(AGENPARL) - Roma, 8 Maggio 2023 - (AGENPARL) – lun 08 maggio 2023 You are subscribed to Collected Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
05/08/2023 05:53 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
1:12 p.m. EDT
MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
QUESTION: You’re early.
MR PATEL: I know, I’m telling you.
QUESTION: Three minutes early, it’s a new record.
MR PATEL: Three minutes early. I’m just trying to deliver, picking up what you guys were putting down.
I don’t have anything off the top, so I’m happy to take your questions.
QUESTION: Really?
MR PATEL: Really. You’re always surprised, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, I know. But it’s a Monday, and with stuff happening over the weekend. But okay.
MR PATEL: I have no doubt you’ll ask about it, so –
QUESTION: Well, I’m sure someone will. Can I just ask you if you have anything to add to the comments that were put out earlier under your name on the response to Chairman McCaul on his –
[]MR PATEL: I don’t have anything additional to add, Matt, but I will reiterate what we shared this morning, which is that it’s unfortunate that after being provided a classified briefing and being provided a written summary of the contents of the dissent channel cable as well as the department’s response, that the House Foreign Affairs Committee continues to pursue this. Our viewpoint is that the materials and briefings that we’ve offered and provided have sufficiently met the mark when it comes to the committee’s legitimate oversight request.
Now, that being said, we’ll continue to engage with Congress and the committee when it comes to correspondence and things of that nature. But you’ve heard me say, you’ve heard the Secretary speak about the importance of the dissent channel cable and the integrity to which it holds here in the department, and we’ll continue to do what we can and what we need to to protect it.
QUESTION: Is it your view, or the Secretary’s view or the department’s view, that actually giving them the cable would not add anything to what they already have?
MR PATEL: Matt, what – you’ve heard me speak about this before. This is not just necessarily about this dissent channel cable. It is about the dissent channel writ large.
QUESTION: I know that. But do you think that giving them the cable would give them anything – would give them any additional information that you haven’t already provided?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I’m not going to get into the contents of –
QUESTION: I’m not asking you about the content.
MR PATEL: You – you –
QUESTION: I’m asking you if you think that it would give them any additional information.
MR PATEL: I am just not going to make that assessment from here. It’s a – the dissent channel cable is a classified document.
QUESTION: Well, then, if you can’t make that assessment, if you think that you’ve already given them everything that they need in terms of this cable in both the briefing and the summary form of it, then shouldn’t you be able to say that there is nothing else they could learn from getting the entire thing?
MR PATEL: We have said that. I’ve said that – I’ve said that in the – through the – by saying that we’ve provided a classified briefing as well as we’ve provided a written summary that covers the entirety of the contents of the cable as well as the department’s response.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.
QUESTION: Vedant, I want to ask you about Ambassador Burns’s —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: — meeting. I mean, how useful does the State Department think this meeting was to stabilize U.S.-China relationship?
[]MR PATEL: I’m not going to put a metric on one specific engagement or not, Humeyra. What I will say, though, is that maintaining open lines of communication with the PRC has been a key tenet of our approach as it relates to this very complicated bilateral relationship. You have seen even the Secretary speak about the importance of that even in – after his trip was postponed. You saw him talk about the importance of these open lines of communication remaining open and being used as a way to discuss things that are critical and important to the bilateral relationship. And just as the Secretary does when he speaks to his counterpart, the ambassador spoke in his meeting about the areas where our two countries can cooperate, such as addressing the challenge of the climate crisis, such as addressing cooperation when it comes to global health and public health, as well as important opportunities on food security and other things.
So our belief is that with the PRC, we want to and intend to open – keep lines of communication open. We do that through the Secretary, we do that through Secretary Krittenbrink, we do that through Ambassador Burns, and we do that through a variety of others who are working day in and day out on this issue.
QUESTION: Right. I have a couple more on this. So there is a specific line from the Chinese side saying – it says that the United States must correct its handling of the Taiwan issue, and stop the hollowing out of “one China” principle. I’m curious – what was Ambassador Burns’s response to this, or what’s your response to this? I mean, do you – does the United States see that there is anything for it to correct here?
