State Department Press Briefing on 9/16/24

Afternoon, everyone. Happy Monday. You all look very chipper on a Monday, appropriately chipper. Let me start with some opening comments.

(00:12)
The United States remains deeply concerned by the ongoing anti-democratic actions of the Georgian government, which are incompatible with membership norms in the EU and NATO. In addition to the passage of the so-called Foreign Influence Law, we have also seen the Georgian government repeatedly violently crack down on Georgian citizens who protested that law. Today, the United States is imposing sanctions on two Georgian government officials and two leaders of a violent extremist group, as well as imposing visa restrictions on more than 60 Georgian individuals for their involvement in human rights abuses, corrupt practices, or other anti-democratic actions.

(00:51)
These actions come as a result of our ongoing comprehensive review of all bilateral cooperation in Georgia due to persistent anti-democratic actions, as well as false statements by senior Georgian government leaders that are contrary to the spirit of our decades-long relationship with the government of Georgia.

(01:08)
The Georgian government can recommit to its Euro-Atlantic trajectory by conducting free and fair elections, withdrawing and repealing anti-democratic legislation, and demonstrating significant and measurable progress on outstanding EU accession reform recommendations.

(01:24)
The United States has been the biggest supporter of Georgia’s economic and democratic development for the past 32 years. Our assistance has focused on making Georgia stronger, more prosperous, and a country more capable of defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We hope that the government of Georgia will return to the path that its people so evidently desire.

(01:47)
With that, Matt?

Oh, that’s it? Nothing else.

That’s it.

You’re sure? Okay.

Sure.

All right.

If I change my mind, I have the podium for, I don’t know, however much longer I stay up here.

Okay. Before we move on to the Middle East and Ukraine, can I just ask you, is there any detail you can provide about the release from China of this American citizen, pastor?

David Lin, no, only that we welcome David Lin’s release from prison in the People’s Republic of China. He has returned to the United States and reunited with his family for the first time in nearly 20 years.

Okay. But that’s not saying a whole lot. I mean, this is obvious. Every time the secretary or anyone else goes to China, they’ve raised the cases of detained Americans there. Can you say whether you think that his release was the result of those interventions?

I’m not going to… What I will say is that you’re right, Matt. Every time the secretary has met with Chinese officials, whether it be in China, whether it be here in the United States or whether it be in other places where we’ve met with Chinese officials around the world, he has raised the case of David Lin and other wrongfully detained Americans. And we continue to push for the release of other wrongfully detained Americans. When it comes to David Lin, we are glad to see his release. We welcome it and we’ll continue to push for the release of other Americans.

Yeah, I’m just trying to get it. I mean, did the Chinese just do this out of thin air or is this something that you’ve been [inaudible 00:03:19]-

It’s something that we have been working on for some time. I think I’ll leave it at that.

Okay.

Humeyra. Sean, sorry, you were speaking. Humeyra had her hand, you had words. I’ll go to Humira and come to you next.

Can I just do one quick follow-up on that if they want to stay in China?

Sure.

Just do you think that David Lin’s release means anything positive about the potential release of the other Americans who are wrongfully detained in China currently?

So I don’t want to try to forecast one way or the other and other than to say it’s something that we continue to work on. As you know, when the secretary went to Beijing last June, we were trying to restart the relationship so we could work together, not just on the big issues that face the world, where we thought it was important that we have an open line of communication, but also a number of bilateral concerns. And one of the bilateral concerns that we have had is the wrongful detention of American citizens. And so we are pleased to see David Lin’s release. It’s an important step forward and we’re going to continue to push for the release of other Americans.

Can we just follow up?

Sure.

Can the State Department provide a number? How many Americans have been wrongfully detained in China currently?

I don’t have a number here, but there are number of Americans that we are still working to see released. Mark Swidan is one, Kai Li is another.

And then can you please remind us when was the last time Secretary Blinken met with the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi?

He met with Wang Yi in Laos. I believe that was in July, for the last time they had a meeting.

Are they going to meeting in [inaudible 00:04:51]?

I don’t have any announcements to make, but obviously we always look for the opportunity to meet with the foreign minister to talk through a number of concerns that we have, as well as areas that we can work together.

Since we’re going to China, there’s been a [inaudible 00:05:06], this might be slightly in the weeds if that’s not a mixed metaphor, but the Philippines and China. The Philippines announced that they’ve pulled out of the Escoda Shoal, one of the key points. Do you have any take on that of what this means, whether this changes the equation in the South China Sea?

So the Philippines has endured repeated attempts by the PRC to interfere with their freedom of navigation on the high seas near Sabina Shoal over the past several months. There’s no legal basis for the PRC’s maritime claims in the South China Sea. And the dangerous ways in which it attempts to enforce those claims put Filipino lives and livelihood at risk. So it is up to the Philippines to decide how they operate their vessels in areas where it enjoys the freedom of navigation in the high seas under international law. And I wouldn’t want to forecast what this particular incident might mean, other than to say that we continue to support our Philippine allies.

Can I [inaudible 00:06:12] China on that?

Yeah. I have a China one too.

Go ahead, [inaudible 00:06:12].

Sorry. Not [inaudible 00:06:12] discussion, but are you able to rule out a swap?

What do you mean?

Are you able to rule out that there was no swap?

Are you referring to-

For the release of David Lin?

I am not going to say anything else about this process other than I’ve already said, which is that we welcome his release. Sometimes in diplomacy, the less said the better. This is one of those occasions. We do welcome his release and we’re going to continue to work for the release of all of wrongfully detained American citizens.

