(C) U.S. State Dept This story was originally published by U.S. State Dept and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Department Press Briefing – May 16, 2024 [1] [] Date: 2024-05 1:04 p.m. EDT MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. QUESTION: Good afternoon. QUESTION: Good afternoon, Vedant. MR PATEL: I have one very brief thing at the top, and then I’m happy to dive right into questions. So let’s start with an update to the humanitarian response in Gaza and our efforts to move aid via the humanitarian maritime corridor. The temporary pier is now in place and affixed, and we expect assistance to flow through this route in the coming days. The temporary pier – part of the humanitarian maritime corridor – is additive to the other routes and will assist humanitarian organizations providing lifesaving assistance. Aid is arriving in Cyprus. It will be screened for loading onto ships for delivery to Gaza, where humanitarian organizations, including trusted USAID and U.S. Government partners, will determine how to ensure they reach those in need, accordance to humanitarian principles. Although this is a new mechanism of assistance for Gaza, more, of course, must be done. Humanitarian conditions on the ground continue to deteriorate, and vital border crossings have closed at a time when moving more aid is critical. We are working tirelessly to surge assistance through all available means to address the impacts of this crisis. That’s why the U.S. established a humanitarian maritime corridor – to augment, not replace, ongoing efforts to scale the delivery of humanitarian aid by land. So let me be clear – we continue to press for all border crossings to be open for overland deliveries of aid. But more must be done to address the scale of need. We have and will continue to press Israel and other partners in the region to allow for – to ensure the safety of humanitarian actors and activities, open additional land crossings, and remove impediments to the delivery of humanitarian aid, and do more to make sure that aid can get to the places that it needs to go. So with that, Shaun, do you want to kick us off? QUESTION: Sure. Let me start with the pier. MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: The UN – your counterpart at the UN was saying today that they’re still looking operationally in terms of how to deliver the aid, that there are concerns about safety, about the logistics – I’m paraphrasing – of particularly of the UN workers there in Gaza even if aid comes off the pier. Do you think these can be sorted out? I mean, I know that the pier was anchored today, but are you confident that delivery can actually happen and those issues will be sorted out? MR PATEL: Absolutely. So we intend to work with the totality of the UN family to make sure that aid can get to where it needs to go. Specifically, Shaun, after the commodities are ashore, the UN, through the Logistics Cluster, will receive the aid for humanitarian organizations, including ones that I just said, that are trusted partners of the U.S. Government to distribute aid inside Gaza. QUESTION: But you think they do have those safety assurances, that they’re ready to go as far as the U.S. is concerned? MR PATEL: We’re continuing to have those conversations. From our point of view, we believe that this is ready to go and for aid to start flowing as soon as possible. QUESTION: And on a similar note, Rafah, of course – and I know you – you spoke of opening — MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: — the Rafah crossing, and you spoke about opening further crossings. Prime Minister Netanyahu – I think it was yesterday – had some choice words for Egypt and that Egypt needs to act to open it. Egypt and – also has responded quite forcefully, saying that basically truck drivers don’t really want to go essentially through an Israeli checkpoint to get in. How confident are you that these issues get resolved? Is the U.S. trying to do anything to solve this? MR PATEL: Well, we’re certainly confident that they can be resolved, because they have been resolved at various instances over the course of this conflict. The U.S. supports Israel’s right to defend itself and support taking every feasible measure to protect civilians. We are – continue to be concerned that travel and the flow of fuel, of aid into Gaza via Rafah has come to a complete halt. But we are continuing to work with the Government of Egypt, with the Government of Israel to do everything we can to make sure that this gets open as soon as possible. You’ve heard me talk a little bit about this before, that there are, of course, legitimate security and operational concerns that are legitimate, and we’re continuing to work through those processes. QUESTION: And do you – I mean, basically do you think – do you agree that Egypt should just open it up? Or do you think it’s more complicated than that? Or is there any work that needs to be done? MR PATEL: Obviously, Shaun, it is more complicated than just a simple they should just open it up. But this is something that we’re continuing to work directly with our partners in Egypt and our partners in Israel. There are, obviously, legitimate issues that need to be ironed out. The important thing is – and this is something we know that our partners in Israel and our partners in Egypt understand – Rafah is an important conduit for aid, for fuel. And for every day that it is closed that is aid and fuel not getting in through that conduit. QUESTION: Just one more. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: I’ll pass it on. But just wondering if you have any reaction to the Arab League emergency meeting, their two main takeaways. One, they want a regional summit or the peace conference on what’s going on now, and also speaking of UN-backed peacekeepers in the Palestinian territories. MR PATEL: So let me say a couple things on that, Shaun. First, in terms of any summit, I don’t have anything to offer there, beyond saying this is something that we have engaged in regularly with our partners in the Arab world. You all are abreast of the engagements that the Secretary has, both in person as well the engagements he has over the phone. We’ll continue to talk directly with our partners in the Arab world. And as it relates to any security or peacekeeping force, we have, first and foremost, been focused on bringing a conclusion to this conflict. We have been having conversations with partners in the region about a post-conflict Gaza early on in this conflict. We’ve begun those conversations. Many partners, both in and out of the Arab world, share our concerns