Speaker 1 (00:00):
Where do we start, Ukraine or Lebanon? Let's start with the Middle East. What's the latest with the discussions over Lebanon's ceasefire?
Matt (00:10):
You might've seen that the president's special envoy, Amos Hochstein, was in Beirut today, meeting with the Speaker of the Lebanese parliament. He gave a press statement after that where he made clear that we have made significant progress and that an agreement is within reach, but it's going to take decisions by both parties, by both Israel and Lebanon, to actually get an agreement. And that's what we're going to continue to push for.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Okay. Well, so I mean, where does this leave us right now?
Matt (00:42):
It leaves us that we're going to continue to talk to the parties to try to get an agreement. There are a number of issues-
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Who is, he is?
Matt (00:48):
The United States, yeah. Amos, the special envoy, is the lead negotiator, but then the president has been involved at various times. The secretary has been involved at various times. And it'll continue to be an across-the-government focus to try and reach a diplomatic resolution because it's critical to getting people back to their homes on both sides of the blue line.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Okay. And the main goal of this proposal is essentially the basic framework of what you guys and the French had laid out at the end of September, which is obviously a ceasefire, but also full implementation of 1701.
Matt (01:28):
Without getting into the underlying details, which I know you'll understand given that we're still negotiating this potential resolution, we want to see the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701, so both Israelis and Lebanese civilians can return to their homes.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
But what I'm getting at is that this proposal or what he was over there discussing with the Lebanese and is apparently going to Israel to discuss with the Israelis, is essentially the same as what you had on the table before. Is that correct, or no?
Matt (02:03):
I'm going to answer that by saying obviously in the course of negotiations, proposals always evolve because it's a conversation that happens between the relevant parties and us, as the mediator. So the proposal that is on the table right now is not identical to the proposal that was on the table two weeks ago or two months ago, but the overall framework that we're trying to reach is yes, full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
All right. Thanks.
Matt (02:28):
Humeyra?
Humeyra (02:30):
Matt, This might be a bizarre question, but do you know why he's-
Matt (02:36):
I'd be surprised. I'd be surprised by that.
Humeyra (02:38):
Do you know why he's more optimistic than before? The reason I ask this is we've been here many, many times with Gaza ceasefire. What is the concrete progress that you guys have made that you think you're on the cusp of it this time?
Matt (02:53):
I'm not going to speak to the underlying details, which I'd have to tell you where the assessment comes from, but obviously when we come out and give you an assessment about where negotiations stand, it's based on our conversations with the parties.
(03:07)
And so he can make the kind of statement he made, I can make the kind of statement I made yesterday when I noted that we had made progress because we are in conversation with the parties and we can see that we have overcome some of the obstacles to getting a resolution, but there's more to be done. And we need an agreement from the parties, but we are working to accomplish that. We want to get one done as soon as possible.
Humeyra (03:27):
Can you put a timeline at all?
Matt (03:28):
No, I can't do that.
Humeyra (03:31):
It is our understanding that the United States has agreed to the Israeli condition that when it's struck by Hezbollah from across the border in Lebanon, that it reserves the right to go in and attack those targets. Is that correct?
Matt (03:48):
I'm not going to speak to any underlying details of the agreement, which is not to either confirm … or not confirm. Just to say when it comes to any underlying details of this resolution that we are trying to reach, while we are still in the negotiating stages, I don't think it would be helpful for me to be talking about what the details are publicly.
Humeyra (04:08):
Right. On the civilian harm channel that you guys were discussing and you mentioned in the letter, do you have any updates for us [inaudible 00:04:17]?
Matt (04:16):
When we have scheduled a meeting between senior officials here at the department and senior officials in the Israeli government in early December. It'll be the first meeting of that new channel.
Humeyra (04:27):
And that would take place here or virtually?
Matt (04:29):
I'm not going to get into the details of that meeting, but it'll happen in early December.
Humeyra (04:33):
Can you say how senior those Israeli officials and state department officials will be?
Matt (04:38):
As we get closer to the date and certainly on the date and after, we'll have a more specific readout of the people that were involved. But at this point, no, I don't want to get into it.
Humeyra (04:45):
Right. A couple of final things. So we can assume that the channel is set up now and it's going to … and this is going to be-
Matt (04:52):
Correct.
Humeyra (04:53):
… its first meeting. And what is your plan about this channel? Given that you're saying this meeting is going to happen in December, I suspect then you're going to have maybe a month or so or 40 days to talk to the Israelis about this. What do you intend to achieve during that very limited time?
Matt (05:11):
The purpose of this channel is to inform the ongoing work that the State Department has to do to make assessments about the use of US-provided weapons. That's what we want to do, as well as to gather our own information about what Israel is doing. We get questions from you about specific strikes and we want to know the answers, both to be responsive to the media and for our own purposes. So it's to gather information about incidents that have been raised that are a cause of concern or a cause of question.
