Department of State Daily Press Briefing 8/07/24

Good afternoon, everybody. Getting everything situated here. All right. I do not have any opening remarks, so Sean.

Sure. Let’s start in the Middle East, I suppose. I know Admiral Kirby spoke a little bit about the current state of play, but was wondering in particular with the situation between Iran and Israel where things stand now. Has there been any further communication from the secretary or others with players in the region? How worried are you right now about the chance of escalation?

So we continue to engage in very intense diplomacy with allies and partners in the region to make clear that we don’t believe anyone should escalate this conflict. As you know, the secretary’s been engaged in calls really since last week. I don’t have any new ones to read out today, but it’s been an ongoing process and I expect to engage in further conversations in the days ahead.

(00:57)
And the message that we are sending to everyone is, look, this is obviously a very delicate time for the region. Tensions are high. We are in the final stages, hopefully, of a ceasefire deal. And escalation has the potential to make every problem the region faces worse. And so the message that we are impressing upon everyone in the region is that no party should take any steps to escalate this conflict.

A couple things on that. Could you talk about the OIC meeting and how significant or not it would be. Obviously, Iran and the Palestinians called this. I know the US isn’t a member, but what message do you hope this sends to Iran?

So we would hope that at that OIC meeting, the same thing happens that we have been trying to effectuate throughout the last week, which is that all parties that have a relationship with Iran impress upon Iran, the same way that we’ve been impressing upon the government of Israel, that they shouldn’t take any steps to escalate the conflict. And so obviously, there are a number of countries with whom we speak who are attending that meeting, who are members of the OIC.

(02:02)
We have heard from those countries really a broad consensus in every conversation that we have had that they share our opinion that escalation would only exacerbate the problems facing the region. And so certainly, we would hope that countries at that meeting would impress that upon Iran.

Sure. Just one more for you. But I know the secretary was asked this yesterday, but about the leadership of Hamas, the Secretary of State yesterday, that Sinwar has always been the primary decider. Nonetheless, somebody who purportedly masterminded the October 7th attacks and today the Israelis have… It’s not a surprise, but very clear that they want to kill him. How does that complicate just the process of diplomacy, getting a ceasefire, and is there at least-

I don’t…

If not a contradiction, at least a tension between trying to kill someone and trying to negotiate a ceasefire?

I don’t think there is. I really don’t think it’s… What the secretary said yesterday obviously, I think is accurate, which is it doesn’t really change the situation. Two things can be true. Number one, Sinwar is a brutal terrorist with blood on his hands, including the blood of American citizens. And not just American citizens, but citizens of many countries around the world. Remember, it’s not just citizens of Israel that were killed on October 7th. There were citizens of multiple countries, as I said, including the United States. That is true.

(03:18)
It is also true that he continues to be the person that calls the shots for Hamas. And that was true before the death of the political leader of Hamas. It continues to be true today. Ultimately, it was Sinwar that had the final decision-making authority, as we could see throughout these negotiations, on whether to accept a ceasefire or not. So yes, Sinwar absolutely ought to be brought to justice. We believe that for his significant acts of terrorism. And we also think he ought to accept the ceasefire deal that is manifestly in the interest of the Palestinian people as well as of course in the interests of Israel and the broader region.

I have a followup on that in particular. Have the Qataris given any indication that they’re any more reluctant to deal with Hamas now that Sinwar is the head of the organization?

No, they have not. In fact, Qatar has indicated to us that they continue to look to play the productive role they have really played since October 7th. Qatar, along with Egypt, have played an incredibly important role in trying to mediate a ceasefire deal. They played a role in the return of hostages previously, and they continue to play a really important role that you see us often express gratitude for. And that continues to be the case.

Absent the designation by Hamas, presumably by Sinwar of somebody who can physically be present at these negotiations, because presumably Sinwar himself will not be traveling to Cairo or anywhere else.

That’s presumably correct. Yeah.

Is there not at least a logistical obstacle to furthering ceasefire talks at this time?

So a few things about that. Number one, Haniyeh was not the only person who attended talks when there have been previous rounds of negotiations. There are other people from Hamas, from outside Gaza who attended those talks, and that can still be the case. Those people have had the ability to get messages to Sinwar. That’s been true all throughout the negotiations, and I would expect that to still be the case.

(05:13)
The second thing is that just because… Let me say it a different way. Second thing is that actual physical negotiations are not the only time that there are talks that go on throughout this process, right? We talk to Qatar and Egypt all the time. We talk to Israel all the time. They have the messages to communicate with the leadership of Hamas even absent getting in a room and talking to them. And I would expect that to continue to be the case as well.