Can you say at all how instrumental the secretary’s meeting with Wang Yi in Laos was to the secure his release?

It’s certainly something that he raised in that meeting as he has raised the wrongful detention of American citizens in all of his meetings. And as we know other senior government officials have raised as well. Yeah, go ahead, Janie.

Thank you very much. Two questions on China, Russia and North Korea. China and Russia are conducting joint exercises near the Korean Peninsula. Do you think there is a possibility that North Korea will directly or indirectly participate in these exercises?

I wouldn’t want to speculate.

Okay. Second one. Last week, Russian National Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu visited North Korea and met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un and the Secretary Shoigu requested military support, including weapons and manpower from North Korea in preparation for a conflict with NATO. How do you assess the expansion of cooperation between North Korea and Russia?

We continue to be incredibly concerned by the expanding security relationship between North Korea and Russia, both for the support that North Korea continues to provide to Russia to prosecute its illegal war against Ukraine, and for the prospect of Russia assisting North Korea in ways that ultimately will be destabilizing to the Korean Peninsula.

Thank you.

Follow-on North Korea.

Just I pointed at Camilla and I’ll come to…

[inaudible 00:08:23].

Okay, yeah, go ahead then, Nike.

Can you please comment on Sweden’s recent resumption of diplomatic operations in North Korea? Did Sweden resume its role as a protecting power on the ground for the United States in North Korea on September 13th, 2024?

So Sweden does continue to be our protective power in the DPRK. We support the return of foreign diplomats to Pyongyang and hope that it will reinvigorate dialogue, diplomacy and other forms of constructive engagement with the DPRK. We also hope that the DPRK will open its borders to international humanitarian workers whose aid efforts have been hindered by the DPRK’s border closures.

Can you please also recap the requirements for American citizens who need to travel to North Korea?

Well, I would say, generally speaking, North Korea is a Level 4 country and our advice to all Americans is not to travel to North Korea.

Well, it’s also strictly illegal to use a US passport unless it’s been specially validated.

Unless it has been specially validated. Correct, correct. All right. Actually, I said Camilla next. So you guys work it out amongst yourselves. Yeah.

Already done. Matt, can you give us a sense of where we are on the ceasefire talks? You guys had said about maybe a week or 10 days ago that you were a few days away from presenting a revised final, whatever, proposal, which hasn’t come through. What’s holding it up?

We continue to engage with our partners in the region, most specifically with Egypt and Qatar about what that proposal will contain and making sure or trying to see that it’s a proposal that can get the parties to an ultimate agreement. Don’t have a timetable for you other than to say that we are working expeditiously to try to develop that proposal, try to find something that would bring both the parties to say yes and to formally submit it. But like I said, I don’t have any updates on timing.

It’s been out there that the main sticking points are Philadelphi Corridor and hostages, prisoners. Would you say those are still the main sticking points that’s holding it up?

Correct. I promised you, Camilla would go next.

Thank you. So opposition leader Yair Lapid was just here meeting with the secretary. Do you have any readout from that meeting?

I don’t. I haven’t spoken to the secretary since the meeting. I’ll be happy to cover it in the briefing tomorrow.

Okay. And also, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant, reportedly during his meeting with Amos Hochstein, he said the only way left to return the Israeli residents to the north, to their homes, is via military action. Do you have any comment on that? That sounds like things are not going well with diplomacy.

So I’m not going to comment about what took place in a private meeting. Certainly one that took place between a White House official, not a State Department official, and a member of the Israeli government. But we have long made clear that we believe a diplomatic solution is the correct way, the only way to bring calm to the north of Israel and allow Israeli citizens to return to their homes. There are tens of thousands of Israelis who have been away from their homes for almost a year now, and certainly an expansion of the current conflict in the north is not something that would get them back to their homes in the near future at all. So we’ll continue to push for a diplomatic resolution. And in our conversations with Israeli officials, they have always made clear, as I think you’ve heard them say publicly on a number of occasions, that they would ultimately prefer a diplomatic resolution.

Can I follow up on this?

Yeah.

What’s the current situation now on the northern… Is it risk is higher? What’s your assessment, the US assessment to that?

So we continue to see strikes back and forth across the border, as you know because you see them publicly. Both Israel targeting Hezbollah militants and Hezbollah facilities and Hezbollah infrastructure, as well as Hezbollah launching rockets and drones across the border. So that’s something that obviously was taking place before October 7th, but has really continued at an elevated pace since October 7th.

(12:39)
And the point we have continued to make to Israel, and other parties in the region, is that ultimately this is something that needs to be resolved diplomatically. And I think the issues here are well known. It’s very tough to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the conflict across the blue line as long as there is ongoing conflict in Gaza. And so that’s not the chief reason, but one of the primary reasons why we continue to push to get a ceasefire in Gaza because of the possibility we believe it would unlock for calm in the north.

Not only Gaza, also Netanyahu said that, today he told the US envoy that Israel will do what’s necessary to ensure its security and safely return the northern residents to their homes. In case Israel decides to enter into war with Hezbollah, what would be your position?

So I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals, but certainly we believe that the best way to ensure that Israeli citizens can safely return to their homes in the north is a diplomatic resolution. In the same way we believe a diplomatic resolution is the best way to ensure that the tens of thousands of Lebanese who have been displaced from their homes in southern Lebanon can return home as well.

Are there red lines?

I’m not going to speculate at all about how this may unfold other than to say we continue to push for a diplomatic resolution and we do fundamentally believe it’s in the interest of all the parties. Said.