(05:41)
Now we take all the information we gather, whether it be from public reporting by the media, whether it be from NGOs, whether it be from the government of Israel or other governments, and feed it into our processes, both our policymaking processes and the judgments that we have to make about potential violations of international humanitarian law. And we will continue to do that.
Humeyra (06:04):
Right. Given that this channel is now set up and you will have a meeting and you intend to use the time to further your ongoing assessments, which have been ongoing for more than a year, can you commit that one of those many assessments will conclude in the end?
Matt (06:22):
What do you mean that they'll conclude? Do you mean by January 20th?
Humeyra (06:25):
Yes.
Matt (06:27):
Let me just step back and say that the assessments that the State Department is required to make are legal requirements, and they're not legal requirements that are attached to any one administration. That burden for the State Department continues through the end of this administration and into the following administration. So we want to get that work done as quickly as possible.
(06:49)
But this is not a partisan exercise, is not a political exercise by this administration. This is the serious work of government that is supposed to go on regardless of who the president is.
Humeyra (06:58):
Final thing. Sure, I understand that, but at the moment you guys are still in charge and I'm asking this administration because I've asked this question many, many times. It's been over a year you have said to us these assessments about Israel's potential IHL violations has been going on. The fact that you have this channel, does that mean your work on that front is going to speed up or not?
Matt (07:21):
Our work is already moving as quickly as we can possibly make it move, but they are difficult assessments that we have to make that require both gathering facts and making in some cases complicated judgments. And so I have never been able to put a timetable on that work because we have a number of different incidents that we are looking at, but we are committed to working through that process and having an answer as quickly as possible.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Can I follow up?
Matt (07:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Has there been any conclusion to the 500 CHIRG incidences that you were looking at?
Matt (07:55):
Let me just first say that we have never confirmed an exact number, I know that number has been reported, but when it comes to incidents that we have looked at, there have been some incidents, I think I've spoken to this before, there have been some incidents that go through the process that you can pretty quickly take out of the process early on. It's a typical fact-finding case when you get presented a potentially concerning incident and you find out that no, there's actually a justification for that incident or there wasn't the harm that was reported, and you can take those out of the process.
(08:27)
Then there are the more difficult ones and those take time and those are ongoing. I don't have a conclusion to report out yet.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
And none of those have been concluded though-
Matt (08:37):
What my point is, there are some-
Speaker 2 (08:38):
… that had made it to that later stage?
Matt (08:39):
Yeah, yeah. No, no, they have not. There are some that have been concluded that we're in the earlier stage, but no, with respect to that. No.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
And to this new channel that is meeting in December, can you give us a sense of what particular incidents would rise to that channel versus the existing channels? How much overlap are we going see here?
Matt (08:55):
I don't want to speak to it publicly, but there are a number of incidents. You've heard me speak to a number of incidents from this podium. You've heard the secretary speak to them. We have raised some of them in the National Security Memo 20 report that we issued back in April. There are a number of incidents that we have had questions about and we have had concerns about without speaking to any one of those.
(09:17)
We certainly have a list of incidents to go through in that channel, which is not to say that we haven't sought answers through existing channels we have, but we set up this new channel because we wanted to formalize a mechanism for getting answers to some of these questions.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
And then on Gaza, there's reports of just this prevalence of looting of humanitarian aid by gangs in Gaza. There's a report from the Post today that Israeli forces are looking the other way on this or actively facilitating it. What is the US assessment of whether Israel is doing enough to stop this looting in Gaza?
Matt (09:49):
Let me just first say, with respect to the looting that's ongoing. First of all, it's abhorrent, and the people who are looting humanitarian assistance for their own ends are taking food and medicine out of the hands of civilians, including children, who need it. Incredibly desperate people who need access to this food. And anyone who is stealing or diverting humanitarian assistance for their own profit, for their own gain, is quite obviously harming their own people and they should stop immediately. That's the first thing that I think needs to be made clear when it comes to looting.
(10:33)
Second when it comes to looting, so what we have seen is a breakdown in the security situation inside of Gaza, and there are a lot of reasons for the breakdown in that security situation. And what we are trying to work through is with the IDF, with COGAT, with the relevant UN agencies, to find solutions to get more security assistance delivered to the people that need it.
(11:04)
One of the things you heard us speak to last week is at our request, the IDF opened new routes to deliver humanitarian assistance. And we are hopeful that some of those new routes will help divert convoys away from looters. But this has been a problem that's been ongoing for some time. It was a problem several months ago and we were able to work a work through a security situation, working through our UN partners. A lot of that work we can't really speak to, given it's a sensitive security question, but it is a critical goal to make sure humanitarian assistance gets to where it needs to go.
(11:42)
Now that said, ultimately you are not going to fully finally solve this problem without an end to the war and the establishment of a new
Matt (12:00):
Governance and security authority inside Gaza because ultimately that is the problem right now is that there is an absence of a governing authority. It's why we continue to work to establish a new governing authority to make sure that there is someone who if armed criminal gangs come to loot convoys, that there is someone that can stand up and stop them. And that is an urgent priority for the United States.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
At this point though, is the IDF and COGAT doing enough?