and share a willingness to play a constructive role when conditions allow. But there is a convergence on – among many of them that we need to see this conflict end, we need to see a ceasefire, we need to see hostages released, we need to see more humanitarian aid getting in, and we need to see the space for the diplomacy to happen to get us on a path for a Palestinian state and see some progress for the Palestinian people. So we’re going to work through that process first. QUESTION: On this, Vedant, if you don’t mind — MR PATEL: Go ahead, Michel. I’ll come to you after. QUESTION: — but can you give us a more clearer answer if you support the deployment of UN forces in Gaza until the implementation of the two-state solution that the Arab summit called for today? MR PATEL: So we’ve seen the statement that’s coming out of the Arab summit. I just don’t have a conclusive assessment to offer yet, Michel. QUESTION: In general, do you support such deployment? MR PATEL: So, look, we – this is a – this is something that we know that Israel is focused on in working defeat Hamas. Candidly, the addition of additional security forces could potentially put that mission into compromise. But, again, I don’t want to get ahead of the process here. And we’re just now seeing what the statement that’s come out of this summit. Daphne, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you. Martin Griffiths warned today that famine was an immediate risk in Gaza with food stocks running out, said the humanitarian operation was completely stuck, the relief operation was unplannable, and said that the consequences of an operation in Rafah that everyone warned about are coming true. Do you agree with that assessment? MR PATEL: So we are deeply concerned about the reports indicating worsening conditions and imminent famine in Gaza. Israel needs to do more to urgently provide sustained and unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance to enter both northern and southern Gaza, including facilitating efforts to get the right type of assistance to the most vulnerable. We have been very clear about our position on a major military operation in Rafah. While we, of course, support Israel’s right to defend itself, we believe a major military operation in Rafah would be a mistake. We have not seen that happen yet, but we’re very concerned about an expanded operation in Rafah and what it could do to contributing towards the worsening humanitarian crisis. So we’ve – are going to continue to engage with our partners in Israel on this, discuss with them alternatives and other avenues, and we’ll continue to have that conversation. QUESTION: And do you have an updated number on aid trucks getting into Gaza? MR PATEL: So 228 trucks crossed into Gaza on May 15th, including 136 trucks from Jordan and Israel through Kerem Shalom and 92 trucks through Erez west. Additionally, the World Food Programme collected 55, 56 – sorry – 56 trucks worth of wheat flour at Erez west on May 15th. QUESTION: And then do you have any update on the group of American citizens who are doctors and medical professionals that had been stuck in Gaza since the closing of Rafah? MR PATEL: So we are – continue to be aware of the reports of U.S. citizen doctors currently unable to leave Gaza. We, of course, continue to be concerned about their safety and well-being as we are the safety and well-being of all U.S. citizens in Gaza. As you’ve heard me say, this is a very complex situation. This is not a border crossing – specifically, the Rafah one – it is not one that the United States controls, but we are actively engaged with the relevant authorities to advocate for their safe departure from Gaza. We’re continuing to have those conversations. We’re in direct touch with these doctors and the group that they are apart, as well as their families. Olivia. QUESTION: On the humanitarian front — MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: — I just want to re-pose this question, given your exchange just now with Daphne. I mean, it was a few days after the World Central Kitchen strike on April 1st. Both the President and the Secretary have said that a change in U.S. policy would come if Israel didn’t improve the humanitarian aid front. So it’s a month and a half later. Are there any consequences being thought about, considered by the administration, specifically in response to the humanitarian aid problem? MR PATEL: Well, Olivia, I think it’s important to remember – and you were here when Ambassador Satterfield came to this briefing. Actually, I’m not sure you were here. QUESTION: I was not here. Wait a minute — MR PATEL: You were not here. You were in Capri having a blast — QUESTION: Oh, yeah. Sure. (Laughter.) MR PATEL: — with the rest of the bullpen. When Ambassador Satterfield was here, he spoke about the progress that we have seen, did see in that time period when it came to sustained humanitarian assistance. There, of course, has been a bit of a regression, given in large part due to some of the kinetic activity that we have seen around Kerem Shalom, kinetic activity that we’ve seen around the Rafah border crossing. And that is understandable. But simultaneously, we continue to press and engage directly with the Egyptians, with the Israelis that we need to do everything we can to turn these border crossings on so that more sustained humanitarian aid can get into Gaza. And should we not see sustained progress, the President and the Secretary were quite clear, and that statement continues to ring true. QUESTION: Okay. I mean, just underscoring the fact that it was a month and a half ago – I understand there were some progress, but there was — MR PATEL: There was progress. QUESTION: There was nothing sustained. MR PATEL: There was progress. And, again, it – because of – largely because of kinetic activity from Hamas, in fact, we have seen some of these border crossings unfortunately close. And we are working around the clock with our partners in Israel, with our partners in Egypt as it relates to the Rafah one especially, to do everything we can to turn those back on. QUESTION: But there’s no timeline or deadline that you are working with – MR PATEL: There was not a timeline or a deadline when we spoke – when we spoke about this at the beginning of April. This is a frank and direct – QUESTION: I think the word was “immediate” from — MR PATEL: This is a frank and direct conversation that we’ll continue to have with our partners in Israel, and we want to continue to see immediate and sustained flow. I obviously was able to provide some metrics here; we are seeing some positive steps in the right direction. The cooperation from a number of regional partners as it relates to the maritime corridor will, of course, be a positive step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more, and we intend to raise that if we don’t. QUESTION: Tangential but related, because the President and Secretary also stressed the importance of establishing a better deconfliction mechanism. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: So where do Israel’s efforts on that stand, as you understand them? MR PATEL: So I spoke a little bit about this the other day. This is something we continue to need to see from our partners in Israel. It is critical that a cell is established to improve deconfliction when that is reflective of enabling open and transparent communication channels between the IDF and other humanitarian partners. And that is something that we’re going to continue to press them on. QUESTION: So just to be crystal clear, a deconfliction cell within the IDF does not currently exist? MR PATEL: So — QUESTION: Because we have pictures of Jack Lew getting a tour of something. MR PATEL: There has been progress in some of those spaces, but we still need to see more. And I’m happy to see if we have a breakdown of what exists currently and what doesn’t. And in fact, the IDF might be better suited to speak to efforts that they have in place versus not. QUESTION: I have one more with your and the press corps’ indulgence, just because the Secretary said yesterday that it was imperative that Israel come up with a clear and credible plan for post-war Gaza. Obviously, you’ve seen comments from the prime minister. In response to those, do you have any indication that the current Israeli Government – apart from the defense minister – is interested in crafting such a plan? MR PATEL: So whether there is a interest in crafting a plan or not, I will let it to our partners in Israel to speak to. What we know and what we feel ardently in the United States is that short of a plan that is reflective of a political process, that is reflective of a Gaza that is no longer under the control of Hamas and reunited under the Palestinian Authority, that is reflective of a Gaza that can no longer be used as a springboard for terrorism on the Israeli people, that we’re going to continue to be caught in this endless cycle of violence. And so that is exactly why Secretary Blinken has continued to engage in direct diplomacy with partners in Israel, with partners in other parts of the world, to get us onto that process to do everything possible to get us a ceasefire so conditions can be created for further diplomacy to happen to get us on a path to a two-state solution. Outside of that – outside of that, we will continue to find ourselves in this endless cycle of violence. Of course, we need military pressure to defeat Hamas, but there also needs to be a political process that is reflective of the broader concerns here. Yeah. Janne, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On China and Russia, regarding the summit meeting between China and Russia, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin said in a statement from the summit that they oppose pressure on North Korea by the U.S. and its allies. How will expectation about influence change as China and Russia defend North Korea? MR PATEL: We’ve long felt that Russia and the PRC have a role to play in helping rein in and engage the DPRK when it comes to their provocative and reckless and malign and destabilizing behavior. We believe that Russia and the PRC have the capabilities and the channels and the relationships with the DPRK to do that directly through their own bilateral relationship, but also through multilateral fora like the Security Council as well. QUESTION: If Putin visit North Korea after his visit to China, the solidarity between North Korea and China and Russia will be further strengthened. How do you assess this? MR PATEL: So I don’t think it’s about the solidarity between the DPRK and the Russia being further strengthened or not. We know that the DPRK has and continues to provide material support to the Russian Federation for their aggression in Ukraine. And so we continue to condemn that kind of action, and we’ll continue to take appropriate action to hold actors accountable. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Can I just ask a little bit more broadly about that? MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: About Putin and Xi? MR PATEL: Yeah, absolutely. QUESTION: What would you think of it? I mean, was there anything new? I mean, obviously they had met right before the war, maybe after. But what do you – do you see anything new about that? And in particular when it comes to Ukraine, President Xi made some talk about they don’t want escalation, et cetera. Do you see anything new there? How do you see this – this coming from — MR PATEL: So let me say a couple things, Shaun. First is that the People’s Republic of China cannot have its cake and eat it too. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t want to have good, further, stronger, deepened relationships with Europe and other countries while simultaneously continuing to fuel the biggest threat to European security in a long time. And the importance of this is not just a U.S. position; it is one that is shared by our partners in the G7, our partners at NATO, our partners in the EU. Fueling Russia’s defense industrial base, as the People’s Republic of China has, not only threatens Ukrainian security, it threatens European security, and Beijing can’t achieve better relations with Europe while also continuing to support something like that. I will often say that in just coming – coming down I saw something as it relates to what looked like a joint statement or some language coming out of this meeting that talked about, as you mentioned, concerns about de-escalation – sorry, concerns about escalation, wanting some kind of peace process or political solution to the conflict in Ukraine. From our point of view, the solution is simple: The Russian Federation can just leave Ukraine. It can leave the territories that it’s in in Ukraine, it can leave Crimea, and we’ll have our peaceful solution. But time and time and time again, President Putin and the Russian Federation has indicated that they are not interested in doing that. Go ahead, Anne. QUESTION: So if I could back to the aid workers, the medical workers in Gaza. MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: You had mentioned that we don’t control the Rafah border crossing; that’s what’s complicated it. But Israel does control Kerem Shalom. Why