Department of State Daily Press Briefing 2/14/24 Transcript

Good afternoon everyone. Happy Valentine’s Day, especially happy Valentine’s Day to those of you celebrating with us on a flight somewhere over the Atlantic tonight instead of with your significant others. I wish you peace and tranquility at home with that. No, Matt. Sean, you want to go first?

Sure. Happy to. Valentine’s Day to you.

Thank you. Thank you.

I wanted to ask you about to start off the talks in Cairo that took place recently that are [inaudible 00:00:32] in some form. I know there’s a limit to probably what you’re going to say about it, but do you have any assessment right now about how things stand? Is the US still hopeful that there could be a deal for hostages and a positive ending?

As has always been the case. I don’t want to give a day by day step-by-step update or assessment on the talks, or the status of them, or where they might stand. But we continue to believe that it is possible to achieve a deal. We continue to believe it’s in the national security interest of the United States to achieve a deal. We believe it’s in the interest of both Israel and of course the Palestinian people. We will continue to work to try and achieve an agreement that would not just secure the release of hostages, but of course allow a pause that would enable the delivery of humanitarian assistance that would alleviate the suffering on the ground in Gaza.

Sure. Not to jump around too quickly, but I was wondering if you could comment on today’s developments in Lebanon. There’s some strikes there from the Israeli side in particular. How dangerous is the situation in Lebanon? Do you have any reaction in particular to the use of force?

We continue to be concerned about escalation in Lebanon. As you know, it has been one of our primary objectives from the outset of this conflict to see that it not be widened, to see that it not be escalated in any way. That continues to be a primary national security objective of ours that we will continue to pursue and we continue to believe that there is a diplomatic path forward and we will continue to push forward to try to resolve this issue diplomatically so both Israelis and Lebanese can return to their homes.

Is there active diplomacy in Lebanon right now?

There is active diplomacy. There has been active diplomacy on this question for some time. I’m, of course, never going to get into the underlying details of those diplomatic conversations, but we continue to pursue diplomatic resolution of this situation.

Just one more before I yield. I’m sure you saw, and I believe the National Security advisor was asked about it, but I wanted to ask you. The report from the Wall Street Journal on white phosphorus use in Lebanon. Is there anything you can say whether the State Department is actually looking into that?

As I said yesterday, we are reviewing reports of human rights violations and civilian harm incidents through the CHRO process that we set up last August. I’m not going to comment on the specifics of any one incident. We take these on a case by case measure and assess them to see whether, number one civilian harm actually occurred, and two, to identify any appropriate policy responses if it has occurred to reduce the risk of such incidents happening in the future. But we are going to make it as a blanket policy not to confirm specific incidents that may be under review.

Okay.

Thanks.

(03:16)
Syaid, go ahead.

Thank you. I want to ask you a couple of questions on Gaza, but first I wanted to ask you about what the Israelis today demolished a house for Fakhri Abu Diab. He’s an activist against demolition to basically make room for a biblical theme park. Do you have any comment on that?

We condemn the demolition of Fakhri Abu Diab’s home. He’s a community leader in East Jerusalem. We believe that demolition not only obviously damages his home and his family and the lives that they have built there, but the entire community who live in fear that their homes may be next. This has been their family home for generations. Part of the structure dates back to before 1967. He has been an outspoken community leader, including against demolitions, and now his family has been displaced.

(04:09)
But I would also like to reiterate that the impact of these demolitions, this is obviously not the first, goes beyond just the impact on this individual family. These acts obstruct efforts to advance durable and lasting peace and security that would benefit not just Palestinians but Israelis. They damage Israel’s standing in the world and they make it ultimately more difficult for us to accomplish all of the things we are trying to accomplish that would ultimately be in the interest of the Israeli people. We condemn them and we’ll urge them, continue to urge that they not continue.