I do not mean this to sound flippant, but does it not… And I take your latter point, but does it not require a commitment from Israel and I guess all of the negotiating parties not to kill the people who are taking part in these talks? If only to, again, sort of finalize a deal that I assume would have to happen in person.

So we want to see the talks get finalized. Right? There’s a couple ways to take your question. If you mean with respect to Sinwar, maybe that’s not what you meant. So I just say because that was something that Sean asked about. Certainly with respect to Sinwar is somebody that we believe ought to be brought to justice. There are other members of Hamas as well who are terrorists who deserve to be brought to justice in one way or the other.

(06:22)
But we do want to get these talks across the finish line. It is important that the talks be able to take place, that they take place sometimes virtually, and that they take place in person as well. And we’re going to continue to push for those to happen to finalize this agreement. As you’ve heard the president say, as you’ve heard the secretary say, we really do think we are in the final stages. We have agreement on a framework. There’s some final pieces left to agree on to implementation. That takes both Israel and Hamas agreeing. So yes, we want to see talks continue, and that does mean that there has to be someone on the other end of those negotiations.

I guess I more mean who would want this job given it probably places an immediate target on this person’s back.

So I’m not sure that I fully accept the premise of the question. I would hope people would want the… Yeah, but I would just say, well, there are a number of people who’ve been involved in the negotiations. I would just say I would hope people would want the job because they would see getting a ceasefire deal in the interest of the Palestinian people that they purport to represent. That I think is a reason why anybody who is a member of Hamas or a leader of Hamas ought to want to participate in these negotiations, get them over the finish line.

Okay. And on the final stages qualification, which seems like it’s a relatively recent descriptor that the White House and the State Department have been using to describe these talks. Not too long ago a US official said that there were still implementation issues that needed to be overcome. Is this description of final stages meant to indicate that those implementation issues have been resolved or are they still outstanding?

There are still implementation issues that need to be resolved, but if you look at how far we have come and what’s left remaining, those implementation issues, maybe minor’s not the right word, but compared to the scope of what has been agreed to are things that we think ought to be able to agree to, and ought to be able to be agreed to fairly quickly by the two parties. And so we do not think there should be any further delay. We think both parties ought to come to an agreement, and that is the message that we have sent directly as well as what you’ve heard us say publicly.

One quick last one on al-Assad and whether there’s been any engagement diplomatically with the Iraqi government as to is there any indication the Iraqi government is going to take any steps to investigate, to mitigate what happened to US troops?

Yeah, so we have been in conversation with the Iraqi government about this question. You may have seen also they have announced publicly that they’ve launched an investigation and arrested a number of suspects in connection with the attack. That, of course, is the appropriate thing for them to do. We have long said in previous rounds of attacks against US personnel in Iraq that those personnel are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government and it is incumbent upon the Iraqi government to take steps to prevent attacks in the first place. And when attacks do occur, to fully investigate and hold accountable those parties responsible. So it’s appropriate that they’re doing so in this case.

Another on Russia.

You already said last one.

No, I know.

Just to follow up on the negotiations, just to understand. So one of the things that you’re kind of saying to the Iranians is don’t escalate because we’re really close to getting a ceasefire deal. This is the same deal that you were calling an Israeli deal, right? This came from the Israelis in the first place. The president communicated it. Do the Israelis, have they signed up to all parts of the deal? Is there a deal ready for whoever the new Hamas negotiator is to come in and immediately say yes to?

So when the president first made public the proposal, which I think was on May 31st if I remember correctly, that was the proposal that the government of Israel put forward and that they had agreed to and that the president made public and that we submitted Hamas or said that Hamas ought to sign up to, was submitted to them through the mediators. Since then, there have been further iterations of the proposal. There were facts on the ground that have changed since the proposal was made publicly. There were facts on the ground that changed between the time that the president made the proposal and Hamas issued their response. So that proposal that we described as an Israeli proposal was what the president put forward on May 31st. There have been additional issues that have come into place since then that no, Israel has not agreed to and Hamas has not agreed to. So there are additional things outside of the overall framework that Israel put forward that Hamas agreed to that we’re still pushing to get agreement on from both parties.

So to put a finer point on it, as well as hoping that a new negotiator comes forward from the Hamas side, this is still optimism and hope that the Israelis will close that final gap.