Thank you, Matt. But to follow up on this question, basically Hezbollah said that the best way to have the people return is basically to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. I think they stated that time and time again.

Correct.

S that’s a caveat there. Going back to what you said to Humeyra on the talks and where they are, now it is said that this week you’re going to submit a new proposal. Can you update us on this [inaudible 00:14:39]?

I don’t have any update from the answer I gave to Humeyra five minutes ago, six minutes ago, which is something that we are working on.

But you are looking at a new proposal sometime?

Yeah, we are working to submit a new proposal, along with Egypt and Qatar, that hopefully would get us to the finish line.

A couple more questions.

Reports say that the medicines in Gaza are just totally empty. The stocks of medicines in Gaza are totally empty and the situation is very dire. Can you update us on your effort in terms of whether it’s a humanitarian aid or medicines and so on, especially since the dismantlement or the removal of the pier?

We continue to work to get medical supplies into Gaza. We know there’s a severe shortage of medical supplies there. It’s something that our Special Envoy for Humanitarian issues, Lise Grande works on. I’ll say we work on that with our international partners chiefly with humanitarian groups. And if you look at the success that we had in the last few weeks with unlocking a polio vaccination campaign that has now completed the first round of vaccinations for I think 90% of Gazan children and is moving into the second phase of inoculations, that is the type of work that we’re trying to do with all sorts of medical supplies to make sure that not just food and not just water, which is what people typically focus on. We talk about humanitarian assistance, but also medical supplies are making it into Gaza to get in the hands of doctors and other healthcare professionals who need to provide them to their patients.

And you think that Israel is doing all it can do to allow supplies in?

I think there are certainly a number of issues that we work through all the time, logistical issues, bureaucratic issues. And what we work on is trying to unlock those issues wherever they arise, whether they be with the governor of Israel, whether they be with the various UN agencies that are operating inside Gaza to try to make sure that medicine as well as food and water can get to where it actually needs to go.

In the last couple of days or three days, the Israelis killed 88 Palestinians in Gaza. It seems that they have exhausted all targets to achieve their goals. What are their goals at this stage? Is it just a killing enterprise, just keeping going after the tents and killing people in tents and so on? And they always have say… Well, they always say there’s a Hamas operative and so on. We never really know the fact. But is it worth it to keep killing these innocent people to go after maybe one Hamas fighter?

Let me make clear what we want to see. We want to see a ceasefire. We want to see a ceasefire that brings it in to the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. I will let the government of Israel speak to what their military goals are, but we have been quite clear that we think the path forward is to get a ceasefire that brings the hostages home, that stops the daily death and destruction in Gaza that allows humanitarian assistance to move in a much improved manner and that ultimately unlocks the possibility of lasting calm.

A couple more on the settlements. Israel is building a settlement on a historic site as designated by UNESCO. Are you doing anything to dissuade Israel from building on this very site and the tier next to Bethlehem?

Sorry. As we’ve said before, settlements are inconsistent with international law. They run counter to efforts to achieve an enduring piece. Our understanding that this particular settlement that you refer to south of Bethlehem as part of five new settlements that the Israeli cabinet approved in June. You heard us speak out against those settlements when they were approved and we have spoken out against them since then. Not just publicly, but also privately in conversations with the senior-most members of the Israeli government. Ultimately, we think that the settlement program doesn’t just harm the Palestinian people, but it hurts Israel’s peace, it hurts Israel’s long-term security. And that’s what we’ll continue to impress upon the government of Israel.

And finally last week when the Israelis raided the Jenin camp right outside the camp, there’s a Hamdan family in a small apartment. They always take their apartment to be a sniping post and so on. They ruined their apartment and so on. They destroyed everything, but they also stole, Ashraf Hamdan who’s 13 years old, they stole his PlayStation. You believe that the Israeli army should either give him back his PlayStation or compensate him for that. The last I looked it was like $207.

I’m unfamiliar with the facts of this case, so I don’t want to speak to a specific incident in which I’m unfamiliar, but no, obviously a child’s PlayStation in any event should not be taken away from them in the first place. And if so, should be returned.

They should either give it back to him or compensate him?

I’m just telling you, I can’t speak to the facts of this case and I’ve only heard what you’ve presented to me. But just as a general rule, of course, children’s toys should not be taken from them. And if they are taken, they should be returned. I think that’s a pretty safe principle.

Can I just ask about the West Bank? Just go back to the killing of American Turkish citizen, Aysenur Ezgi, from last week because the secretary commented on it while he was traveling. I just want to clarify a couple of things. The IDF said effectively that it was an accident, but then we had reporting, namely Washington Post, saying the shots were taken after the peak of the protest, so there are discrepancies suggesting that perhaps it may not be an accident. What is the US assessment on how she was killed?

We are going to wait the full criminal investigation that the government of Israel has launched before we make any determinations. Obviously we are reading very closely the eyewitness accounts and there have been numerous eyewitness accounts of what happened. You heard the secretary speak to those eyewitness accounts when he made his comments in London last week. Whether the eyewitness accounts are true, whether the accounts that the Israeli government made public are true, ultimately this is a death that never should have happened. It’s a killing that never should have happened. And it’s why the secretary made clear that the Israeli Security Force’s rules of engagement need to be changed so you don’t continue to see the killing of unarmed civilians who are doing nothing more than showing up at a peaceful protest.

A couple of things there. When do you anticipate this criminal investigation to conclude?

I don’t have a time to… I would refer to the government of Israel to speak to. It’s ultimately their investigation. But what we have said to them is that we want the investigation to be prompt. We want it to be thorough and we want it to be transparent.