can these workers not leave Kerem Shalom and Israel allow other aid workers in to replace them? Is the complication on Israel’s side or is it on our side, or — MR PATEL: It’s – first, it’s a complicated situation writ large. QUESTION: What are the complications? MR PATEL: There are varying factors that go into where foreign nationals can depart from Gaza or not. Kerem Shalom is also not a border crossing that the United States controls. But we are engaging and advocating directly with our partners in Israel, with our partners in Egypt, for their safe departure, and that continues to be around-the-clock effort. And I don’t – I’m not going to speak to it in more specificity – one, for privacy reasons, but also given security sensitivities as well. QUESTION: Okay. But if I could follow up to what Olivia was asking as well, is three weeks ago we had Ambassador Satterfield here saying we need to start doing more than just counting trucks. We’re still counting trucks. What is the consequence for not allowing medical aid workers in, which I would equate with humanitarian aid? MR PATEL: It absolutely is. We have been clear that humanitarian aid workers need to have access to Gaza to do the important work that they’re doing, whether it be medical or otherwise, or whether it be direct humanitarian workers who are directly involved in the flow of humanitarian aid. That continues to be the case here. It’s also important to remember that we are talking about American citizens. We’re also talking about this in the context of a consular issue. And so while it is great that they are humanitarian aid workers doing important work, they are American citizens also; they’re American citizen first. And so we’re talking about a consular issue and doing everything we can to make sure that we can get them to safety. That being said, we continue to believe that those working in this field of humanitarian aid and humanitarian issues need to have unimpeded access to do this important work. Rabia, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you. Following up on these humanitarian aid questions in Gaza, so in the NSM report you say that Israel is not deliberately – deliberately restricting aid, but you also say today, like, you continue to press Israel to allow entry of more humanitarian aid into Gaza. So if Israel is not restricting aid, then what prevents Israel from allowing more aid in to Gaza – to do land crossings, considering that these land crossings are under Israeli control? MR PATEL: So Rabia, there are, of course, legitimate logistical concerns and legitimate security challenges that sometimes need to be worked through. Let’s remember that one of the reasons that the aid was throttled from Kerem Shalom last week was because of kinetic activity from Hamas, Hamas attacking Kerem Shalom and the surrounding region. So there are some of these legitimate security concerns that we need to work through. We – Israel has every right to its security and to ensure that the aid that is flowing within Gaza is flowing in a secure way, in a way that does not compromise their security further. We’re continuing to work with them through these processes. But that being said, we have been explicit that more needs to be done to augment humanitarian aid efforts, especially through these land crossings. QUESTION: So Israel – Israeli is not doing enough, but you still think that they are not deliberately restricting the aid? MR PATEL: So I think I was pretty clear when I think you asked this question just the other day, which is that more absolutely can be done to enhance the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, but we have not seen any restriction or stoppage of humanitarian aid by Israel. Aid is flowing into Gaza. I just gave your colleague some metrics about aid that has – that was flowing yesterday, and we’ll continue to provide updates as frequently as we can. Said, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Sorry for being late. MR PATEL: No, you’re good. QUESTION: Very quickly on the aid – I don’t know, maybe you touched upon it – are you aware that the Israelis or Israeli settlers have destroyed or stopped five trucks from going in? MR PATEL: I’ve seen some of those reports, Said. I don’t – I can’t offer — QUESTION: That the Jordanians have sent, yeah. MR PATEL: I’ve seen some of those reports, Said. I can’t offer a technical assessment of where those trucks are in their path or their flow to their ultimate end point, or whether that aid was able to be rerouted or not. What I can say, though, is that humanitarian aid must not and cannot be restricted, stopped, or interfered with, and our partners in Israel need to do more to hold actors like this accountable when action is taken that is inconsistent with what we know is important, which is getting more humanitarian aid into Gaza. QUESTION: So what is your position on the Rafah crossing at the present time? The status of the Rafah crossing – what is — MR PATEL: So we just spent a lot of time talking about Rafah. QUESTION: Apologies. MR PATEL: I know you were tardy. QUESTION: Okay, then — MR PATEL: But I – if you – I will encapsulate it briefly for you, QUESTION: I’ll look it up. Okay. MR PATEL: — which is that we need – we are working around the clock with our partners in Egypt and Israel to do everything we can to get the Rafah crossing open. Due to it being closed, unfortunately, there has been a stoppage of aid and fuel flowing into Gaza via Rafah. There are some legitimate operational and security concerns and challenges that we’re continuing to work through, but we recognize how dire and how important it is that this crossing open as swiftly as possible. QUESTION: And lastly, yesterday marked the 76th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, and of course the Palestinians commemorated it in the shadow of the ongoing war in Gaza, so incredible enough not only that the issue was not resolved over a period of 76 years, but there is a second Nakba ongoing. I mean, there is the movement of people – 600,000 here and 600,000 there and so on – and I remember what the Secretary of State just said before October 7th, that the time has come for the Palestinian to live in a measure of dignity much like the Israelis and so on. So has the time come to really end this Nakba and allow the Palestinian the measure of dignity that the Secretary talked about in their own land and end this occupation? MR PATEL: We’re working around the clock – Said, we’re working around the clock to make it so. We are committed to reaching an immediate ceasefire here that secures the release of hostages and allows