Matt (12:25):
So they're working to establish an improved security situation on the ground. But clearly when you have looting going on, there's a breakdown. And the IDF certainly bears part of the blame for that. The overall breakdown in authority, the end of an actual government, a government we opposed to be clear, but a government that was providing day-to-day security and critically the lack of a replacement with anything else is ultimately the key culprit for the lack of security on the ground right now. Which is why I get back to this point that we have to find an end into the war and the replacement.
(13:02)
I don't think anyone believes, or at least no one in our government believes and most people in the region don't believe, that the IDF ought to be the occupying power inside Gaza providing security for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. There needs to be Palestinian led security that is preventing convoys from being looted and preserving law and order, and that's what we're trying to work towards. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Off the back of Jenny's questioning on the routes and you saying that the US had asked Israel to open up new routes. What happened over the weekend, this was something that happened, the Kerem Shalom crossing, and in the Washington Post piece that Jenny mentioned, they had said that humanitarian groups they had asked Israeli authorities to open up routes that would be safer, that would avoid the criminal gangs. So these routes that they'd asked for, are those the same routes that the US was asking Israel to open up? Are they different routes? [inaudible 00:14:01].
Matt (14:01):
I don't know which routes specifically that they're referring to in the story, that the humanitarian groups were referring to in the story. But what we have communicated to the government of Israel… And lots of times we make these requests to the government of Israel on behalf of humanitarian organizations that we work with. Remember that USAID is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. It gets delivered through the UN agencies who in many event are having their convoys being attacked. So we make these requests for them to open new routes. Whether they are the same specific routes in this instance that the UN agencies are asking for, I can't speak to with that level of detail. But in general, we are in contact with them and in communication with them about how to get new routes open that would alleviate some of the security situation.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And I know that you said that obviously there is no preference for the IDF to be an occupying force within Gaza. Is there any position the US takes in terms of like the IDF providing immediate security to trucks a little bit further down the road once they've entered crossings like Kerem Shalom? Because this incident happened near the crossing and there are reports of the IDF standing by whilst there were Palestinian, as you describe them, gang members with guns and the IDF are just not doing anything.
Matt (15:21):
So this is a question that we have been in intense communication with the governor of Israel about, and I don't want to speak to it publicly here. I would note that there have been times when UN agencies have not wanted security to be provided in certain contexts by a belligerent in the conflict, including this conflict. But this underlying question is something that we are actively working on trying to answer.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Okay. And on the Hamas leadership, you had mentioned yesterday about how, you had mentioned what sounded like extradition of Hamas leaders, that it would be a US preference. Is the US actively pursuing extradition of these Hamas leaders that have reportedly left Doha and are now in Turkey?
Matt (16:07):
So I was speaking as a policy matter, anytime that there is a fugitive from US Justice, we want to see them returned to the US to face justice. But when it comes to specific extradition requests, as you know, it's our longstanding policy not to comment on those. They're a legal matter for the Department of Justice.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Okay. And then just the last one, on these sanctions that were announced on the Hamas leaders today, is that related to some of these Hamas leaders that are reportedly now in Turkey or was that just already in the pipeline?
Matt (16:33):
I would have to go back and check. I don't know the specific location. These were sanctions that were already in the pipeline well before-
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Three of them are apparently in Turkey.
Matt (16:42):
I'd say these are sanctions that were in the pipeline well before the last week. I didn't know that. I don't personally know the exact location of those. But we have sanctioned Hamas leaders that lived in Doha, that lived in Gaza, that lived in relative places around the Middle East.
Speaker 4 (16:57):
Just to be clear, you're confirming some of these Hamas leaders are now in Turkey?
Matt (17:01):
I said I don't know the location of…
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Okay. So you're not confirming their whereabouts?
Speaker 3 (17:06):
I was saying [inaudible 00:17:07]-
Matt (17:07):
I think she confirmed the whereabouts of them.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
No, I'm asking you.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
I would like-
Matt (17:12):
No, I very much am not. I can't speak to location of specific members of Hamas.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
If it is in fact true that you press countries to return or to extradite and people indicted in US courts. What about the woman in the Sbarro bombing in Israel years ago who's been living free and Jordan now? There was long talk of efforts to get her extradited and nothing has ever come of them. So, why should these Hamas guys worry if you're just going-
Matt (17:49):
Matt, I'm going to admit you're speaking to a case that predates my tenure, that I have limited best factual understanding of it, so I shouldn't speak to it. But when it comes to these terrorists who are members and leadership of a group who continue to hold Americans hostage, we do think it's appropriate that they face justice.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Just one more question on that, Matt.
Matt (18:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
Secretary has met with the Turkish foreign minister today.