We always have optimism and hope even in a difficult situation as this one. The government of Israel can speak for itself. I will give you our assessment of the situation and what it is we’re trying to do. Our assessment of the situation is that these final issues very much ought to be bridgeable and that there are real proposals that we have put forward to bridge the differences that we think ought to be agreed to. And we have made clear to the government of Israel that they ought to agree. Just as we believe the other mediators who are in contact with Hamas have made clear to Hamas that they ought to agree to compromises on these final issues and get us to an agreement.

And just finally, the secretary mentioned these direct contacts with the Iranians. Can you tell us, has the US

US had any response directly, not through intermediaries, but directly have the Iranians said anything in response to these messages you’ve been sending?

I don’t want to speak to that publicly. We have always said that when we need to send a message to Iran, we have the ability to do so. And of course we have the ability to talk to others in the region who can press upon Iran our shared concern about escalation. But as for Iran’s responses, I will not have any comment on that.

(12:30)
[inaudible 00:12:32]

Thank you. A couple of things on the Iranian response. Do you believe that the longer it takes means that it is more deliberate or more thought is going into it? It’s likely to be more controlled and less provocative, or less spreading to make a major war in the region? In your assessment, what is-

So it really requires me to, number one, speculate and, number two, try to put myself in the heads of the leaders of the Iranian government. And I’m not going to do either one of those things.

Okay. All right, fair enough. I also wanted to ask you about Sinwar. In retrospect, do you believe the Israelis made a mistake by sending someone like Haniyeh, who’s more moderate, goes around and so on, and now you have someone who’s probably a lot less moderate, more militant, probably more isolated, not exposed in terms of leading negotiations?

Look, the way I’ll answer that is ultimately Sinwar ought to have the interest of the Palestinian people at heart. That’s what he said before. And when you think about what has happened to Palestinians in Gaza since October 7th, since the outset of a war that Sinwar decided to start, there have been devastating humanitarian consequences and Sinwar has been immune from those consequences because he’s safe underground. He’s immune from the tragedy that his actions have wrought on the Palestinian people and that they continue to bring upon the Palestinian people by Hamas fighters hiding inside civilian infrastructure.

(14:10)
So ultimately, as I said to, I think it was Olivia’s question, Sinwar ought to make the same calculation as Haniyeh or any other leader of Hamas would, which is: is it time for a ceasefire? So the harm that the Palestinian people and Gaza are feeling can finally be alleviated, that we can surge more humanitarian assistance in, and ultimately we can bring it into this war.

That brings me to this question. It’s been more than two months since the President on May 31 announced a proposal and he said that it was an Israeli proposal. Yet we really are not going anywhere. I mean, more Palestinians are being killed every day, less humanitarian aid, and so on, is going in, and so on. The situation is very, very dire. It seems no end in sight. So, what steps can the United States take to make sure that this actually is, that the field goal is reached?

So first of all, we have come a long ways in terms of getting an agreement to the proposal. When you look at the agreement, the pieces of the proposal that have been agreed to by the two sides, it is a remarkable step forward from where they were several months ago. And there are a lot of things responsible for that, but one of them is the very hard work that the governments of the United States, the governments of Egypt, and the governments of Qatar put into trying to get this proposal over the line and get a framework agreed to.

(15:44)
Now that said, nothing is final until everything is final, so we do need to reach agreement on these final issues. And so, all we can do as the United States is push all the relevant parties to come to an agreement, to work diplomatically, to try to get them to come to an agreement, and to continue to impress upon every party in the region how further escalation of the conflict threatens the ability to reach a ceasefire, has the risk of further plunging the region into conflict and violence and wider war. And so, it’s in no party’s interest to take those further escalatory steps.

I wonder if you would comment on the situation in the West Bank. Yesterday, the Israeli occupation forces killed 10 Palestinians, and basically executed them. And of course they were holding money, they’re seizing the money, and so on. The situation is really deteriorating in the West Bank. In many places, it’s not much better than what’s going on in Gaza.

So two different things in your question, with respect to anti-terrorism operations that Israel has conducted, they have a right to defend themselves. They have a right to conduct anti-terrorism operations. I saw that in the reports of some of those Palestinians who were killed, you had Palestinian Islamic Jihad praising them as members of the resistance and members of the armed resistance, so those are obviously people that Israel has a right to conduct legitimate terrorism operations against.