Well, Silwan is really adjacent to my neighborhood. I know the area. I know how many people have lost their homes, how many homes have been demolished. But the Israelis seem to have a methodical plan going forward. I know that you condemn, but do you condemn saying… Or else for instance, “You must stop…” Listen, they should not demolish anybody’s home, not even for as a form of collective punishment if someone has done something from the household.

We condemn them and let me tell you what we are offering as an alternative. The secretary has made clear that after conversations with others in the region, that there is a path forward, an alternative path to the one that Israel has pursued to date, to provide lasting peace and security for Israel. It would include the establishment of two states. We will continue to pursue that path. We have made clear, and other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, have made clear that there are enormous benefits on offer for the Israeli people should they pursue that path, including in further integration at the region, including security guarantees. When it comes to all of these types of issues, what we will continue to lay out is the vision that we think is a better path, as I said, not just for the Palestinian people, but ultimately that provides greater security benefits for the Israeli people as well.

Now, on the looming or the expected attack on Rafah, I know that the President, the Secretary of State, you from this podium many times over warned against such a storming of Rafah. But on the other hand, one reads reports and so on, that, “Okay, by not doing anything or by not saying that there will be consequences if you do this, you’re basically green lighting or giving a green light to the Israeli to go ahead.” “We don’t like it, but we’re not going to do anything about it.”

I think though it would be a significant misinterpretation of what we have said. We have made quite clear both publicly and privately that we cannot support any military operation in Rafah until such time as Israel has developed a humanitarian plan that can be executed and that they have executed such a plan. I know people like to jump ahead far into the process and talk about what ifs, but we’re not at the what if stage right now. We are at the making very clear to Israel what we expect stage. We have seen the government of Israel ask the military for such a plan. We haven’t seen that plan yet. We don’t know what it’ll contain, we don’t know if it will be executable as we have said. We will wait before offering any prejudgments about what will, or may or might or might not happen. We’re going to wait to see what that plan looks like and then engage directly with the government of Israel about it.

You’re saying, “Yeah, you can do this with a caveat that you have to make sure that the civilian population is not harm or somehow moves from place to place.” Now, remember, these people have already been moved there. They’ve been instructed by the Israelis to go through.

You don’t have to tell me. Remember I’ve said that myself from this podium.

I remember, but this is the thing. It’s deja vu all over again.

Which is why we have made clear that there has to be a plan. Look-

All over again.

As I’ve said yesterday, there are two things that are true in this situation, right? One, that there are Hamas battalions that operate in Rafah, that exist in Rafah that continue to pose a threat to the national security of Israel. Hamas battalions, part of an organization that attacked Israel and has made clear they want to continue to attack Israel. At the same time… I’d say as a first matter of course, Israel has the right to take military action against those Hamas battalions that pose a threat to it. At the same time, they have an obligation to make sure that they only do so in a way that puts civilian protection first. That is what we have made clear to them. We will see the plan that they will develop. I’ll wait and pass judgment until we see that.

Okay.

Alex.

The topics is NATO, given the recent debate in this town, NATO today disclosed that it’s defense spending hits

18.

… high record, so a record high 18 members.

18.

About, yeah, 2%.

Up from 11, I believe, right?

As a target, not the goal, or owe anyone any money. But can you speak to this importance of this development?

We think it’s incredibly important. Look, we have made clear that there are targets that NATO countries have agreed to, that they would spend 2% of their budgets on national security. We have made clear that we expect countries to meet that target. There is often this misnomer that countries pay money to the US and NATO in arrears. That of course is not factually the case. That’s not factually how it works, but there are defense spending targets that they’re supposed to meet.

(09:36)
And as the secretary general announced today, a record number of those countries are now meeting those targets, 18, almost 2/3 of the Alliance. And we continue to see progress from other countries towards meeting those targets. And we will urge those who have not yet met them to continue to take steps to do so. But again, as I said earlier this week, NATO is an alliance that the American people derive tremendous benefit from. It provides tremendous security to the United States, and that’s why we have seen durable, long-lasting, widespread support not just in Congress, not just from leaders in Congress, but also from the American people. And we expect that to continue.