MR PATEL: There absolutely isn’t, and the ambassador conveyed privately what you’ve seen myself, the Secretary, and others say publicly and clearly, not just from this podium but other corners of this administration. There has been no change to our policy with China. There has been no change to our “one China” policy, which is guided by more than four decades of the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We have been very clear-eyed about that. And we’re also going to continue standing with our friends and allies across the Indo-Pacific to advance our shared prosperity and security and values. There is no – we do not intend to change the status quo. That has never been the approach that the United States has attempted to take.
QUESTION: Right. And was the possible rescheduling of Secretary Blinken’s trip discussed during this meeting? And was there any decision or like, at least, like a tentative date that both sides would plan on?
MR PATEL: I certainly wouldn’t get into the specifics of diplomatic discussions like that. But you heard the Secretary talk about this just last week when he sat down for Washington Post Live. He would like to go. He would like to get this trip back on. And we’ll intend and work to do so when conditions allow. But I don’t have any additional updates beyond that.
Nike, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Also staying on China, if I may.
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: China is sending a peace envoy to Ukraine, other countries. Can you provide the U.S. assessments on the latest diplomatic effort?
[]MR PATEL: What I would say is that any diplomatic effort relating to a peace between Russia and Ukraine needs to be undertaken and conducted in close coordination with our Ukrainian partners. We’ve long felt and long believed that the PRC has an appropriate role they can play, and we also strongly believe that the PRC needs to hear not just from the Russians but also from our Ukrainian partners. The PRC – for any country that – belief that territorial integrity and territorial sovereignty are important values and important principles to be governed by, it is critically important to be in close coordination and to hear from our Ukrainian partners, who have been subject to barbaric and unjust and unlawful invasions and attacks since February of 2022.
QUESTION: Given the special – the close ties between the Chinese envoy to Russia – he is among the very few foreigners that received the friend – medal of friend – friend-ness from Russian President Putin – do you have any assessment on the neutrality?
MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment. But in any – through this lens of Russia and Ukraine, the important perspective to remember is that actions from any country are going to speak louder than words. And I’ll reiterate again that any undertaking of diplomacy by any country needs to happen in close coordination with our Ukrainian partners. The terms of diplomacy and the terms of these negotiations, or of any negotiations, and the path forward is for our Ukrainian partners for – to decide. It is their country that is being invaded. It is their country that’s being subjugated to Russian drones and missiles and attacks on a week-by-week basis.
So we’ll continue to support our Ukrainian partners. You saw us announce another presidential drawdown late last week. We’ll also continue to take steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable.
Janne, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On the contaminated water in Fukushima, Japan. What is the position of the United States regarding the release of contaminated water in Fukushima, Japan?
[]MR PATEL: I’d have to check on that, Janne. I’m not tracking that. But I can check with the team and see if we can get back to you.
QUESTION: One more.
MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: South Korea and United States and Japan cooperation will be more effective if Korea-Japan relations are stronger in order to respond to North Korean nuclear issue. But the public opinion of the Korean people is that Japan should not give indulgence to Japan’s brutal act, such as forced labor of South Koreans in the past. How does the United States evaluate this?
[]MR PATEL: Janne, what I’ll say is that we welcomed the news from this past week that the Japan-ROK summit took place, and we commend Prime Minister Kishida and President Yoon for their leadership. This is an important new chapter and a new beginning for our alliance partners, and an example of real leadership. This produced new momentum between like-minded countries that respect rule of law and are equally committed and share commitment to advancing peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region. And we’ll continue to work with – through the alliance, with the ROK and Japan and other partners, to advance these interests as well.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Follow-up to Ambassador Burns —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: Follow to – up – his meeting. So Ambassador Burns, last week he called for cabinet-level talk to be reopened between United States and China, and then we saw this meeting just took place today. Do you see this as a sign that the United States and China will reopen the high-level leadership conversation?
[]MR PATEL: We believe that there are important areas of potential cooperation between our two countries, like in areas of climate change, like in areas of food security, as well as global health. There’s also important work to collaborate on addressing the precursors for the fentanyl crisis. So there’s a number of areas where we believe it will benefit the both of our countries to continue to communicate, and our intention has always been to maintain lines of communication with the PRC.
QUESTION: We know there are other secretary, like secretary of treasury, secretary of commerce, who also – they are willing to visit China. Is there going to be a sequence, of which Secretary will go first?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to any potential cabinet travel. What I will say is that I will reiterate what Secretary Blinken said so clearly last week, is that he intends to go, and he intends to go as soon as conditions allow and we’re able to get that trip back on the books.