(17:14)
When it comes to the withholding of Palestinian tax revenues, however, that’s a different matter. We have made very clear that Israel needs to release all of that money. It’s Palestinian money. And you have seen our diplomatic engagements on this question over the past several months produce results, time and time again. Not all of the money has been released, but a very significant portion of the money that at times Israel has withheld has been released as a result of the work that we have put into this.

So Israel has a right to use fighter planes, fighter jets supplied by the United States against an occupied people.

I’m not going to-

They really have no means of resisting themselves.

So, I’m not going to speak to each strike or each specific tactic, but they do have the right to when there are people, when there are militants who are launching, plotting terrorist operations against Israel, of course they have the right.

[inaudible 00:18:03]

No, of course they have the right to carry out strikes and other anti-terrorism operations to defend against terrorism.

Thank you.

May I move to Ukraine please?

Sure.

Nearly 900 days of full-scale Russian invasion. Today, the Kremlin suddenly remember that there are some borders, some borders of every country. Can you speak to what’s going on, latest developments? Given the reports coming up, what do you know, how much you know, and have Ukrainians informed you about the raids?

Have we heard from?

The Ukrainian side?

So, we are in communication with the Ukrainians about this particular operation. I believe you’re referring to the operation across the board that they launched earlier today. I will leave it to them to speak to what it is, what kind of operations they’re conducting and what their goals are. That’s appropriate that they speak to that publicly, not us. But you’re right, I have seen the statements from the Russian government is a little bit rich, them calling it a provocation, given Russia violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. You said 900 days. It actually goes back much longer than, it goes back to 2014, and continues to illegally occupy Ukrainian territory.

(19:17)
Ultimately, the decisions about how Ukraine conducts its military operations are decisions that Ukraine makes. Nothing has changed about our policy with respect to strikes across the border.

I mean, no constraints placed on Ukraine in terms of how they fight back, or take the fight across the border?

Nothing with respect to the policy that we announced several months ago with respect to allowing the equipment that we provide to be used in strikes across the border, or to target sites, Russian military sites just across the board, nothing about that policy has changed.

Beyond the US weapons, do Ukrainians have a right to make Russia feel the consequences of their own illegal occupation?

So ultimately these are all decisions that are left to Ukraine.

I also wanted to ask you about, I did raise this two days ago about Ukrainian prisoners of war. Given the latest reporting how Russians are treating them, we’ve seen this [inaudible 00:20:14] of Ukrainian prisoners. Do you have any reaction?

So, obviously Russia has an obligation to abide by the Geneva Conventions when it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war. One of the things that we have seen throughout this conflict is Ukraine be able to engage in conversations not directly with Russia, I believe, but through intermediaries to be able to return Ukrainian prisoners of war, and those are obviously important.

And one more on Georgia, if I may. The secretary today issued a statement about 16 years of illegal invasion of Georgian territories. Two points here. One is are you in a position to finally say out loud what the Georgians have been waiting for 16 years to hear from you, that this was unprovoked. This Russian action, nothing was provoked by Georgian side. Unfortunately, hearing different narratives both from Moscow, also from Putin regime in-

So, I think the Secretary’s statement today was actually quite clear that this was an illegal invasion and an illegal occupation, or an illegal invasion by Russia and continues to be an illegal occupation by Russia. And of course, the steps that they’re trying to take to continue to claim territory are completely without justification. Back to Olivia.

[inaudible 00:21:28] this question. One is whether it is known to the US whether US- provided weapons are being used in southern Russia by the Ukrainians?

I’ll let the Pentagon speak to that question.

And second was you said you’re in communication now, did the US have visibility from the Ukrainians before they went into Russia that they would do so?

We did not. But it’s not unusual for the Ukrainians not to notify us of their exact tactics before they execute them. This is a war that they’re conducting. We provide them with equipment, we provide them with advice. But when it comes to the day-by-day tactics that they carry out, the day-by-day strikes that they take, sometimes we’re in communication about them, sometimes we’re not, and it’s appropriate for them to make those decisions.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

[inaudible 00:22:12] On the operation in that Kursk region, is it the State Department’s sense that Ukraine is opening up a second front into Russia?

Again, I will let Ukraine speak to its operations.

And then can you just specify, because this isn’t a strict counter-fire situation, perhaps like we saw in Kharkiv, can Ukraine use US-supplied weapons in this region, if it’s a military target?

I’ll answer it this way: nothing about our policy has changed and with the actions that they’re taking today, they’re not in violation of our policy.

And then I have another one on the UK.

Sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry, this is on the UK, if that’s okay?

Yeah, of course.