And is the US considering to launch its own investigation given she’s a US citizen?

We’re going to await the outcome of this investigation before we make any further determinations.

And has there been any communication with your Israeli counterparts or IDF since secretary called for a change in their rules of engagement? Have they assured you that they will take it seriously and they will make changes?

There have been ongoing communications about this. The same concerns that the secretary raised publicly, we have raised privately to them. Those conversations are ongoing and I don’t want to speak to them in any detail at this point.

And just why isn’t the US committing to an independent investigation given that she was a US citizen?

We want to see a transparent investigation, and if accountability is appropriate, we want to see accountability. I think before calling on any further steps, it’s appropriate to let the first investigation play out. Now, if the first investigation plays out and we are briefed on the results and we are briefed on the process and we are briefed on the underlying facts and we’re not satisfied, we will of course look at whether any other measures are appropriate, but we think it’s appropriate in this instance to wait to let that first investigation play out before we go to any other steps.

One final thing-

I’ll come to you guys.

… when you say you guys want this criminal investigation to be conducted promptly, this is the case of US citizen for sure, but we have had similar back and forths about a number of other incidents where there was civilian harm and then they disappear from the headlines and we don’t know what kind of action, if any, or accountability measures have been taken. I’m wondering, has the United States set a timetable for when it expects Israel to conclude that? What do you mean by prompt? Do we need an answer from them in a couple of weeks or is it going to be two months?

We mean as soon as possible. I cannot give you a timetable and I think you’ll know from covering investigative agencies, investigative agencies always, I used to work at one, be the spokesperson for one, always have a hard time giving you a timetable for an investigation because you don’t know what you’re going to find when you start investigating things and how long it’s going to take. But we want it to happen as soon as possible and we want it to be thorough and we want the results to be transparent.

And quick final, final thing. Can the US commit to seeking accountability for its own citizen on this case?

It depends what you mean by accountability. If the investigation shows that someone acted inappropriately in violation of the law, in violation of the rules of engagement, in violation of IDF code of conduct, yes of course we want accountability. But we also want a change that will prevent this kind of thing happening again, so you have long-term accountability to ensure that American citizens and others, Palestinians, citizens of other countries aren’t killed just for showing up at a peaceful protest. All right, go ahead.

Thank you. You said you expect Israel to make changes in their rules of engagement, but actually I remember actually there was an interview with Rachel Corrie’s family last week and they said this has been said by Secretary Blinken to Rachel Corrie’s family before that Israel already promised to make changes to their rules of engagement and they cited a meeting with Secretary Blinken in 2011, so considering that-

2011? ’21 maybe.

Excuse me, 2011.

No, no. I just wanted to-

Considering that there haven’t been any change in their rules of engagement, because another UN worker was also killed by an Israeli sniper after the killing of Aysenur, so it seems that there is no change in Israel’s rules of engagement. What further steps is the-

I cannot speak to… Sorry, sorry. I cannot speak to what changes they may or may not have made over the past few years. But any changes that they have made ultimately haven’t been sufficient in preventing these kind of incidents from occurring, which is why the secretary said last week that we want to see updates to their rules of engagement. That’s what we’re going to continue to engage with them. Ultimately it is the results that matter here. And when you see American citizens and others showing up at peaceful protests and being killed, it is a problem that we want to see addressed.

Is it just change in their rules of engagement is that it all the US expects from Israel regarding the killing of their citizen?

As I said in response to Humira’s question, ultimately if anyone is found to behave in violation of the law in violation of code of conduct, we want to see accountability as well. But when it comes to changes for rules and engagement, what we mean is not just accountability for this killing, but steps to prevent similar killings from happening in the future.

Also, there have been criticisms from a lot of people, including Aysenur’s family, that the US’s response to Aysenur’s killing has been very slow and insufficient. And there were reports over the weekend that no US officials have attended her family. Can confirm these reports? And if this is accurate, can you explain why?

First of all, I will say that I cannot understand the pain that her family is going through right now and how horrific it must be to lose a loved one in these circumstances. And our hearts truly do go out to them. I want to be respectful of their privacy in this situation. We have been in communication with her family on a number of occasions over the past week or so, and I think it’s appropriate for us to keep those communications private.

You can’t tell us whether or not any US officials have attended?

We have been in communication with her family and as I said, I think I’ll keep those communications private.

If I may comment on this. When Rachel Corrie was killed in March 2003, the Israelis came back in 2012. Then when Shireen Abu Akleh was killed in May and then they came back on July 4th and they said it was unintentional. And this time around the Israelis are saying that it was a bullet that ricocheted and so on, which seems to be accepted by the President. Is the case closed as far as the US government is concerned?

It is very much not closed. And I think if you listen to the comments from the secretary and other US government officials last week, what we said is even accepting the announced results of the preliminary investigation, even if you accept that as fact for what happened, it still shows that this is a killing that never should have happened. And that’s why we want to see changes in Israel’s rules of engagement to prevent such killings from happening again in the future. That’s good. I’ll come to you next.

Starting from your opening statement, you said that these actions on Georgia come as a result of our ongoing comprehensive review of bilateral relationship. Since you haven’t finalized your review yet, does that mean that today’s sanctions are just a second trash of multilayer measures that you were going to take?

I don’t know if I would say second because there are a few different ways to look at this. You saw us impose… When we announced the review in the first place, you saw us impose visa restrictions on a number of Georgian government officials for their anti-democratic actions. And you also saw us announce that we would review our security funding. And subsequent to that, we’ve announced that we have… Not security funding our overall funding to the governor of Georgia. And subsequent to that, you have seen us announce that we have suspended $95 million in funding to the government of Georgia. And the review about other US government funding is ongoing.