Matt (18:14):
Correct.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Was there a discussion about this particular issue with the Turkish foreign minister?
Matt (18:20):
So he did meet with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Fidan, in Rio today on the sidelines of the G20. We'll have a readout coming later today. And I don't want to get into too much detail about what, of course, are private diplomatic conversations. But in all of these conversations with countries in the region he makes clear, number one, that there should be no more business as usual with Hamas. And number two, that any country should use any influence it has with Hamas to secure the release of all the hostages, including the seven American hostages.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Right. But those can be a little bit contradictory, don't you think? I guess what I'm trying to ask is there any chance that Turkey might become the new mediator? Is that something the US would want?
Matt (19:08):
So the first question is one for Turkey to speak to. But when it comes to using influence with Hamas to secure the release of hostages, we would welcome any country playing that kind of positive role. That's what we want to see. But the important thing is that countries step up and use that influence and actually work to try to get these hostages out. And, by the way, an important goal of getting the hostages out, not just for their own sake, but for countries who want to see an end of the war. That is one very clear way to end the war.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
Yeah. There was an Israeli report, by the way, last week that head of Israel's domestic intelligence agency traveled to Turkey and met with Turkish intelligence head. What do you make of that meeting? Could that be in any way related to Turkey emerging as a mediator?
Matt (19:52):
I wouldn't want to speculate. That sounds like a question for those two governments to speak to, not me.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
Well, you guys are right in the middle of it. So it is a question for the United States.
Matt (19:59):
I think when it comes to any potential meeting, I would let those two governments speak to it and certainly what it means in terms of the import of any such meeting. But when it comes to countries that have influence with Hamas, and certainly Turkey is a country that has had influence with Hamas, we want to see all of those countries use that influence to secure the release of all hostages, especially including the seven Americans who continue to be held hostage.
(20:22)
Yeah. Oh, you had your hand up a minute ago, now you don't.
Speaker 6 (20:26):
Yeah. [inaudible 00:20:27].
Matt (20:27):
I'm just doing my work down. I get going in order and forget.
Speaker 6 (20:30):
No. I had a Ukraine question, but [inaudible 00:20:32] if we.
Matt (20:32):
No, we can. Yeah, if you want to go to Ukraine, go to…
Speaker 6 (20:35):
Okay. I wanted to ask about Ukraine firing US-made missiles into Russia. This obviously is a result of the new policy change with the president. Is the State Department kind of concerned about the turnover of the administration impacting this change in Ukraine? And have you seen anything from Russia responding to this?
Matt (20:59):
So I don't want to speak to any potential policy changes. It's not something that we have spoken to as of this point. It's not something that we have confirmed. I'm not going to do so from here. And so if I'm not going to speak to any potential changes, I'm certainly not going to comment on any potential outcomes from them.
Alex (21:19):
Follow up on Ukraine, Matt?
Matt (21:19):
Oh, yeah.
Alex (21:20):
Today marks 1,000 days since the full-scale war. I'm assuming you guys going to have a statement coming.
Matt (21:27):
You have seen the United Nations, our ambassador to the United Nations Security Council speak to it already today. You have seen our ambassador speak to it today. So yeah, we have spoken to it.
Alex (21:38):
Just step back, Matt, just when we were two weeks into this, three weeks into this, the President called out Putin, called him a war criminal. He called his actions a genocide. He even said that he's terrorizing Ukrainians. One thing, given you guys have multiple weeks left, are you considering to seize this momentum and to come up with those policy decisions such as designating Russia as a [inaudible 00:22:07]-
Matt (22:06):
How about such policy decisions as assembling a coalition of 50 countries to support Ukraine and hold Russia accountable? How about policy decisions such as surging billions of dollars in US support to Ukraine that has led them to be able to win the battle of Kiev, to push Russians back from territory that they had occupied? How about policy decisions that have led to freezing Russian sovereign assets and not just the United States, freezing Russian sovereign assets, but leading other countries to freeze Russian sovereign assets and use the interest from those assets to directly support Ukraine? So if you look at the long history of policy decisions, Alex, I think our record's pretty clear.
Alex (22:48):
But does the administration still believe that Putin is committing a genocide, and this is a terror that's happening every single day?
Matt (22:55):
And if you look at our record, our record is one of holding Putin accountable and one of holding Russia accountable. And you just have to look at the results on the battlefield and the way that Ukrainians, principally through their own courage and their own dedication, but with the support of the United States and our coalition, have held Russia directly accountable on the battlefield. That is the true testament of our record.
Alex (23:19):
Is there any concern that Putin might eventually get away with this?
Matt (23:23):
So when you look at whatever happens with the outcome of this war, it has already been a massive strategic failure for Russia. Hundreds of thousands of casualties. A economies that has been weakened. A generation that has been mortgaged to support a war of conquest, and that it's already seen Russia lose much of the territory that it initially gained. So whatever the ultimate outcome of this war, we continue to believe that Ukraine's future is a future that is rooted in a West as an independent democratic country, something that Vladimir Putin completely
Matt (24:00):
… he opposes, and Russia's future will continue to be one that is incredibly weakened as a result of Putin's disastrous decision. And I don't think anything that happens is going to change that outcome.