The protests that are happening right now are fueled in part by misinformation that appears to be spread by far-right agitators. Just wondering, has State Department been in contact with any of their UK counterparts about this? And are there concerns that this kind of pattern could repeat here in the US?

So, I don’t have any conversations to speak to from the podium today, but obviously we have been watching, first, the protests and then later the riots in the UK over recent days. Everyone around the world has the right to exercise their rights to freedom of speech, their rights to freedom of assembly, but that does not in any way justify violence, does not justify rioting. And UK authorities are well within their rights to use all law enforcement authorities to hold those accountable who engage in violent activities.

Can I follow up briefly?

Yeah, yeah, sure.

The role of social media, [inaudible 00:23:34] misinformation on social media including US-based sites. Has the State Department has any discussions about that, about the role, any role that it could use to try to get rid of the misinformation?

So, that is obviously something that we work on quite a bit here through our global engagement center when it comes to misinformation online, overseas. But I don’t have any specific assessments with respect, or specific actions with respect

… respect to these most recent events in the UK to discuss.

Any sign of, I’m not saying that there this, but there have been some suggestions perhaps Russian involvement in this. Is that something that-

I just don’t have any assessments to offer today. Yeah, Janne.

Thank you, Matt. Two questions. At a meeting of U.S. and Australian foreign and defense ministers’ meeting yesterday, both sides called for the denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and for North Korea to engage in diplomacy, which is the only path to lasting peace. However, North Korea has recently completely closed its dialogue channel with the United States. How will it approach this?

So we will approach this by continuing to consult with our allies and partners and continue to make clear that it’s not just the United States that rejects the nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula; it’s not just the United States that’s calling for a return to diplomacy; it is other countries. You mentioned that Australia, in the joint statement that we released yesterday, shares the same position as us. That’s a position that is held by countries, really, around the region. And so ultimately it is the broad, I won’t say consensus; there are other countries that have different views, of course, but when you look at most of the countries in the region, it is a near consensus that North Korea’s actions are unacceptable and that they ought to return to diplomacy.

One more quick. North Korea has been laying tens of thousands of landmines since April in the DMZ, and North Korea continued to send landmine to South Korea carried by heavy rain. What do you comment on this? Also, do you think North Korea violated the Ottawa Convention agreement?

So I won’t speak to a legal question, but obviously we continue to believe that North Korea should stop these destabilizing actions.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Going back to Israel, Israeli media today released a video showing Israeli soldiers raping a Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman detention camp. The footage was very disturbing. I know you have commented on the reports about this detention center before, but we now have a new evidence, which is video. Have you seen that video? And do you have anything to say on that and also the reports of rape in Israeli prisons?

Yeah. So we have seen the video, and reports of sexual abuse of detainees are horrific. They ought to be investigated fully by the Government of Israel, by the IDF. Prisoners’ human rights need to be respected in all cases, and when there are alleged violations the Government of Israel needs to take steps to investigate those who are alleged to have committed abuses, and if appropriate, hold them accountable. And it is appropriate that the IDF in this case has announced an investigation, has arrested a number of people who are alleged to have been involved, and I won’t speak to the outcome of that investigation, but it ought to proceed swiftly, and if they are determined to be in violation of criminal laws or violations of the IDF’s code of conduct, then of course they ought to be held accountable.

And actually this is not the first rape incident, we have been hearing about Israeli prisons, and Israeli human rights group B’Tselem on Monday released a report saying that Sde Teiman is only tip of the iceberg and that Israeli detention centers turned into a network of torture camps for Palestinians. Its report cited testimonies from 55 Palestinian detainees. So I know the Israelis are investigating this, but would you support an independent investigation into those allegations?

So I would have to look at what the specific independent investigation people are calling for and pass judgment on the merits. But, look, there ought to be zero tolerance for sexual abuse, rape of any detainee, period. It’s a fundamental belief of the United States. And if there are detainees who have been abused or detainees who have been sexually assaulted or raped, the Government of Israel and the IDF need to fully investigate those actions and hold anyone responsible accountable to the full extent of the law.

Just a final one on that. What is your reaction to that Israelis, including politicians and lawmakers, protested actually the arrest of Israeli soldiers who are suspected of abuse and rape? We have also seen comments from Israeli lawmakers trying to justify the rape of Palestinians. Have you seen those remarks?