In terms of visa restrictions, you made it clear that you will not name the name. I get that-

Correct.

… but given the disinformation campaign that the government in Georgia has been launching to dismiss your sanctions, previous sanctions, wouldn’t that be much more effective to point fingers at the violators naming them?

Well, Alex, you were welcome to go the United States Congress and lobby to them to change the law, to allow us to name the people on whom we’ve opposed visa restrictions. But until that law has changed, we’re unable to do so. If you want to make the effective case, you’re barking up the wrong tree. No offense.

You sanctioned last time, 20 plus assuming MPs, and this time you’re stuck with 60 MPs, some 80 plus for Russian MPs voted

… for Russian law. Is it fair to expect that all of those MPs are now banned from entering the U.S.? [inaudible 00:30:05]

I’m not going to preview any actions at all other than to say that our review both of potential other accountability actions and other tranches of funding remains ongoing.

And can I also get your reaction to their latest campaign? Georgian Dream’s government is trying to convince the world that it was Georgia, backed by the U.S., that started a war with Russia in 2008, not the other way around. Can you please put that into context? What is the take of?

Yeah, I saw the comments. I would just say simply I don’t think Georgia needs to apologize for having been invaded by Russia any more than Georgia needs to apologize for the fact that Russia continues to illegally occupy 20% of Georgian territory. It is Russia that has been the aggressor in invading Georgia and continuing to illegally occupy Georgia, as Russia has been the aggressor with other countries in the region, of course Ukraine being a very prominent example of that.

And Matt, [inaudible 00:31:00] call to Aliyev today. The Secretary also spoke with Armenia’s prime minister last week. Is he hoping to put together another meeting in New York?

So I don’t have any announcements to make. Obviously we always look for opportunities to convene the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. We continue to support the efforts of both countries to reach a durable and dignified peace agreement. They have made significant progress towards finalizing a peace agreement, and we’re committed to supporting them in any way that we can, including convening a meeting if that’s helpful.

I have one more on Iran, if I may. Today you guys joined a statement with other countries in terms of two years after Mahsa Amini’s death. You guys have a law to impose sanctions, and other countries have done so. Why are you not using this momentum to announce the sanctions today?

So we have announced sanctions on I think it’s over 500 Iranian entities and individuals since the outset of this administration. You’ve seen us in just the last few weeks announce additional sanctions on Iranian entities and individuals. Some of those sanctions have been for human rights abuses, repeated human rights abuses, and I think you’ve seen a pretty consistent pattern that shows our record here. But I don’t want to preview any upcoming actions.

Okay. You are behind in terms of implementation of MAHSA Act. Your congressional report hasn’t been filed yet, as far as I understand. Am I wrong?

We continue to work on that report. And when it comes to other actions, stay tuned.

Thank you.

Prem, go ahead.

Thank you, Matt. The White House has not contacted Aysenur Eygi’s family 10 days out from her killing. Eyewitnesses themselves tell us that they actually haven’t been reached out to for any Israeli-led investigation. Our colleagues at The Washington Post, of course, as you might have seen, reported footage and testimony that seem to reveal that the Israeli military misled the U.S. and the world in its initial findings of how and when Aysenur was shot.

(32:51)
When is the President and Vice President going to reach out to Aysenur’s family, and how can the U.S. continue deferring to Israel to investigate itself for killing an American if it has already at best misled and at worst lied in its preliminary findings, and how, also, given it hasn’t reached out to eyewitnesses?

So as I said, first of all, with respect to her family, which we know are experiencing this horrific tragedy, the U.S. government has had a number of conversations with the family.

Right, just not the White House.

Hold on, let me just finish. It is not appropriate for me to get into those publicly. I never would in a situation like this and I’m not going to here, but we have reached out to express our deepest condolences.

(33:36)
I will say when it comes to the investigation, I cannot speak for the investigation that’s occurring now other than to say we’re going to expect it to be prompt, thorough, and transparent. And if it’s not, I don’t think anyone should draw conclusions about an investigation while it’s ongoing, but at the end of it we will certainly be happy to look at how the investigation was conducted, what it produced, if there are any deficiencies, and if we don’t find that it meets our standards we’ll have more to say at the time.

But is it not a red flag that the initial findings are already being discredited by testimony and footage?

So I think I already said, you heard me say earlier even if you accept the initial findings, they don’t present an acceptable outcome, right? You look at the initial findings and they already tell you that something went tragically wrong and you had the killing of an American citizen that never should have occurred. So when I hear people say the … sort of hold the initial findings up as if they somehow exonerated Israeli security forces, they very much do not. And at least in our point of view they very much do not exonerate them. They reveal the need for a number of changes, and we have made clear that’s what needs to happen.

(34:39)
But then when it comes to what ultimately happened and getting to the bottom of what ultimately happened, let’s see how the investigation plays out. I do think we shouldn’t draw any conclusions before it’s final. And when we see the ultimate investigation, we’ll have more to say based on our assessment of it.

And then finally, just on what you’ve said, that the U.S. is urging the Israeli forces to modify, change its rules of engagement after Aysenur’s killing, of course there’s also World Central Kitchen worker Jacob Flickinger; the teenagers Mohammad Khdour, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar; our journalist colleague Shireen Abu Akleh; peace activist Rachel Corrie; 40,000 Palestinians, which of course you’ve condemned as well, the killing of them. The logic would follow that the U.S. has unconditionally funded a military with evidently insufficient rules of engagement up to this point. So is there any U.S. reflection on that idea?