QUESTION: Lastly —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: — this wasn’t the first time Ambassador Burns meet with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang. They had met before when he was an ambassador to the United States. So how do you characterize this second meeting between both of them?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to characterize this meeting any further than what I’ve said. What I will say is that we maintain important lines of communication with a number of officials across the PRC. Obviously, that will relate to the respective individual and who their appropriate counterpart was. As you know, when Secretary Blinken was Secretary and, obviously, when Foreign Minister Qin Gang was ambassador to the United States, they had a number of opportunities to engage as well. But the important thing here is that we would like there to continue to be open lines of communication between our two countries.
Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Oh, certainly. And I’ll come to you after. Go ahead, Alex.
QUESTION: A couple questions. Let me start with Ukraine. Last night was the heaviest – most intense, I would say – drone attack on Kyiv since early this year. Do you have any reaction to the fact the Russians are shifting and retargeting Kyiv again?
[]MR PATEL: What I will say, Alex, is that this is just another line item in the litany of list of Russian aggression on Ukraine. You saw me speak to this a little bit last week, but there was an instant in which Kyiv and Ukraine were subject to numerous missiles and drones. And this kind of action and activity is just unacceptable and another example of Russian aggression.
QUESTION: The latest – last couple of days, let’s say – have they changed your calculus on Wagner, the fact that they announced they’re going to leave and they stayed to – probably to spin our heads about their tactics? Has there been any change in terms of recognizing Wagner Group as a terrorist group, as it is?
MR PATEL: We have – as you know, Alex, we have designated Wagner, the Wagner Group, as a transnational threat group that – we’ve previously done that – because we continue to believe that the group is largely motivated by profit, not motivated by fame or some of these other things that are made when assessments are happening for a potential FTO designation. What I will also say is that we know that the Wagner Group, when they are active in a country, that country is less stable, less secure. It often finds its natural resources and minerals exploited upon.
But the important thing to remember here, Alex, is that this conflict has not gone to plan according to Putin. The Russian Federation has had to scrape around for additional personnel for this conflict. Now they are relying on the Wagner Group and its band of ex-convicts to do much of this work. And rather for Putin to withdraw from Ukraine and stop the needless loss of life, the Russian Federation has chosen time and time again to escalate. And this – unfortunately we are seeing that wreak havoc across Ukraine, including on Kyiv, as you so mentioned.
So the United States will continue to take steps to support our Ukrainian partners – as I said, we announced a drawdown late last week – and we’ll continue to take steps to hold the Russian Federation accountable.
Jackson, go ahead.
QUESTION: I have two more – please come back to me.
MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. Actually, let me go to Leon, who’s had his hand up, Jackson, and then I’ll come to you.
Leon, I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah – no problem. This is onto Saudi Arabia. So the National Security Advisor, of course, was there this weekend – sorry, last week. And I was wondering, the readout of – from the White House, of course, mentions the help of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, with the troops in Yemen; of course, in Sudan, for the evacuation. It doesn’t mention any other subjects – for example, human rights or what have you. We’re a far cry from a couple of months ago, where the President was saying there would be consequences and re-examination of the relations with Saudi. So where do we stand now? Is everything good with Saudi Arabia right now?
[]MR PATEL: Leon, what I will say and what you’ve heard me say before is that we have a multiplicity of interests as it relates to our relationship with Saudi Arabia. There are a number of factors at play and they’ve also been an integral partner in a number of endeavors, including, as recently, they’ve played an immense role in welcoming American citizens who are seeking safety from Sudan. They also played a role in facilitating these ongoing initial negotiations between the SAF and the RSF.
But beyond that, Leon, we do have a multiplicity of interests, whether they be a security interest, an economic interest. I will also note that we have nearly 80,000 American citizens living in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And so our bilateral relationship and the avenues that we choose to pursue and the areas that we choose to focus on keeps those individuals in mind, as well as their safety and security.
QUESTION: So precisely given the fact that there are 80,000 Americans in Saudi Arabia, given the fact that Saudi is helping out – has helped out and is – in Sudan, for the evacuation of American citizens – and in Yemen and all there, is – are your hands tied precisely because of that?