So obviously, with respect to the last question, there is no justification for rape of anyone. As I said, there must be zero tolerance for sexual assault of detainees. And with respect to comments that have been made by people in the Israeli Government or protests or attempts to interfere with the military judicial system in Israel, our principle, the principle that we believe ought to apply in Israel is a principle that ought to apply anywhere in the world, and that is that the rule of law needs to hold. And so we have seen the statements by the IDF chief of staff that these investigations are important, that they are going to continue, and that is fully appropriate.

Have you seen the… I’m sorry. Have you seen the B’Tselem report? It’s called “Welcome to Hell,” the B’Tselem report that-

I have seen the report. I haven’t reviewed it in detail. Yeah.

Thank you, Matt. Going back to Iraq, and this attack has happened just after 24 hours after Secretary Blinken calls to Iraqi prime minister, and he was requesting him the protection for the U.S. forces. So you haven’t labeled any militia groups who was behind this attack. Do you know which group attacked the U.S. forces in Iraq? Has the Iraqi Government told you any information on this?

So it is a question that we continue to review, and of course, as I said in response to an earlier question, it’s a matter that’s under investigation by the Government of Iraq.

And then has the Iraqi Government requested you to not respond this attack because they are doing investigative and they will take care about accountability?

I’m not going to get into any private diplomatic conversations. Go ahead, Ksenija.

Thank you, Matt. Nine Serbian post offices in northern Kosovo were closed by the Kosovo Government on August 5th, an action the EU condemned as unilateral and uncoordinated step and a violation of agreements reached under the EU-facilitated dialogue. The condemnation include familiar words such as unilateral, uncoordinated, and calls to return to a dialogue, which to this day Prime Minister Kurti didn’t take seriously. So how many red lines in northern Kosovo can Prime Minister Kurti keep violating without any consequences?

I’m not going to speculate about actions in the future. What I will say is we are concerned by the continuing uncoordinated decisions by the leadership of Kosovo. We believe they put at risk the opportunities that we have helped Kosovo create. If you look at the story since Kosovo’s independence, the United States has strongly supported their full integration into the international community as a sovereign multiethnic democracy, but to realize this vision, which is a vision that we share, we have cooperated with successive Kosovo political leaders on measures that enhance peace and prosperity at home while advancing Kosovo on this Euro-Atlantic path that you agreed to. And so what we would encourage the Government of Kosovo to do is to return to close and constructive engagement with the United States, with the EU, with NATO, and Kosovo’s other close international partners. As I’m making this clear publicly, we have made that clear privately to the government as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, go ahead.

Me?

Yeah.

Thank you. I’m Celia from VOA. Venezuela has been in the news since last week, and we just want to clarify: You made a statement on Monday about the stance of the United States after being asked if the United States recognize Edmundo González as the president-elect of Venezuela. We have heard from the United States the week prior that they recognize his win. Is that a change or is that the same position, which is to just-

No, it is the same position. We have made clear that we believe he received the most votes in the election, and we think if you look at the results that were obtained by the opposition and made public by the opposition, they confirm that even if Maduro were to win every vote of those outstanding, it wouldn’t be enough to close the gap. But at the same time, what we support moving forward is an inclusive Venezuelan-led process for the re-establishment of democratic norms in coordination with our international partners, and that’s what we’ve been discussing with our international partners, as well as with the opposition in Venezuela, to whom the Secretary spoke at the end of last week.

So Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil is the team that has been formed so far. So the United States expresses specifically that you’re supporting that process. How that process looks like for the United States as the Government of Venezuela right now is tightening up their arrest of opposition, protesters are being detained, it’s been claims of violation of human rights, and orders of the arrest for Edmundo and María Corina Machado have been issued by the government?

Yeah. So we’ve been quite clear that we have great concerns about those ordered arrests and have great concerns about the crackdown on protests. I don’t think those actions by Maduro really inspire confidence in the regime’s actions and certainly don’t inspire confidence in his proclaimed victory when you see him continue to take actions to crack down on the opposition, to not release the full results. So we’re going to continue to discuss these issues with people in Venezuela. As I said, this ultimately needs to be a Venezuelan-led process to discuss how to return to democratic norms, and we’re going to talk about it with our partners in the region.

How is that possible when you have the opposition leaders with a threat of arrest? She went into hiding for a while.

So unfortunately, it is the sad reality this is the situation the opposition leaders have been living with for some time, not just in the past week but obviously for years, and they have shown great courage in continuing to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, their rights to political organization, and we’re going to continue to support them in doing that. And again, as we have made clear and we hope others in the region will make clear, steps to crack down on the opposition, who are just exercising fundamental political freedoms, including the right to have an election respected and have the results of an election respected, that crackdowns are something that everyone in the hemisphere should oppose.