The U.S. reflection on it is that Israel needs to change its policies, and we have made that quite clear. When it comes to the World Central Kitchen strike, we made clear that they need to change their deconfliction measures and worked with the UN to get new deconfliction measures in place. Now, those aren’t perfect. We continue to see strikes that result in the death of humanitarian workers; continue to see strikes in Gaza that lead to the tragic, tragic deaths of civilians. As you know, it is a very difficult place in which to conduct a military campaign because you have a terrorist organization that embeds itself and hides itself behind civilians, which is why it’s the United States that is at the forefront of pushing for a ceasefire. And when it comes to actions in the West Bank, why, it’s the United States that’s pushing for changes to Israeli rules of engagement.

As you point out, those attacks have still continued. So if these urgings don’t continue, will there not be a consideration to condition weapons?

We continue to work to get the best outcome possible, and we believe the best outcome possible when you look in Gaza is a ceasefire, and that’s why, hold on, let me just answer the question. And it’s why we continue to work with Egypt and with Qatar to get a ceasefire over the line.

(36:35)
Ultimately we think that is the thing that would bring an alleviation to the suffering of the Palestinian people, not any of the other steps we hear bandied about from time to time, but a ceasefire that brings a lasting end to the war. And when it comes to changes in the West Bank, it’s the changes that we’ve proposed with others.

(36:52)
Kylie, go ahead.

Just to follow up quickly on that. You said that deconfliction isn’t perfect. Is it the U.S. assessment at this point that the Israelis are doing the best that they can and they’ve implemented some changes when it comes to deconfliction with NGOs?

I’m sure that there are always changes, further refinements that can be made. I mean, the problem that you have, and we have seen this over and over when it comes to incidents with humanitarian workers, is the Government of Israel puts in place with the humanitarian aid groups a new set of deconfliction measures, and then you have an incident that exposes a flaw in one of them. You saw this recently with the strike against a convoy where the lead vehicle, I think I’ll get the details wrong, but left the convoy or turned around and was ultimately fired upon by Israel security forces. You get different things, you get different incidents that expose new problems that need to be solved.

(37:48)
Ultimately, this isn’t unique to … this particular deconfliction problem is not unique to Gaza. It’s something that tends to be the case in ongoing war zones, where you have the difficulty of delivering humanitarian assistance while there is ongoing fighting. Now, of course, it is made even more acute because of the unique problem in Gaza of Hamas hiding itself behind human shields, but that’s why we continue to work. It is really through an ongoing process with the humanitarian groups, with the UN, and with Israel to try to get the best possible deconfliction measures in place.

And it remains the U.S. assessment at this time that Israel is genuinely working to perfect those deconfliction channels?

There is always more that they can do, and we continue to engage with them about improvements that they can make on an ongoing basis.

Okay. And then just if we can pivot to Ukraine for a minute with the Secretary’s visit.

Yeah.

Last week he came out of that visit saying that he and his UK counterpart would be presenting their findings with regard to the Ukrainians’ ask to strike deeper into Russia, and whether or not there would be a policy decision on that would hinge on President Biden’s meeting with Prime Minister Starmer on Friday. That meeting has concluded. We haven’t heard anything from you guys, so where does that conversation stand? Has there been a policy decision on that ask from the Ukrainians yet?

So first of all, you’re right, the Secretary did say he would discuss his conversations with President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian leaders, but he said he’d discuss them with the President, not with all of you. He did do that on Friday, and of course we know that the prime minister was here to discuss their policy as well with the President.

(39:32)
I don’t have any announcements to make about changes in our policy today. We continue to engage with our Ukrainian partners about the best way that they can support them to ensure that they win this war, the best way we can provide them with capabilities and intelligence support and other support, and that will continue to be our commitment. But I don’t have any announcements to make on policy.

But it’s still possible that the policy could change, or you guys have decided to keep it intact the way it is?

I don’t have any announcements to make today. We always, and this is just a general statement that covers our policy when it comes to Ukraine, engage with the Ukrainians about what they need and how best we can support them, and as I know you’ve all heard the Secretary say many times, adapt and adjust those policies as necessary to best support them in a way that makes strategic sense and provides them capabilities that they can actually use and that they can support and that they’re trained on, and that will continue to be our policy going forward.

So you don’t think they need to strike deeper inside Russia right now?

I said I don’t have any announcements to make about changes today.

(40:35)
Yeah, Eva, go ahead.

Yes, I’d like follow up on that question about the investigation.

Yeah.

Does this apply to all your allies when a U.S. citizen is killed? You don’t interfere, you wait until the outcome of the investigation?

So … Sorry.

And whether it was repeated, and if the incident was repeated many times?

So I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical about going forward, but it would always depend on the circumstance. If we saw an ally that was conducting an investigation, or in this case, bless you, conducted an initial investigation, briefed us on the results, and said they were conducting a full investigation, we would certainly take that into consideration in what steps we might take. But that’s not to foreclose any further steps on our end if we think it’s appropriate and necessary at a later time.

Matt.

Yeah, Janne.

Matt, thank you. Quick question: Do you have any comment or update about the second assassination attempt on former President Trump while he golfed, played golf yesterday?

Yes. As you heard the President say, we deplore violence of all kind. There’s no place in the United States for political violence. That’s not how we settle our political disputes in this country.

No update?

The State Department is not the investigating agency. I would refer you to the FBI.