Thank you. A couple of questions on sanctions the US took part today in Brussels at EU Sanctions Coordinators Forum. This is the first time, as far as I follow, the reports that EU on its end is considering secondary sanctions against central Asia, Turkey, and other countries or companies based in those countries in its next package. I know you don’t telegraph your sanctions, but can you at least assure us-

But would I do it in this case?

At least assure us you’ll follow the suit once they put it out.

Assure you that what?

That the US will not lag behind when Europeans move forward.

I don’t think, if you look at the United States’ actions in this regard, we have been a leader. We have been a forefront at holding Russia accountable for its actions, and we will continue to be a leader in this regard. But of course, as you, I think, knew by the way you framed your question, I am not going to preview any sanctions action that we may or may not take.

On that line, put in today’s sight confiscation law, which experts believe that further complicates and endangers, if you want foreign, investment, including Americans. And this is something we discussed in this room before, that State Department recently updated its business advisory for Burma. Why not imposing same advisory on Russia?

I just don’t have any update on where that stands.

And my final question, if you don’t mind.

Yeah.

On Nagorno-Karabakh. Jake Sullivan today, from White House podium, announced that the conflict in itself also has fought for the victims of the conflict. He said, “It’s part of the next package.” Is the city of [inaudible 00:12:09] looking for additional resources? And in what form you are trying to get involved?

Additional resources in what regard?

In next package, he mentioned that the Congress should support supplemental because it also covers, among other conflicts he mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh. So what additional resources we are seeking right now?

There are additional resources that were in the supplemental request for humanitarian assistance. I didn’t see all of the national security advisor’s remarks. I believe that’s what he was referring to. I suspect, I should say, that’s what he was referring to. But there was humanitarian assistance contained in the supplemental request that we put forward and in the bill that was passed in the Senate that could be used by United States for humanitarian response to conflicts all around the world.

Any update for me about additional efforts that US wants to bring together the sides and to discuss the conflict? Anything about the next couple of days, weeks?

I do not have any schedule announcements for you. I know what you’re getting at, but I’m not going to bite, Alex.

I want to go back to the Lebanese-Israeli border, if you don’t mind.

Yeah.

Yeah. It’s clear now that Hezbollah announced a few days ago or a couple of days ago that his war activities or military activities or engagement in this conflict is linked to the war and military activities in Gaza. If there is a humanitarian pause, he will pause. If there is a end of the war, he will end his activities. Is it the same diplomatic approach you are applying to this conflict on the northern border, or you are trying to push Lebanon to distance itself from the conflict, regardless of what-

We have had specific diplomatic engagements related to the situation at Israel’s northern border and to resolving that situation diplomatically beyond the efforts to secure humanitarian pause. Now, that said, of course it is our assessment that achieving a humanitarian pause and an agreement to secure the release of hostages would help with the risk of escalation and might help lessen the risk of escalation. That’s one of the many reasons why we continue to pursue such an arrangement.

Thank you.

Hi. You touched on this yesterday, but with the secretary heading to Munich, with European security and the war in Ukraine a focus, does he find himself in a difficult negotiating position with foreign aid stalled in the House? And how does he plan to address this? And how confident are you that the aid will make its way through?

It’s not really a question of a negotiating position. I will say that, when it comes to our European partners, they have stepped up and made contributions to Ukraine, I don’t believe because the United States has made contributions to Ukraine’s defense, but because they see it in their own independent national security interests, and they have made their own assessments that it is the right thing to do both on the merits and that it is in the interest of their particular countries.

(15:04)
So it’s not a question of the United States needing to negotiate with these countries, though we of course always are encouraging countries to do more if they can do more. But that said, we very much do want to see Congress act as quickly as possible to pass the supplemental as you heard the president say yesterday, it’s not just in the interest of Ukraine but, as I said, it’s in the interest of European countries. It’s in the interest of the United States, we believe, to do so.