Alex (24:13):
Can I move to South Caucasus, if I may? I have two more. Georgia, it feels like a reaction to the events of past two, three days have been remarkably muted. As you know, the current Georgian [inaudible 00:24:25] leadership came up and they cemented the so-called official results, and there was a violent attack last night against the protesters and there are still protests going on. Where are you at this and why this comprehensive review is still ongoing, even given the fact that there are multiple conversations-
Matt (24:41):
So Alex, let me just quibble a little bit. The comprehensive review is still ongoing, but as you know, because you have reported on it after asking me questions about it, we have already suspended assistance as a result of that review. So it's not like the review is ongoing and nothing has happened. We have already taken policy actions as a part of that review and we'll continue to take other policy actions as appropriate.
Alex (25:02):
Any reaction [inaudible 00:25:03]-
Matt (25:03):
I'm going to go ahead. Go ahead.
Speaker 7 (25:06):
In regards to Mr. Hochstein's visit to Lebanon, Arab countries reports are saying that the source of his optimism is that he received signals from President-elect Trump that would help him in achieving his mission between Beirut and Jerusalem. What's your say?
Matt (25:32):
So as I said, and I think it was response to Hamira's question, I'm not going to comment on the underlying diplomatic negotiations, but of course you shouldn't believe everything that is reported.
Speaker 7 (25:44):
Okay. On Iran. So there were two reports from IAEA, in regards to Iran, say that Tehran has offered not to expand its stock of uranium enriched over 60%. And also Iran has agreed to consider allowing four more experienced inspectors to work in Iran, after them not issuing visas for the previous team. However, they said that this is conditional, if the E3 doesn't issue a resolution to censor them. So what's your take on that and also how on board is the US with the E3 resolution?
Matt (26:24):
So we remain tightly coordinated with our E3 partners in advance of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting. And we strongly support efforts to hold Iran accountable. As the president has made clear, the United States will ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime continues to amass a growing stockpile of highly enriched uranium for which there is no credible civilian purpose, and they continue to not cooperate fully with the IAEA. So what we're going to do is continue to work with the IAEA Board of Governors' members to ensure their full cooperation with the IAEA, so that the IAEA can provide the assurances that we need, that Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful. So I'm not going to preview any actions that we might take over the next few days, in consultation with our partners, but we will remain tightly coordinated with them.
Speaker 8 (27:13):
When you just referred to the growing stockpile of enriched uranium, you're talking about this latest IAEA report that came out either yesterday or earlier today, which is a significant increase in the amount of 60%?
Matt (27:27):
Yes, correct.
Speaker 8 (27:28):
That's what you're… ?
Matt (27:29):
Correct.
Speaker 8 (27:29):
Thank you.
Matt (27:30):
Yeah, [inaudible 00:27:31].
Speaker 6 (27:31):
Following up on Ukraine and Russia, that Putin lowered the thresholds, and lowering the threshold for use of nuclear weapons. The timing, of course, comes after Ukraine used American long-range missiles into Russian territory. What do you make of the timing of that announcement, and is the US concerned about nuclear escalation?
Matt (27:54):
So I'm unfortunately not surprised by the comments the Kremlin has made around the publication of this new revised nuclear doctrine. Since the beginning of its war of aggression against Ukraine, it has sought to coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior. Despite what Russia says, neither the United States nor NATO pose any threat to Russia. Russia's irresponsible and bellicose rhetoric will not do anything to improve Russia's security.
(28:35)
And I would just add that the change in this policy in itself just highlights Russia's hypocrisy. Russia is suggesting here that they would use, or could use, nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states if they undertake the same kind of aggression that Russia itself is inflicting upon Ukraine and its people. So we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture, but we will continue to call on Russia to stop bellicose and irresponsible rhetoric.
Speaker 6 (29:12):
And then just on a different kind of warfare from Russia. After two undersea cables were cut in the Baltic Sea, US allies are warning of hybrid warfare with Russian suspected sabotage, with regard to those cables. How concerned is the US about increasing that type of action and then what is the US doing to reassure its European allies?
Matt (29:38):
So let me just say, just speaking generally, not with respect to this report, but speaking generally, we are incredibly concerned about hybrid warfare conducted by Russia, both in Europe and around the world. And it's something that we have been in close coordination with our European allies and our other allies and partners around the world. And we have made clear, on a number of occasions, to Russia that it would be held accountable for it.
(30:00)
Now, when it comes to this specific incident, we've seen these reports. It is our understanding that a number of the countries in question have announced investigations into the matter. And we'll of course wait for the outcome of those investigations before speaking to them specifically. Yeah.