(41:52)
Jalil.

Got you. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Matt. Couple of questions. Today, Ambassador Under Secretary Bass was in Pakistan meeting army chief, deputy prime minster, and couple of other people, and they spoke about economy and security. Did they speak about democracy or Imran Khan at all, or no?

So they discussed our approaches to expanding bilateral cooperation on economic and security issues, including countering terrorism and violent extremism, the importance of fostering regional stability and prosperity. The Under Secretary expressed his gratitude for Pakistan’s continued cooperation in assisting Afghans in resettlement pathways to the United States, and we will continue to work closely with the Government of Pakistan on all these issues.

The following two questions are about journalism. The other day, the Secretary spoke and Mr. James Rubin spoke in detail about the Russian media, RT and all these things. Now, don’t you think that China, because last year, from what I remember, Mr. Rubin saying was that China is the one that spends the most money in propaganda, in fake news. Did I miss something here? Like, don’t you think China is the one that should have been targeted or their fake news and outlet should have been targeted?

I don’t think you should have seen Friday’s announcement as any kind of exclusive announcement about one country only at the expense of others. We made clear we oppose countries all around the world using disinformation to mislead American citizens, citizens of other countries, and we’ll continue to work to counter that.

Just one more about [inaudible 00:43:34].

Yeah.

A couple of times I have reminded you about Arshad Sharif, a journalist as well. Last week, his wife showed the details that it was not just a natural shooting; his body had 12 wound marks on different areas. This is the podium where people raised the issues of those journalist who are either swallowed by these hyenas for their political gains or different establishments uses their lives and plays with them. We come to you to ask for their support. Anything you can say further about this journalist and his investigation the U.S. could do?

I don’t have any assessment with this particular case. Obviously we support the free exercise of journalism all around the world.

(44:18)
Michel.

Thank you so much, Matt.

Yeah, thank you, Matt. Why did the U.S. move or decide to move forward with all the U.S. aid to Egypt without the restrictions that it applied in the past from human rights concerns?

So when we look at the Foreign Military Financing that the United States provides to the Government of Egypt, we assess it under a number of different factors. Egypt has played an important role over the past year in helping try to get to further regional stability. We’ve seen them play a really critical role in trying to get a ceasefire across the line in Gaza. We’ve also seen some improvements in the human rights situation in Egypt when it comes to the introduction of a bill

Regarding pre-trial detention when it comes to the release of some political prisoners, we do need to see further advancements on human rights and that’s what we’re going to continue to push with the governor of Egypt. But those are the factors that we took into consideration when we made this decision.

And one on Iraq. Do you have any updates on the US military withdrawal from there?

From Iraq you said?

Yes.

I don’t. We’ve held a number of discussions with the government of Iraq this year on the future of our forces there, including when the prime minister was in Washington and met with the president in April.

(45:37)
We have made clear with them that we will take into effect that we would review with the governor of Iraq a number of factors to determine when and how the mission of the Global Coalition in Iraq would end and transition in an orderly manner to an ongoing bilateral security partnership in accordance with Iraq’s constitution and the US/Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. Those conversations, those discussions are ongoing.

Can I follow up on that.

Yeah, go ahead and then I’ll come to Sean.

The Iraqi government says that they drafted a deal for the end the coalition missions in Iraq. Is there any deal drafted between you and Iraq to this matter?

I don’t have any update to the answer I just gave Michelle, which is that the discussions between our two countries are ongoing.

I have two more questions on Iraq if I may?

Sure.

Then there are reports that telling that Iraqi government officials allowed both Hamas and Houthis to open their offices in Baghdad. While you are requesting Iraq to rein the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, we see that they’re allowing other groups like Houthis to open their offices in Baghdad and establishing their permanent presence in Baghdad. Do you have any reaction to this?

Yeah, let me be very clear. Hamas and the Houthis are terrorist organizations and Hamas and the Houthis being allowed to operate in Iraq only risks increasing the number of armed groups that have an interest in using violence to undermine the government of Iraq’s goals for stability, sovereignty, and economic growth.

(47:16)
We support a stable and secure Iraq. The presence of these groups in Iraq risk bringing Iraq into deeper regional conflicts. We have shared these concerns directly with the governor of Iraq.

And last week, Iranian-backed group has attacked a US diplomat facilities in Baghdad and which the embassy in Baghdad said in the statement, “These groups are operating freely in Baghdad.”

(47:38)
So it’s been multiple times you have requested Iraq to make these group responsible for their acts. So why the Iraqi government is not doing this? Do you think that they’re capable but not doing it or they’re incapable to do this?

I’m not going to speak to the Iraqi government’s actions other than to say that we do expect them to hold accountable anyone who takes that action against US personnel, US forces in the region. Let me go to the back and then I’ll come, I’ll finish with you, Sean. Go ahead.

I wanted to ask you if you could give us an update on the detention of American citizens in Venezuela and also if the government is engaged in any type of talks to work for their release?

So we can confirm the detention of one US military member in Venezuela. And then of course we’ve seen the reports of two additional US citizens detained in Venezuela. We are seeking additional information and monitoring the situation and I don’t have any further comment at this time.

You cannot confirm the reports on the two additional citizens?

We have seen the reports of them. Obviously this is a situation where we don’t exactly have a close relationship with the government of Venezuela, but we are continuing to engage to try to gather additional information.

And then on that, there were also Spanish citizens arrested. I wanted to ask you if you’ve been in contact with the government of Spain about it and if you think this decision has been linked to the fact that the Spanish government granted asylum to Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia?