(15:28)
A lot of that money is spent here. Helps develop the manufacturing base here in the United States. And so we will continue to push for the passage of the supplemental bill. And ultimately we think, as the president said, the world is watching. And certainly I’m sure that when we are in Munich we will hear directly from foreign leaders that they are watching very much what Congress does. We know that Ukrainian people are watching and, as the president said, history is watching as well.

(15:56)
Go ahead.

Yes. It’s on Pakistan elections. Thank you. How is US State Department tackling the pressure from some of the US lawmakers who are asking the State Department not to accept the results of Pakistan election until and unless, thoroughly, allegations of rigging are investigated?

We have called for those allegations to be investigated. We think that’s appropriate step to take. That is our response to questions of irregularities, not just in Pakistan but when we see them anywhere in the world. We think that they’re thoroughly investigated and resolved. And so that, we will continue to call for that. But at the same time it’s clear that the elections in Pakistan were competitive, and we look forward to working with the government, once it’s formed, that the people of Pakistan elected.

[inaudible 00:16:48].

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

Sure, sure. Of course, as you’ve probably seen, that there’s a coalition being formed in Pakistan that doesn’t include Imran Khan’s party. I know you probably loathe to talk about the details of Pakistani politics but-

You’ve noticed.

But I wanted to try and-

To be fair, loathe to talk about the internal details of politics in any country but-

Sure, sure. Sure. But can I just ask you if the US has an assessment on this? Whether this is in keeping with democratic principles, to have the largest winner being excluded from the original coalition?

Look, that is ultimately an internal matter. You see this in a number of countries that have parliamentary systems of government, where no party has established a majority. You see the coalitions that are formed. Ultimately that’s not a decision for the United States to make. It’s a decision for Pakistan to make.

What about Matt?

I promised her I would come to her next, so…

Before, in Palestine and Gaza-

In fact I was calling on her before Sean interrupted, so anyway. And now I interrupted you, so I apologize for that. Go ahead.

The Foreign Policy magazine published an investigative report last week, which shows that a former drug trafficker, Mr. Bashir Noorzai, who was serving a lifetime person here in United States but

… state, but was later released to the Taliban in exchange for one US citizen, and now we started to working closely with the China in the mineral contract and doing money laundering for Taliban. What’s your reaction to Chinese for this kind of partnership with these former drug trafficker?

I have not seen that report. Let me take it back and get you a comment on it. Now, go ahead.

Happy Valentine’s to you.

Thank you.

My next couple of questions are in the backdrop of former US Ambassador, Mr. Ryan Crocker, who I believe served with both the Republicans and Democrats, so a very well-respected diplomat. Yesterday, when speaking to Voice of America, he said that the Biden administration policy towards Afghanistan is not good, and he said not much importance has been given to the country, plus the education part has been neglected by the government. In the backdrop of all this, I want to ask you now, when the PTI government is in a province, which is right next to Afghanistan, is my assessment corrected in coming days, we are going to see Taliban further increasing as far as their strength is concerned, or no?

I do not want to make any predictions based about what may happen in the future nor get into a question involving an internal political party in Pakistan. But with respect to our policy in Afghanistan, I think you heard me speak to this yesterday. We have been quite clear about our policy as it regards to Pakistan, including through the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution just in December. You want one follow up? Go ahead.

[inaudible 00:19:48] please. There are quite a few US citizens right now on social media who criticize the Pakistan serving military generals, army chiefs. They curse at them. I tried to get a reaction from Global Engagement Center. What do you, as a State Department official… Is it fair that the social media influencers just curse around at serving military? Does that not affect the government relationship with each other?

I think if I started trying to comment on the random postings of citizens on social media, I would be up here for the rest of the day and probably the rest of the week, so I’m going to pass. Go ahead.

Thanks, Matthew. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner said that there’s information that’s been made to members of Congress regarding a serious national security threat. Is the State Department aware about this? And you’re probably going to say no, but do you know what is the threat?

So the National Security Advisor did just speak to this, and as he said, he has scheduled a meeting with Chairman Turner and other members of the House leadership. And it’s not appropriate to speak to the matter any further in a public setting, and so I will leave it at that for now.