Finally, yesterday Nicolás Maduro made a statement about the use of WhatsApp and

… WhatsApp and social media, and also threats of people communicating and posting things on social media. Is there a concern that it’s going to be basically a crackdown of any sort of information that travels through social media?

So, of course, I think the answer I just gave a minute ago applies to this. You have seen him take a number of steps to crack down on freedom of expression, and try to crack down on protests, and crack down on the opposition exercising their fundamental rights. And certainly, it wouldn’t be surprising to see him continue to take those kind of actions. And I think it’s why it’s incumbent upon everyone in the hemisphere to make clear that we oppose those actions, that they’re unacceptable, and that ultimately Maduro needs to respect the will and the votes that were cast by the Venezuelan people.

(36:47)
Yeah, go ahead.

Thanks, Matthew. So what would the US response be to Iranian or Hezbollah retaliation?

So, we have made clear that we will defend Israel from any attacks by Iran or its proxy groups, as we have on previous occasions.

And does the US know where Sheikh Hasina is?

It’s not a question for us to speak to. It’s a question for her to speak to.

And then finally, has the US seen Sheikh Hasina’s reported resignation? And does it assess this resignation to be credible and rendered in a willing and legitimate fashion?

So I spoke to this the other day. We have seen the announcement by the military. We don’t have any further information other than the announcement that they made.

Thank you.

On Iran-

Sean, go ahead.

[inaudible 00:37:40] again you’re [inaudible 00:37:41]-

Excuse me, please.

Come one man, don’t do that. Please.

Again, when one of your colleagues has been call-

You don’t ask me about-

So I’m going to say one thing, and then I’m going to move to Sean’s question.

Enjoy your last few months nicely with respecting each other.

I was going to call on you a moment ago, but as is always the case-

I respect you [inaudible 00:37:54]. Don’t call on me if you’re going to do me a favor.

… when you interrupt a colleague I’m not going to call on you.

Don’t do me a favor, I’m here as a journalist. Don’t do me a favor.

Sean, go ahead.

Let me just ask you about Bangladesh, follow it up on the question there. Muhammad Yunus has been appointed the head of an interim government. Has there been any contact with him or others in Bangladesh? How do you assess more general stability of Bangladesh?

I don’t have any contacts to read out today. We continue to monitor developments in Bangladesh. And we obviously have seen the appointment of Muhammad Yunus as the leader of an interim government. We think the interim government will play a vital role in establishing long-term peace and political stability in Bangladesh. And as you heard the Secretary say yesterday, any decisions that interim government makes should respect democratic principles, rule of law, and the will of the Bangladeshi people.

Just a quick follow up.

Sure. Just quickly-

It’s interruption day at the briefing, everyone just let your colleague finish their questions before speaking up.

I’ll just ask one more of this-

It’s not funny at all. Don’t find it funny.

Reports on visa policy and Sheikh Hasina-

[inaudible 00:38:56] more chances getting a …

Visa policy and Sheikh Hasina-

Go ahead, Sean.

… whether the United States-

Maybe start, I didn’t hear the premise of the question, others were speaking.

I mean, I know that the issue of the visa for Sheikh Hasina, does the US have any comment on that, whether her visa would be valid, or whether she would be allowed here if she chose?

So visa records are confidential under US law, I can’t speak to them in any way.

(39:18)
Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, sir. So, DOJ charged Iran-linked Pakistani for political assassination plot. A couple of media organizations here in the US claim that this person also involved an assassination at attempt on former President Trump. But White House says that there is no evidence that this man was involved in assassination attempt on President Trump. What is your understanding of that?

I think I would defer to the Justice Department to speak to an indictment that was returned by a grand jury.

So, what kind of conversation going on with Pakistan on this? Because there is a mysterious silence in Pakistan embassy here, and they’re not saying anything about it. And what kind of correspondence is going on in Pakistan? What kind of message being given to Pakistan?

So, I don’t have any discussions to speak to today, but we have been clear that the United States will continue to do what is necessary to protect our people, including former officials from threats emanating from Iran. That continues to be the case. And beyond that, it’s really a matter that I should leave to the Justice Department to speak to.

Sir, Pakistan embassy also working as a point of contact for Iran here. They have a different section which is taking care of the Iranian affairs here. So is there any message being sent to Iran through Pakistan embassy?