So I can’t speak to any direct conversations between the US government and Spain. It’s not to say that they haven’t been happening. I would suspect they are. I’m just not aware of them and so I can’t speak to them.

(49:15)
But I would just say we have seen, and I wouldn’t speculate as to why Venezuela has taken these actions other than we have seen them make a number of false claims over the past few days about the reason for their detention. I think I’ll leave it at that.

I’m sorry. So just going back. The US is not doing anything to get these people released from Venezuela?

No, that is not what I said. There are privacy considerations that we have to respect when it comes to individuals. I think the other people in the briefing room have gotten tired of hearing me say it over time. But in a number of cases when we don’t have a privacy release, it’s difficult for us to talk about the details of an underlying case. That’s the situation here. Go ahead.

Thank you. What is the US position in Israel’s insistence to remain in control of the Philadelphia corridor, which is fundamental point in the negotiations?

This is something that we have spoken to a number of times. Obviously, Israel does have very real security concerns and we think that those security concerns can be addressed. We think that they’re addressed in the ceasefire proposal that the president laid out on May 31st, as well as the bridging proposal that we put forward in recent weeks.

(50:26)
We’re continuing to try to work through how to implement that ceasefire in a way that would ensure Israel’s security as well as alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.

What’s happened for the temporary port? It was built exclusively to provide humanitarian aid and food for the people in Gaza. We don’t hear anything about it. Is food and humanitarian aid used as a tool to pressure on Hamas?

So I can’t speak to why you don’t hear anything about it. I can never speak to coverage decisions made by the press. I can tell you we continue to work on it and it continues to be something that we are incredibly focused on trying to get humanitarian assistance in.

(51:09)
We are seeing food and water and medicine, but ultimately, 11 months into this conflict, you have to step back and draw the conclusion that the way to get the massive amount of humanitarian assistance that we need to get in is through a ceasefire.

(51:24)
That would make it easier to get humanitarian assistance in and make it easier for it to move around and get delivered to the people who need it. All right, Sean. Then we’ll wrap for today.

Could I just follow up? Assistant Secretary Lu, I believe is in Bangladesh. Is or was. Do you have any readouts of his meetings? And more broadly speaking in terms of the interim government with dealing with Muhammad Yunus, how does the US assess where Bangladesh is going and also believe there’s an announcement of US aid assistance there? What’s the goal of that?

Yeah, so the Assistant Secretary Lu has been in Dhaka. He met with key advisors to the Bangladeshi interim government to discuss how the United States can support Bangladeshi’s economic growth, financial stability, and governance and development needs.

(52:10)
While he was there, along with representatives from USAID, they announced, or I’m sorry, we signed with the Bangladeshi interim government, a development agreement worth over $200 million in interim assistance, which will support governance, expanding trade, and creating greater opportunities for the Bangladeshi people to build a brighter and more prosperous future.

I have a follow up on that.

Sean, you finished with the floor?

Please, Mr. Miller.

Yeah, go ahead. We’ll wrap there.

Thank you, [inaudible 00:52:35].

The present context in Bangladesh already, I got one that I have two small question. Let me go with the Islamist Jihadist Mufti Jasimuddin Rahmani, chief of the al-Qaeda-inspired militant outfit and other militant kingpin from Harakat-ul Jihad and Hizb ut-Tahrir and also Interpol wanted terrorists like Sweden Islam Iman and many more released from jail. Could this disturb the US engagement to combat terrorism in Southeast area?

Let me take that question back and give you an answer.

And with the Indian Navy upcoming high-level meeting on Tuesday addressing the Bangladesh crisis and potential Chinese strategies in the region, what is the US perspective on that evolving situation? How is the US coordinating with the regional partner, particularly with India, to ensure stability and address concerning related to Chinese influence on the region?

Let me take that one back as well and we’ll end. Matt, go ahead.

You’ve seen that Chairman McCaul has scheduled a markup-

I have, yeah.

… for the resolution to hold the secretary in contempt of Congress. What do you have to say about that? Anything?

I think that step is completely unnecessary. The secretary has already testified before Congress about Afghanistan 14 times. He has testified before Chairman McCaul’s committee four times. One of those appearances was to talk only about Afghanistan. It was at a hearing exclusively focused on Afghanistan.

(54:19)
When the committee was conducting its review of our policy and compiling this report, we provided a number of figures. I’m sorry. A number of officials from the department to testify before the committee and provided it information as well as turning over thousands of pages of documents.

(54:35)
And when it comes to the secretary’s testimony, he’s not available to testify, just isn’t from a scheduling perspective on the dates that the chairman wanted him to be there. So we made him two offers. One is that the deputy secretary could come and testify on that date and two, if that wasn’t acceptable, we would make the secretary available on a later date to come and testify.

(54:58)
For some reason, and I can’t speculate what it was, the chairman decided to decline both of those offers and move forward with this contempt markup, which short-circuits any type of debate between the State Department and his committee rather than accept our offer to come testify before then.

So you’re not a fan?

I don’t think this step was in any way necessary or productive given the tremendous steps we have taken to provide the committee with the information it needs to conduct its oversight purposes. Secretary was ready to testify at a later date. We were ready to have someone there on the date that they proposed.

(55:42)
For whatever reason, neither of those alternatives were good enough to them, so they chose to take this step. We will continue to work with them when we can productively do so, but they’ll have to make their own decisions about how they move forward.

Do you want to explain, tell us why the secretary can’t be there on Thursday?

I don’t have any announcements to make today. We’ll end there. Thanks everyone.

Thank you.