the surge of humanitarian aid. In addition to that, we believe that such a ceasefire could create the diplomatic conditions for further serious progress to be made – talking about Israel’s further integration in the Middle East, talking about putting the region on a pathway to a two-state solution – so that Israelis and Palestinians can live those equal measures of justice, dignity, and peace. We have not taken our eyes off the ball here, which is a – ultimately a two-state solution so we can get to that ultimate goal. QUESTION: So you feel that the time has come to end this Palestinian Nakba? MR PATEL: Said, what I can say is that we have long been and continue to be committed to a two-state solution and we’re working around the clock at it. QUESTION: But it’s a simple question. MR PATEL: I’m not – not — QUESTION: I mean, this is an ongoing catastrophe. Has the time come to end it? It’s very simple. MR PATEL: I do not – Said, I do not dispute the suffering of the Palestinian people and that their current experiences that the Palestinian are facing, not just in Gaza but living under occupation in the West Bank – I’m not trying to dispute that at all. What I am saying is that we are continuing to work around the clock to get us a conclusion of the current hostilities and get us on a path to further diplomacy, get us to a two-state solution. That’s what the Secretary is deeply committed to, as is President Biden. QUESTION: I’m sorry, but the current hostilities are rooted in a catastrophe that has been going on for 60 – 76 years. It’s not — MR PATEL: The current hostilities – the current hostilities — QUESTION: It’s not something just happened — MR PATEL: Respectfully, Said, the current hostilities are rooted in Hamas unleashing a terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th — QUESTION: Right. MR PATEL: — rooted in their vision of ensuring that Israel is eliminated from the face of the planet. QUESTION: It’s not rooted in what happened in 1948? MR PATEL: Hamas has been very clear about what their intentions are. QUESTION: No, I’m talking about Hamas. MR PATEL: I’m going to — QUESTION: I’m talking about that this issue has gone on for 76 years. I just want you to acknowledge that. The issue has been going for 76 years and not just – it did not begin on October 7th. MR PATEL: I think we’ve exhausted this topic, Said. Go ahead. Yeah, you. Yeah. QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Daniele Compatangelo for the Italian television LA7. MR PATEL: Uh-huh. QUESTION: So if you can talk a little bit more about the meeting with – between Xi Jinping and president – and Mr. Putin, regarding also the sanctions that the U.S. today or yesterday the President announced. MR PATEL: Don’t think they were sanctions. QUESTION: Pardon me? MR PATEL: They were not sanctions. QUESTION: I mean, for import and export to the U.S. is — MR PATEL: Yeah. We call them tariffs. QUESTION: Right. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: Yeah. If you can talk a little bit more about that, and then I have another question — MR PATEL: Sure. So where would you like me to start specifically? QUESTION: From the first part about – let’s start from the meeting. MR PATEL: So as it relates to the meeting between President Xi and President Putin, I think I exhausted that topic with Shaun, but I will just say again that in our view, the People’s Republic of China can’t have it both ways. You can’t purport to claim to want to deepen and strengthen your relationships with Europe while continuing to fuel one of the biggest threats to European security in many, many decades. As it relates to the announcement of tariffs earlier this week, you’re seeing the President take action to protect American workers and businesses from what we believe to be China’s unfair trade practices. American workers and businesses can outcompete anybody as long as the competition is fair, but for too long the PRC has been playing by a different set of rules, using unfair and anti-competitive economic practices. So we – what this is is working with our allies to join forces in outcompeting China by building alliances abroad and producing jobs here at home. Go ahead. QUESTION: And if I can do a follow-up question about what you just said? MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: I don’t know if you are aware of recent – Italy signed some sort of agreement with the Chinese, and the President Xi Jinping was in Europe in last week. And the Chinese — MR PATEL: Who – who signed an agreement? Sorry. QUESTION: Also Italy – in Italy. In Italy — MR PATEL: Uh-huh, right. Correct. Yeah. QUESTION: — Chinese electric car will be start being imported, I believe next year. So how do – how does the U.S. try to manage – I mean, the Chinese that trying to have business with Europe as a – because they have to, and then also the trying to put their nose in Ukraine, so it looks like they’re trying to — MR PATEL: So look, let me just say this, and the U.S. – the United States – is not, of course, party to this, but we welcome investment and trade that promotes sustainable and responsible development and growth. But we continue to urge in all cases the need to emphasize transparency, sustainable financing, sustainable practices, and preservation of national and data security to ensure mutual benefit for the United States, Italy, and other partners. And that is something we have not always seen as it relates to investments and trade practices by the People’s Republic of China in countries around the world. QUESTION: Thank you. MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead. QUESTION: Thanks. Just back on the Putin-Xi meeting. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: The Secretary went to China recently and expressed concerns over its growing cooperation with Russia, and yet this meeting is happening now, and they pledged a new era of partnership. Are you concerned that the trip was an unsuccessful attempt to stem this relationship, and is there anything more you can do to put the brakes on it? MR PATEL: So absolutely not. The trip was not unsuccessful. You have to remember that our engagements with the People’s Republic of China is multifaceted, and one of the key components of this, of the Secretary’s visit, was to build on some of the key deliverables that came out of President Biden and President Xi’s Woodside Summit. We’re talking about enhancing cooperation on fentanyl, additional military-to-military communication, collaboration in other areas. And we think – not we think – we know that focusing on those issues continues to allow us to manage this relationship responsibly, manage competition responsibly, which is what the world expects of international powers. That being said, sure we also believe that the People’s Republic of China’s essential reconstitution of Russia’s defense industrial base is deeply problematic. And we will monitor this space closely and take appropriate actions independently through other multilateral fora should we need. And we continue to say directly and we have – the Secretary has been direct on this with his counterparts that the PRC cannot have it both ways. QUESTION: Sorry, what sort of actions? MR PATEL: I’m saying we stand ready to take additional actions should – necessary as it relates to the PRC and any entities for their further support of Russia and its aggression in Ukraine. QUESTION: So what sort of actions? Can — MR PATEL: So I think I’m not going to preview actions from up here, Daphne. I think you’ve been covering the department long enough to know that. But the United States has a number of tools at its disposal to hold folks accountable. Alex, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On Ukraine, going back to Secretary’s trip, he’s back. I was if you could give us some – sort of his firsthand assessment and his level of concern on the situation in Kharkiv, how – just how serious it has become during the past couple of hours. MR PATEL: So we’ve – we spoke a little bit about this earlier this week, Alex. Obviously the situation is incredibly dire. We know that this is a challenging time, but we are sure that military aid is also going to make a real difference on the battlefield. The Secretary yesterday announced $2 billion in additional assistance in Foreign Military Financing to establish not just the Ukraine defense enterprise program and further enhance Ukraine’s capability to defend against Russia and its continued assault as well. QUESTION: Thank you. A few on Russia, if I may. The case of Gordon Black. There are reports on Russian media that he pleaded guilty. I don’t want to dignify everything they said, but they said he – he accused – he was accused of stealing from his girlfriend, but he admitted that. Is there any development on your end, any consular access — MR PATEL: There’s – there continues to be a limit to what I can say, Alex, given privacy considerations. This is a circumstance in which the department is continuing to seek consular access. We have not been able to obtain it yet, but when any American citizen is detained abroad, we ensure to do everything possible. We take their security and safety incredibly seriously. And most importantly, we continue to press for consular access, and that — QUESTION: So Russians have denied by now — MR PATEL: As I’ve said, we are continuing to seek consular access. QUESTION: On the case of Alsu Kurmasheva — MR PATEL: Olivia has had her hand up. I’m going to — QUESTION: Just one more follow-up from me. This — MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead. QUESTION: Alsu Kurmasheva. This week marks, as you know, seven months since her wrongful detention. Any update on her case? MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you specifically, Alex, but we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas. We continue to remain deeply concerned about Alsu’s case, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate and repress journalists and civil society voices. QUESTION: The President of the United States is on the record twice calling Putin to release her. How do you expect her captor – someone like Putin – to take him seriously if his own State Department is slow-walking the process? MR PATEL: I would dispute that premise, Alex. We are certainly not slow-walking the process. There is a deliberative process at play here in terms of any formal wrongful detention designation. But we would echo the President in that she should be released. Olivia, go ahead. QUESTION: Just one – thank you. A follow-up on Ukraine. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: Because while in Kyiv, the Secretary was asked about conditions that this administration has imposed on American weapons being sent to Ukraine, namely that they not be used to strike in Russian territory. The Secretary said that the U.S. had not enabled or encouraged such attacks, but then added that it was up to the Ukrainians to decide how to conduct this war. And to some that sounded like it might have been a loosening of this policy, so I just wanted you to clarify whether there has been any change in how the U.S. is thinking about the weapons that it’s sending to the Ukrainians. Could they be used to strike beyond Ukrainian territory? MR PATEL: So certainly not a policy change. Our policy has not changed, and the Secretary was clear about this. We do not encourage or enable strikes on Russian territory, but repeatedly we’ve also said that Ukraine ultimately makes its own decisions about its military strikes and its operations, and that continues to be the case. QUESTION: Would they face consequences if they used American weapons to strike — MR PATEL: You know how I feel about hypotheticals, Olivia, so I’m just going to leave it at that. Go ahead. You’ve had your hand up in the back. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Mark Stone from Sky News. MR PATEL: Uh-huh. QUESTION: If I could just take a step back on Gaza — MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: — how have we got to a place where families, children, are now being displaced multiple times? The borders are hardly open. Heavy bombing and fighting has returned to the north of Gaza and to central Gaza. How have we got here? MR PATEL: Well, we got here in large part because of Hamas’s continued belligerence and their continued choice to use civilians as human shields, and their choice to — QUESTION: But how long can you – how long – if I can interrupt, how long can you only blame Hamas for this? Because that seems to be what you do an awful lot. Hamas should take a huge amount of blame, of course. What about the other side? MR PATEL: We have been – when – we have been very clear – and I have been clear from this podium, as has the Secretary and has Matt – when Israel or any partner or any ally has done something that we have felt not met the mark or when we have seen actions that are inconsistent with our values or seen actions that are inconsistent with our goal for the region, we have not hesitated to speak to them. So I kind of reject the – your premise there. And as it relates to blaming Hamas, let’s not forget that, again, Hamas is a terrorist organization; they have stated it is their intent to destroy Israel, to