Again, I hate to do this, but as I just said, you’re asking me about an ongoing legal matter that is a subject of a DOJ indictment. It’s just not something I can speak to from here.

(40:37)
Go ahead.

Thank you, Matt. I’m sorry.

Follow up on Pakistan, if you’ll allow me.

Go ahead.

[inaudible 00:40:41] because of your media management, by the way, as well.

As Sean asked my question. My one question is to you, are you aware that dictator Prime Minister Hasina’s son is staying in Virginia and threatening the new government inciting violence, and he was also the ICT, information and technology advisor to the former dictator Sheikh Hasina who shut down the internet in Bangladesh. So what is your comment, please?

I don’t have any comments by statements made by a private citizen. I’ve already spoken to the interim government in Bangladesh and what steps we want to see it carry out as it moves forward.

So what is your expectation to the new government to make stability, to build the institution, and to arrange a free, fair, inclusive election?

So, as I just said in answer to Sean’s question, as the interim government makes decisions moving forward, we want to see them do so in a way that respects democratic principles.

(41:39)
Ryan.

A follow-up on the Venezuela question. The situations in Venezuela and the Pakistan elections are remarkably similar. In each one, you had the polling locations distribute the vote tallies that the opposition was courageously able to get a hold of and then aggregate together, and then show that the results that were being given by the central authorities were just completely inaccurate. But the main difference, though, was the US response. Don Lu, for instance, said when it came to Pakistan, “We don’t actually recognize governments,” he told Congress, that it’s not a thing we do. We work with them but we don’t recognize them. But when it came to Venezuela, very quickly the State Department affirms that the opposition won the election. Do you feel like the US had less credibility when it came to Venezuela because of the way that it had handled the Pakistan situation?

No. We make all of these assessments based on the facts, and the facts can be very different in country to country. When you look at Venezuela within several days, we were able to make an assessment. And it’s not just the United States, but there are independent international observatory groups like the Carter Center who were able to look at the tallies that the opposition had obtained in 80% of precincts around the country, and look at those tallies and see that the opposition candidate had won by such a margin that it was impossible for Maduro to overtake that margin. And then you compare that with the actions that Maduro had taken, or that his regime had taken to not release actually any tallies. Still to this day, they’ve not released any tallies.

(43:16)
Compare that with a situation in Pakistan where you did have the Supreme Court who took steps, who reviewed it, and after a number of weeks, number of months did find some irregularities and ordered, I believe, that several candidates were reinstated. I don’t want to get the exact specifics of it wrong. My point being it’s a very different context, and I don’t think the facts line up just quite so cleanly as the way you described them in your question.

More broadly, I want to ask you about transnational repression. Has the State Department seen any rise in that as a phenomenon? How seriously are you taking it?

So it’s certainly something that we have been vigilant in monitoring. We have seen countries around the world engage in it and attempt to engage in it. It’s something that we take quite seriously. You’ve seen me over the, it’s more than a year I’ve been doing this job now, asked about specific instances of transnational repression in a number of cases, and we’ve made quite clear that it is something we oppose. And of course you’ve seen the US Justice Department take steps when it comes to examples of transnational repression as well.

And finally, on this rape and torture center, that seems to be pretty clear, all sides seem to agree that horrible things are taking place here. How is it still open? Does the US believe that it needs to be closed at this point? And just-

So, we believe that all of the allegations need to be fully investigated and anyone responsible needs to be held accountable. I think that’s the appropriate first step before moving to anything else.

Pakistan. Second-

We’ll go one more in the back and then we’ll wrap for today.

And this is not the attitude. This is not your battle.

[inaudible 00:44:50] So according to the European Union representative office in the Palestinian territories, Israel advanced last year the highest number of settlements in the occupied West Bank since the Oslo Accords. The total number is 30,682. Do Palestinians who lose their lands for settlements have the right of self-defense?

So, we have made clear that we oppose the settlement program that has been executed by the governor of Israel. We think that it is inconsistent with international law, and ultimately they’re not conducive to peace, and it’s a matter we continue to engage with the government of Israel on.

[inaudible 00:45:29]-

I think I’ll wrap there, but I do want to close with one final thing, which is just to note, those of you who have been watching me for the last year know that I try to cover as many people in the room. I try to get to everyone I can. But a principle that I have tried to uphold-

[inaudible 00:45:42]-

… is that when people interrupt me and when they interrupt their colleagues, not only am I not going to call them that day, I’m going to have a hard time calling them in the future. Thanks, everyone.

… but you are a disgrace [inaudible 00:45:54].