Speaker 9 (30:17):
Thanks, Matt. Last night Israel struck central Beirut, killing two, wounding more than 30. On Thursday, they struck and killed 15 first responders in or near Baalbek. Are these productive actions as you're, quote unquote, "almost at a ceasefire"?
Matt (30:36):
So I'm not going to speak to any specific strike other than to say, of course we mourn the loss of any civilian life and we have made clear to Israel that it needs to take every precaution possible to avoid any loss of civilian life.
(30:50)
But I will say, this type of action is precisely why we continue to seek a diplomatic resolution to this conflict. Because you have seen over the course of the past year civilians, both in Israel and in Lebanon, be the unfortunate victims of this fight. And we want to see civilians protected, which is why we are working so hard to get a diplomatic resolution that would stop the fighting across the blue line, and would allow civilians on both sides of the border to return home, and would also allow civilians throughout Lebanon to feel safe and civilians throughout Israel to feel safe from the threat of terrorism.
Speaker 9 (31:29):
Throughout the course of the Gaza campaign, we've asked you a lot if you're satisfied with the precautions that Israel's taken there, are you satisfied with the precautions? The civilian precautions that were taken in Lebanon-
Matt (31:39):
We are never satisfied when you… Sorry to interrupt you. We are never satisfied when you see civilian deaths and we want to see civilian deaths be zero. We understand that the type of conflict that Israel is operating in and is forced to deal with, and the type of situation they're forced to deal with, we understand that Hezbollah, like Hamas, hides its arsenal, hides its fighters, hides its infrastructure in civilian homes, in other structures. And so it's a very difficult situation that Israel has to face, but that doesn't minimize their responsibility. But ultimately it's why we're trying to get to a diplomatic resolution that would stop this fighting.
Speaker 10 (32:21):
Yeah. Thank you, Matt. Yesterday, Israeli foreign minister, he sent a letter to UN Security Council president and urged UN to push Iraq to take immediate actions against the Iranian-backed militia for attacking Israel. So has Israel ever reached out to you to pass or to send a letter to Iraqi government in the course of the last months?
Matt (32:44):
I'm not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As you know, you asked me yesterday about the underlying question and I spoke to that, and that continues to be our position that Iraq should do everything within its power to stop terrorist attacks, both within its borders and against targets outside its borders. But with respect to any specific diplomatic conversations, I'm not going to speak to them.
Speaker 10 (33:04):
What he said in the letter, I said, I emphasized, that the Iraqi government is responsible for everything that's happening in their territory, and the Israel has the right to self-defense. Do you agree with him that Iraqi government is responsible for the actions of these militia groups, that they are using Iraqi territory to attack Israel?
Matt (33:24):
So certainly, we want to see the Iraqi government do everything within its power to stop these type of terrorist attacks. I think I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 10 (33:30):
And last question, Iraq is said to hold its nationwide population census this week. This has raised concerns among the Kurds and other minority leaders, including Christians in Iraq, about the potential demographic shifts in disputed areas. A large number of the Kurds and other minority groups, including Christians, Yazidis, are forced to leave their area in the past years. How does the US government see this process and the concerns of a natural demographic change?
Matt (34:00):
So we welcome Iraq's first census since 1997, which will be taking place this week and includes all Iraqi provinces. This census is important, in the same way the United States conducts its census, to provide accurate information for Iraq to tailor its political, economic and development strategies. And we encourage all Iraqis, including residents of the Iraqi Kurdistan region, to participate in the census.
Speaker 11 (34:24):
Thank you. Yesterday, TTP terrorists killed eight Pakistani soldiers and abducted seven police officer near Afghan border. And in recent days, we have seen series of bombings and suicide attacks on Pakistan security forces. How the US can help Pakistan rooting out terrorism in the region?
Matt (34:41):
So we are aware of reports that a military convoy was ambushed near the border with Afghanistan, and of a separate incident that resulted in the abduction of seven police officers in Bannu yesterday. We condemn these and all terrorist attacks. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists and violent extremists, and our hearts go out to the families and loved ones of those killed or impacted by recent attacks, including the November 9th suicide bombing in Quetta. And I would just say, as these horrific attacks against the Pakistani people continue, we remain committed to engaging with government leaders and civilian institutions to identify opportunities to build capacity in detecting, preventing, and responding to threats posed by militant terrorist groups.
Speaker 11 (35:28):
So all these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan, and Taliban, who promised not to allow these terrorist groups to use Afghan soil as a launching pad, actually patronizing these terrorist groups. The US has the capability to target these terrorist gangs, but we haven't seen any actions since long. Why is that?
Matt (35:46):
So we continue to have an important bilateral counter-terrorism partnership with the government of Pakistan, and it includes regular high-level dialogues and working-level consultations dedicated to enhancing both civilian and military capabilities to
Matt (36:00):
… detect and counter these type of threats.