MR PATEL: Our —
QUESTION: To deal with other issues with Saudi Arabia, which there are?
MR PATEL: We can walk and chew gum. When there are areas of concerns between any partner, we raise them and we discuss them privately. We raise them in appropriate diplomatic channels. But what I will say again is that Saudi Arabia has been an important partner on a number of fronts, including welcoming American citizens from Sudan, as well as welcoming these talks. They also have played an integral role in the peace and stability and security of the region as well, and have taken appropriate steps in the conflict with Yemen also. And so they – we’ll continue to work with them on a number of these issues.
QUESTION: Okay, just one follow-up —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: — and then I’ll finish. By sending Jake Sullivan to Riyadh this weekend, what – after several months where there were really not so many back and forths, what is the message you’re sending right now? Are you – is it back to normal with Saudi Arabia?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak for the White House from here, Leon, but the message is the same message that we have said all along, is that Saudi Arabia is an important partner in the region of which the United States has a multiplicity of interests in front of, whether they be security interests, trade interests. I’ll also note that Saudi Arabia has played an important role in conflicts like Sudan, in the crisis in Yemen. They’ve also played an important role in – when the President visited in June through steps like the welcoming of flights from Israel and other places. So this is of course something that we’re going to continue to engage on.
Michel, go ahead.
QUESTION: On this, were you able to make any progress regarding the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and will Jake make any progress —
MR PATEL: I don’t have anything additional to add beyond the White House’s readout, but of course this is something that is not just important to the United States but it’s important to the region and it’s something that we’ll continue to focus on as well.
QUESTION: And on Arab League decision yesterday —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — to bring Syria back to its council, what’s your view on that?
[]MR PATEL: You’ve heard me talk about this last week, Michel. We do not believe that Syria merits readmission to the Arab League at this time, and it’s a point that we’ve made clear with all of our partners. I will note that we share a number of the same goals with our Arab partners with respect to Syria, including reaching a solution to the Syrian crisis that is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. []We believe that there is a strong need to expand humanitarian access to all Syrians, build security and stability to ensure ISIS cannot resurge, create safe conditions for the eventual refugee returns, and releasing the – clarifying fate of those that are unjustly detained and missing, as well as there’s an important opportunity to reduce the influence of Iran as well, as well as countering the Captagon trafficking that’s taking place from Syria.
So there is a number of issues in which we believe that our partners will use direct engagement with the Assad regime to further and push and demand in these issue areas.
QUESTION: The Jordanian foreign minister has said last week that Jordan and the Arab countries coordinated their initiative with the U.S. before they put it on the table. Can you confirm that? Did you give any green light to the Arab countries to move forward with their normalization with Syria?
MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of diplomatic discussions, Michel, but I just said that we have made clear to all of our partners that Syria does not merit readmission into the Arab League, and we continue to believe that we will not normalize our relations with the Assad regime and we don’t support our allies and partners doing so either.
QUESTION: Final one on the strike that targeted a drug dealer in Syria today and killed – killed him and his family. Do you have any reaction?
MR PATEL: I’ve seen those reports, Michel, but I don’t have any confirmation or assessment to offer on that from here.
Jackson, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So regarding the calls, right, to hold Secretary Blinken in contempt of Congress, could the State Department provide a version of the cable that redacts confidential material or whatever may compromise sources of methods? Is the State Department prepared to – or prepared or willing to fight the subpoena in litigation?
[]MR PATEL: We’re going to continue to engage with Congress appropriately as it relates to their legitimate requests for information and oversight function, but we also have already provided a classified briefing as well as a summary of the dissent channel cable as well as a summary of the department’s response. And so we feel that that has sufficiently conveyed appropriate information.
QUESTION: And ahead of Title 42 expiring this week, is the State Department prepared to do its part in what will likely be a huge influx of asylum seekers?
[]MR PATEL: Well, you saw Secretary Blinken and Secretary Mayorkas speak to this last week or the week before, where you saw us announce a number of lines of effort that the State Department is undertaking in coordination with regional partners, in coordination with, of course, the Department of Homeland Security – actions like Regional Processing Centers and ensuring that relevant legal pathways for illegal migrants are on the table. And so we’ll continue to work in close coordination to do that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR PATEL: Camilla, go ahead. Go ahead, Camilla.