erase Israel off the face of the planet. They’ve also said that they would like to conduct an October 7th over and over again if they could. And when we talk about ending this conflict, it is Hamas that has continued to move the goalposts. It is Hamas that has continued to not take the deals that have been on the table that would have allowed for this conflict to reach a ceasefire, that would have allowed for hostages to be released. QUESTION: So if I can follow up, the premise of your answer seems to be – your first answer – seems to be that the Americans have been talking, have been influencing. What are American words worth these days? What is American influence worth? MR PATEL: I think American influence is worth quite a bit, and it is because of American engagement and American leadership and American diplomacy, specifically by this Secretary and by this President, that we have seen things unfold in a certain way. We have seen humanitarian aid be unlocked; we have seen things like this new maritime corridor be accomplished. QUESTION: Yes, but despite all that — MR PATEL: I am certainly not trying to say that it is enough, but it is a step in the right direction. Let’s not forget that at the beginning of this conflict, there was close to little humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza at all, and it is because of Secretary Blinken and President Biden that we are trending in a different direction. QUESTION: We’re not. And it’s going backwards. The fighting has returned. The borders have shut. People are being displaced repeatedly. Things are plainly going backwards, not forwards. MR PATEL: We have been clear that there needs to be some progress made as it relates to some backwards steps in the past couple of weeks, but there has been a sustained period in which we saw an increase of humanitarian aid, and we’re continuing to work that directly. Nick, go ahead. QUESTION: On Cuba. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: State removed Cuba from the list of countries not fully cooperating against terrorism. MR PATEL: That’s right. QUESTION: Can you explain a little of that rationale? And also, is this a prelude to Cuba no longer being considered a state sponsor of terror? MR PATEL: Let me start with that second part first. So the designation of a state sponsor of terrorism is a totally separate process from an NFCC certification. There have been countries certified as NFCCs without being designated as state sponsors of terrorism, and vice versa. U.S. law establishes specific statutory criteria for rescinding any state sponsor of terrorism designation, and any review of Cuba’s status on this would need to be based on the law and the criteria established by Congress. So to take a step back on this NFCC progress, the – process, sorry – the department determined that the circumstances for Cuba’s certifications as not fully cooperating country have changed from 2022 to 2023. First, Cuba’s refusal to engage with Colombia on extradition requests for National Liberation Army members supported Cuba’s NFCC certification for 2022. In August of 2022, pursuant to an order from Colombian President Petro, Colombia’s attorney general announced that arrest warrant would be suspended against 17 ELN commanders, including those whose extradition Colombia had previously requested from Cuba. Moreover, the U.S. and Cuba resumed law enforcement cooperation in 2023, including on counterterrorism. Therefore, we’ve determined that Cuba’s continued certification as a not fully cooperating country was no longer appropriate. I will also tell you that just since you’ve given me the opportunity, Nick, sales of defense articles to Cuba will continue to be restricted under Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act given Cuba’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, Cuba remains subject to a incredibly comprehensive embargo still. QUESTION: Can I just follow up that? MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: I mean, Pompeo when he added Cuba back to the list, he explicitly raised the ELN issue as a reason that it was being added to the state sponsor of terror. I realize there’s a different process for that, but the Cubans have said that this is a political decision to keep them as a state sponsor. I mean, are – is it? I mean, is it? How can they still be considered a state sponsor of terrorism if they are cooperating on counterterrorism, as this report says? MR PATEL: So you can still – you can be a cooperator on counterterrorism, but we still believe that there are actions that they are undertaking that of the support of terrorist activities. I’m not going to get into those specifically from up here. But again, Shaun, should any statutory criteria change on rescinding the SST designation, we would work on that based on the law and the criteria established by Congress. QUESTION: Can you just say is there anything specifically you need them to do to remove that state sponsor of terrorism? MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t speak to the deliberative process on that from up here. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you. MR PATEL: Yeah. No, no – him. Yes, you. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Vedant. Thank you. After the meeting with the visiting Assistant Secretary Donald Lu, Bangladesh’s ruling prime minister advisor told the reporters that White House and the State Departments are very much willing to remove the sanctions as U.S. imposed sanction on RAB, Rapid Action Battalion, for the extreme violation of human rights and extrajudicial killing. So he said that the State Department and White House working to remove the sanctions, but — MR PATEL: Those claims are false. The U.S. is not withdrawing sanctions against the RAB. Those claims are false. Sanctions are intended to change behavior and promote accountability. Jackson. QUESTION: And one more. He said that — MR PATEL: I’m going to work the – I have a hard out so I’m trying to get to as many people I can. QUESTION: Thank you. MR PATEL: Go ahead. QUESTION: So first, can you confirm that the administration has notified Congress of a $1 billion arms package for Israel? MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t speak to arms transfers that have not been formally notified to Congress. I wouldn’t speak to those from up here. QUESTION: And when will aid begin going through the pier? MR PATEL: You missed my topper, Jackson. You were late. QUESTION: Yeah, and I – and I apologize for being late. MR PATEL: Yeah. So I – what I had said at the beginning was we hope that aid will begin flowing