Speaker 12 (36:03):
Ask a question, if I may. A few weeks ago, US officials met with Sikh advocates to discuss threats faced by Sikhs in the United States. I was just thinking President Biden recently met with Modi in Brazil. Was there any discussion on this matter?
Matt (36:17):
What was the last part of the question? I just didn't hear.
Speaker 12 (36:20):
President Biden met with-
Matt (36:21):
I heard that part, I didn't hear the very last.
Speaker 12 (36:22):
Any discussion on the-
Matt (36:23):
Oh, when it comes to the President's meeting, just as always, I'd refer you to the White House for a specific readout, but regarding the plot to kill a Sikh American in the United States, I would just say, as you've heard us say before, the US government continues to treat this issue with the utmost importance and continues to pursue accountability through a number of different pathways. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 13 (36:44):
Thank you. Question for you, I want to clarify something you said yesterday. In the congratulatory phone call between Secretary Blinken and Senator Rubio, you said that work cannot continue on the transition until there's an MOU signed by the incoming-
Matt (37:00):
That was separate from the call. I didn't mention that that was part of the call. I was talking about the transition process separately and apart from the call. Go ahead.
Speaker 13 (37:08):
Understood.
Matt (37:09):
Just clarification, go ahead.
Speaker 13 (37:09):
With that said-
Matt (37:10):
Clarify your request for clarification, go ahead.
Speaker 13 (37:13):
Both administrations have said that they are signaling to the other that they can try to coordinate or want to coordinate on reaching a ceasefire in Gaza and freeing the hostages. Is the State Department saying that that work at the State Department level cannot happen until there's an MOU signed by the incoming administration?
Matt (37:33):
There is just as a legal process, and this is set out under US law, specifically the act that was passed in the last several years to govern the transfer of power, the peaceful transfer of power, there's a process that has to take place before we can say, for example, brief members of an incoming transition team on classified information. And we are ready to go. So far, the incoming transition team has not availed themselves of that process and it's up to them to speak to the timing to that, but we are ready to go as soon as they are.
(38:09)
That said, we are committed to doing everything that we can to make this a successful transition. That includes, of course, briefing the incoming administration at the appropriate time when they have completed the appropriate steps about world events and about how we see world events, and about things that we believe that they need to know when they come into power. But there's only one president at a time and we will continue to pursue the policies, including work for diplomatic resolutions to conflicts in the Middle East through January 20th.
Speaker 13 (38:41):
Final question. There was a meeting this morning behind closed doors at the UN Security Council regarding the Gaza ceasefire and hostage release resolution. The US appears to be pressuring the E10 to remove or change some of the text in there. Can you give some information, some clarification as to what exactly the US is pressing for right now in terms of the text that needs to be changed?
Matt (39:04):
I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to do so at this point. We are having private conversations with other members of the Security Council about a potential resolution, but at this point we should keep those conversations private. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 14 (39:17):
Going back to Ukraine, yesterday you didn't confirm any policy change, but do you confirm now that Ukraine has used US missiles to strike targets in Russia?
Matt (39:28):
No, in fact, in response to a question earlier in the briefing said no, I'm not going to confirm it.
Speaker 14 (39:31):
So Ukraine hasn't used US missiles to strike targets-
Matt (39:35):
I am not going to confirm that report. Ukraine of course, is free to speak to what they have or have not done, but I'm not going to confirm at this point, any US policy change.
Speaker 14 (39:44):
Thank you.
Speaker 15 (39:46):
Thanks, Matthew. What's your reaction to Germany saying that a severing of Baltic Sea cables are likely to be sabotaged? Is this a Russian response to the long-range attacks decision?
Matt (39:58):
As I said a moment ago, a number of the countries in the region are conducting their own investigations and at this point, until we have further information, we're going to await the outcome of those investigations.
Speaker 15 (40:08):
And was the decision to undo the missile restraints discussed with allies, does the administration hope that the UK and France follow suit with Storm Shadow missiles?
Matt (40:18):
I think I've answered that question or maybe more specifically declined to answer that question already today and I'm going to do so again.
Speaker 15 (40:24):
And then finally, are there plans for Secretary Blinken to host Marco Rubio at the State Department head of January 20, or would the process during the transition be required in order to arrange a visit?
Matt (40:36):
I'm not going to speak to that in any detail. The secretary and Senator Rubio, Secretary-Designate Rubio had a conversation yesterday where the secretary pledged our full cooperation to ensure-
Speaker 20 (40:49):
Was it yesterday or two days?
Matt (40:51):
I'm sorry, two days. I spoke to it yesterday, they spoke over the weekend. Pledged our full cooperation to ensure a successful transition, but I think we ought to keep the rest of the conversations private.
Speaker 15 (41:04):
I mean, Senator Rubio, he is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so the two couldn't be-
Matt (41:09):
Absolutely, and we will have that discussion with Senator Rubio but not with you, apologies. Go ahead.
