecurity. And so this is of course something we welcome that it was extended, but it shouldn’t have been needed in the first place. And broadly, we’ll continue to work every channel that we can in conjunction with the UN and our Turkish partners to make sure that it’s extended for as long as it’s needed. We’ll also continue to take steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable when needed.
Humeyra, go ahead.
[]QUESTION: Vedant, since the President had to cancel his visit to PNG yesterday, there was a lot of disappointment. They had declared Monday a public holiday in honor of his arrival. So I’m wondering if the Secretary or anyone else from the administration is going to go to PNG? What are the plans? And there was quite a lot of commentary out there that it’s a blow to U.S. credibility in the region. It’s a consistent partner. Obviously, debt ceiling would have global repercussions. But can you talk a little bit about sort of U.S. commitment to the region to offset these concerns?
MR PATEL: Sure. Sure. Absolutely. So first to – let me just say I don’t have any additional or follow-on travel to offer in terms of scheduling at this point, but should we have any updates, we, of course, will let you all know. On Australia, the President spoke to Prime Minister Albanese yesterday to inform him that he will be postponing his trip. And as you know, he’s invited the prime minister for an official state visit at a time to be determined. We’ve also engaged the prime minister of Papua New Guinea to inform them as well.
But broadly, our commitment to the Pacific Islands and to the Indo-Pacific region broadly endures. And that is why we have had robust engagement from the department in this part of the world. Under Secretary John Bass in – I believe 2022 – had the opportunity to break ground on a new – not break ground, open a new embassy in Port Moresby. And so that is just an example of our continued engagement in the region. I know – I don’t want to preview or get ahead of any administration travel, but, of course, I think it’s everyone’s desire to find a way to get some kind of trip back on the books, but I’m certainly not going to preview or get ahead of the process.
QUESTION: So who spoke to the Papua New Guineans?
MR PATEL: I don’t have a specific call sheet for you, Matt, but the administration has been in touch with the prime minister of Papua New Guinea to inform them of the scheduling channels.
QUESTION: Yeah, (inaudible) who called the Australian prime minister. Who did the PNG prime minister get to talk to?
MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Matt, to see if there’s a specific person. But again, I think it’s important to note that —
QUESTION: Do think that there’s not a specific person, that it was like a group thing?
MR PATEL: It’s important to note – (laughter) – Matt, that revitalizing and reinvigorating our alliances and advancing our partnerships —
QUESTION: Yeah, I know, but —
MR PATEL: — with groups like the Quad, with the Pacific Islands —
QUESTION: — if the President of the United States is going to cancel a visit to Australia, and he calls the Australian prime minister, but he’s also going to cancel a visit was going to be a historic visit, as you guys all said, to Papua New Guinea, and you can’t tell us whether the President called the prime minister personally or not, then that’s —
MR PATEL: What I will say is this, Matt, is that we look forward to finding other ways to engage with Australia, the Quad, Papua New Guinea and the leaders of the Pacific Islands very soon. And we hope to have more, but our commitment to the region endures. I know you are no stranger to our work there. Even this year, we have indicated – in the past year and a half, I think, we have indicated a number of places in which we intend to further and enhance and strengthen our diplomatic presence as a commitment —
QUESTION: No, I’m not — I’m not arguing with any of that.
MR PATEL: — to the Pacific Islands. We hosted —
QUESTION: I wanted to know who spoke to the prime minister of Papua New Guinea.
MR PATEL: On the topic of – on the topic of history making, we hosted a historic Pacific Islands Summit here at the State Department just a number of weeks ago. So our commitment to the region endures, Matt, and I don’t have any specifics on calls.
QUESTION: I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t. I just wanted to know who spoke to the prime minister.
MR PATEL: I don’t have – I don’t have any additional details for you right now.
Go ahead in the back because I think you want to ask something on the same topic.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Could you speak on the potential impacts of the cancellation of President Biden’s trip, especially in order to deter China?
MR PATEL: Again, I think I will just reiterate what I said just here. While a trip – I know it would have been everyone’s desire for the trip to continue on in its original format. Sometimes there are external factors out of our control. But that being said, our commitment to the Quad, our commitment to our Australian partners, our commitment to the Pacific Island, all those things do not change. And we are very much looking forward to ways in which we can deepen those partnerships, strengthen those alliances going forward through visits and other mechanisms. But I would point you no further than the work that this department and this administration has already done through its foreign policy, through its diplomacy in the time we’ve already had to strengthen our partnerships and our presence in the Indo-Pacific and Pacific Island region broadly.
Okay. Anything else on this before we move away? Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’ve got a question about Germany, what happened this morning. This morning at the crack of dawn, police raided the house of two Turkish journalists and arrested them in front of their wives and children, even confiscated their laptops, phones, even towed their car. And I also know them personally from back when I was working there. This took place in Germany, an EU member and a NATO Ally. It’s just an awful intimidation and treatment of journalists, would you not say?
MR PATEL: I don’t know the specifics of this case, so I’m just not going to comment on it.
QUESTION: Like, you don’t know the specifics of many cases when it’s press freedom, but, like, you basically don’t have anything to say?
MR PATEL: We – I reject the premise of your question. When we do not have information sufficiently about any specific case, we don’t comment on them. We don’t comment on them. And so that is – this is an issue I would let you speak to local German law enforcement. They can speak to more about this. I’m not familiar with this case; I don’t have anything to offer on that. Broadly, of course, the treatment of journalists and press freedom is something that I, many in this department, including the Secretary, have spoken quite clearly about. But I have nothing additional to add on this.
Go ahead, Olivia.