very soon. It will be prescreened in Cyprus and then on its way to Gaza. QUESTION: And finally, what’s your reaction to South Africa telling the ICJ that Israel’s, quote, “genocide has continued at pace and has reached a new and horrific stage,” end quote? MR PATEL: We have been pretty clear about the fact that we do not believe that what is happening in Gaza is genocide, and we continue to believe that those claims are unwarranted and false. QUESTION: Thank you. MR PATEL: Guita, go ahead. QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Two questions on Türkiye. MR PATEL: Okay. QUESTION: Today, a Turkish court convicted former leading officials from the pro-Kurdish HDP Party, including the jailed Kurdish leader, Selahattin Demirtas, to more than 40 years in prison for instigating the 2014 protest triggered by an Islamic State attack on the Syrian-Kurdish town of Kobani. I was wondering if the State Department has any comments on this verdict. MR PATEL: So we’re continuing to monitor that situation, Guita, but let me check with the team and see if we have anything more specific for you. QUESTION: Okay. One just follow-up, Michel. QUESTION: Yeah. QUESTION: It was just on the HDP. MR PATEL: We’ve got a little dynamic duo here. (Laughter.) QUESTION: It was included – it was included in the State Department’s 2023 Annual Human Rights Country Report in Section 3, Freedom to Participate in the Political Process. Do you think the verdict today is a violation of human rights? MR PATEL: So let me just say we will raise and discuss human rights with all of our partners bilaterally. That, of course, continues to include Türkiye. But again, on this specific situation, I’m going to check with the team before I offer anything more specific. Michel. QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I have two questions. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: The Saudi conference has met today with the Syrian president in Bahrain. Are you okay with your allies normalizing their relations with the Assad regime or with President Assad? MR PATEL: We have been – our position is clear on this: we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is meaningful progress towards a political solution consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We engage consistently with Arab League members, encouraging them to press and push the Assad regime to make meaningful change. We are, of course, skeptical for obvious reasons of the Assad regime’s willingness to take steps of what is necessary to resolve the serious crisis and take steps that are in the interest of the Syrian people, but we are aligned with our Arab partners on the ultimate objective here. QUESTION: And second, The Guardian has reported that the U.S. gave a greenlight to Saudi Arabia to revive a peace deal with the Houthis despite their ongoing attacks on commercial ships. Can you confirm that report? MR PATEL: That is completely inaccurate and reflective of Houthi propaganda. We’ve been clear and consistent: the U.S. supports peace in Yemen, but a peace agreement can only proceed after the Houthis stop their reckless attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and surrounding waterways. All of our partners are united around the need for Houthi attacks to cease before an agreement can be signed. QUESTION: Thanks. MR PATEL: Go ahead in the blue. QUESTION: Thank you so much, Vedant. Igor Naimushin, RIA news agency. So regarding Ukraine and Russia, the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his last visit to Kyiv stated that United States is set to use the power given by Congress to seize frozen Russian assets to Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. May I kindly ask you to clarify when the U.S. is up to start using assets? In what particular way? And what is the current status of discussions with other G7 members? MR PATEL: So I am certainly not going to assign a timeline to that. What I can say is that we’re continuing to consult closely with not just Congress but other G7 and European partners, ensuring that we’re looking at processes that are consistent with their legal system as well as consistent with ours, and I’m just going to leave it at that for now. Diyar, and then we’ve probably got to wrap today. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on Assistant Secretary Pyatt’s visit to — MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: — Baghdad and Erbil. He was in Baghdad yesterday and met with the Iraqi prime minister and discussed the Iraqi energy independence from Iran. So are you satisfied with the Iraqi Government’s steps in this regard, and do you believe Iraq could achieve this energy independent from Iran soon? MR PATEL: So Assistant Secretary Pyatt’s visit reflects the important strides that we believe Iraq has made to secure its energy independence, and these efforts are important for Iraq and – for Iraq to end Iranian natural gas imports and to meet its climate commitments. Assistant Secretary Pyatt is also encouraging the federal government to better integrate the IKR’s gas resources into its overall energy independence plans. We believe that Iraq is making progress, and over the past decade Iraq has doubled its electricity generation. In March Iraq activated its electricity interconnection with Jordan. Gas capture projects are coming online this year. That will also significantly reduce Iraq’s need to import Iranian gas. QUESTION: Yeah. And it’s been a year that you are working on encouraging Iraq to resume the IKR oil exports to ITP. And what you announced in your statement – it said, “to offset decreases in Russian oil export… to Europe.” So why this hasn’t happened? Why you couldn’t convince the Iraqi Government to resume that oil export — MR PATEL: Look, we — QUESTION: — as it matter to the energy supply, it’s matter to American companies, it’s matter to KRG. MR PATEL: We continue to engage directly – with officials in Baghdad, officials in Ankara, officials in Erbil, as well as with U.S. companies that are affected by the stoppage – on reopening the ITP pipeline, developing multiple routes for Iraqi energy to flow into global markets. It’s a common interest of ours. All right. Thanks, everybody. QUESTION: Vedant, a follow-up? QUESTION: Can I also follow up? MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody. (The briefing was concluded at 1:54 p.m.) # # # [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-may-16-2024/ Published and (C) by U.S. State Dept Content appears here under this condition or license: Public Domain. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/usstate/