Speaker 15 (41:14):
Oh, shots fired. Thanks, Matthew.
Matt (41:14):
Go ahead.
Speaker 14 (41:17):
Thank you so much. Going back to [inaudible 00:41:20] again, the report and the upcoming Board of Governors session tomorrow. At the moment that we are talking, there is a resolution being prepared, being written in Vienna by E3. Do you support that resolution?
Matt (41:32):
As I said in response to a question earlier, we are going to remain tightly coordinated with our E3 partners in advance of this Board of Governors meeting. We strongly support efforts to hold Iran accountable, but we are not going to preview any actions that we are contemplating or detailed private diplomatic conversations, including with our E3 partners.
Speaker 14 (41:50):
And then based on our Iranian sources, there are threats coming out of Islamic Republic. They are saying that they're going to activate advanced centrifuges in response to IAEA resolution, they are threatening that they're going to encompass the nuclear sphere in all of these rhetoric. Do you take this sort of threat seriously?
Matt (42:12):
I'm not going to respond to those reports. As we have made clear, what Iran should do is cooperate with the IAEA and I'll leave it at that for now.
Speaker 14 (42:24):
And one about the snapback mechanism, sorry, let's say now or in the upcoming few weeks that you have the Biden administration, do you support the activation of snapback mechanisms?
Matt (42:38):
We are going to continue to consult with our allies and partners on this question, as with all questions that pertain to Iran. And I will leave it at that, keep those private. Go ahead.
Speaker 16 (42:54):
You won't comment on the authorization?
Matt (42:57):
You noticed.
Speaker 16 (42:59):
But Assistant Secretary Nichols gave an interview to the Brazilian newspaper where it seemed like he was confirming it or it was taken as such by other-
Matt (43:11):
It was taken as such. I can tell you the assistant secretary was speaking to our long record of decisions to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia's aggression.
Speaker 16 (43:24):
Another thing Minister Lavrov said today, that without the Americans, it is impossible to use these high-tech missiles. And without going into if you allowed that or not, can you comment on that at least? Does that the operation of these missiles require American involvement?
Matt (43:50):
I'm not going to speak to that, but has the United States shared intelligence with Ukraine? Absolutely, we have. Have we shared that intelligence with Ukraine with the expectation that would improve their performance on the battlefield? Absolutely, and we'll continue to do that. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 18 (44:11):
Excuse me, I have a question on Israel. On November 7th, the Israeli parliament or Knesset, they passed after second, third reading, a law that allowed the government to detain 14 year old kids. And the law as well, allowed the government to deport it, like their relatives or families of any Palestinians are doing any operation or attacks inside Israel. This was seen as collective punishment or targeting Arab people who lives in occupied is [inaudible 00:44:52] so how do you comment on this law that targeting family and targeting kids?
Matt (44:56):
I wasn't tracking this specific piece of legislation. I'll have to take it back and take a look at it and get you a comment.
Speaker 18 (45:01):
You told me the same answer in November 7th. I asked it and you told me, "I'm going to take a look and-"
Matt (45:07):
We will take it back. As you probably know, as our standard practice when we get questions like this, you take it back. We can look into it and email you a response and we're happy to do so.
Speaker 18 (45:14):
Okay, the second question. In the new administration, there is a diplomat, Mr. Haikidi. His own belief is that West Bank is called the Yehuda and Samira, not West Bank. And here I want to ask about the US foreign policy faith, the thing that you teach it for this intern. This area called West Bank or called the Yehuda and Samira, because I understand this country, the reference is like separating church and authority like your secular country. So your reference is like all testimony, Torah, or the international law and US resolution. We want to make sure there is-
Matt (45:56):
Can I just ask you to get to the question?
Speaker 18 (45:57):
Yeah, the question. This question in the US policy is called West Bank or Yehuda and Samira?
Matt (46:04):
You have heard me repeatedly refer to the West Bank as the West Bank. You have heard the secretary referred to it as the West Bank and the president referred to it as the West Bank. Hold on. An incoming administration has the ability to make their-
Speaker 18 (46:19):
To change it?
Matt (46:20):
To what?
Speaker 18 (46:21):
To change Yehuda and Samira?
Matt (46:24):
An incoming administration has the ability, I don't think this is a secret, to use the terms that they feel are appropriate, but we have made clear that we believe the West Bank is properly referred to as the West Bank. Let me go ahead, go here and we'll wrap for the day.
Speaker 19 (46:38):
Thank you. On Hong Kong, do you have anything on Hong Kong where 45 pro-democracy advocates and former lawmakers were sentenced for exercising their universal rights?
Matt (46:50):
Yeah, we are extremely concerned about this action. You have heard us speak out against it in the past and just before the briefing, we released a statement where we announced that we are imposing new visa restrictions on Hong Kong authorities for their participation in this action.
Speaker 17 (47:12):
Can you say how many officials?
Matt (47:12):
I cannot and leave that today. Thanks, everyone.