Following up on a question I asked yesterday regarding [inaudible 00:21:08], who’s a terrorist wanted by the United States, did Secretary Blinken bring up that case in his meeting yesterday with King Abdullah?

I don’t have any further readouts other than what we issued publicly.

And then finally, the House CCP Select Committee issued a report stating that some US venture capital firms invested $3 billion into critical tech companies in China, some with ties to PLA and involved genocide. What’s your reaction to that? And has the Biden administration taken actions in the past to curb investments going into China, and does more need to be done?

I have not seen that report, so I do not want to comment on the details of the report. But of course, there are US statutes that prohibit US companies from doing business with companies that are engaged in genocide. And in addition to that, on a separate note, I will say that the US has opposed a number of investment restrictions as it relates to China. [inaudible 00:22:03], go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you. Matt, two natural gas pipelines blew up in Iran today and the officials have called it a sabotage work. I was wondering if the Biden administration has any theory of its own on the cause of these explosions.

I’ve seen the reports and I just don’t have any comment on them.

When earlier one of the proxy groups of Iran attacked Tower 22 in Jordan, which led to the killing of three American servicemen, the Biden administration said that they were going to retaliate. Is it safe to assume that the retaliation will only be military or otherwise?

I don’t want to speak to that. We have made clear that some of our responses would be seen and some would be unseen, and I think I’ll leave it at that. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Russian Ambassador Antonov said last week that he held meetings with US officials including it at the State Department, and that he discussed with them the crash of the cargo plane, the Russian plane, with Ukrainian prisoners of war in the [inaudible 00:23:13] region. And he said that US officials showed interest in considering Russian proposals on investigating the incident.

Sorry, go ahead.

Can you confirm that the US is ready to investigate the incident?

I cannot. I’m not aware of those meetings or able to comment on them in any regard. We obviously have an embassy in Moscow that does at time engage with the Russian government, but I don’t have any readout of those meetings.

One more question on the same issue. [inaudible 00:23:41] said last week that the US doesn’t consider Russian claims about the incident as credible. At the same time, The New York Times reported last week that some US officials admit that it was Ukraine that shot down the plane using a petrol missile system.

I seldom want to comment on claims made anonymously in any outlet, but we continue to engage with the Ukrainian government about this question. We’ve seen their public comments and we engage with them privately about it as well. Go ahead.

Excuse me. During the hostage negotiations, we see there is some obstacles. From your perspectives, which party is more flexible for making these deals happen, like Hamas or Israel? Because what we see in the media, yeah, that Hamas submitted a full proposal, but we see Netanyahu is a stubborn guy somehow. How do you assess this? And last question related to the Rafa. We see many protests in Kerem Shalom border, like Israeli people preventing many aids to get in from their side. What is the action that you can take to facilitate this? Are we going to put some sanction? What [inaudible 00:25:10] that you do to convince the Israeli government to let this protest stop and let this humanitarian aid get in Rafa?

With respect to the first one, I think the only way I’ll answer that is that in the response that you saw come back from Hamas to the proposal that was put forward by the government of Israel and other countries, you saw a number of issues that were obvious non-starters. For example, the status of Al-Aqsa is not going to be resolved in a negotiation over hostages, and I will leave it at that. With respect to the second question, I’ll say, we have seen the government of Israel take steps to keep Kerem Shalom open. They declared the area around Kerem Shalom a military zone. The IDF has moved forces into police that crossing to ensure that it can stay open, so much- needed humanitarian assistance, including humanitarian assistance that was supplied by the United States, can continue to flow into Rafa, and we think that’s important to do it.

(26:08)
It is extremely unfortunate that at times that crossing has been blocked. We have engaged with the Israeli government and made clear that it’s the position of the United States that it ought to remain open and they ought to take whatever steps they can to make sure that it remains open, and we’re glad that they have taken those steps. I’ll come to you next.

Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. I have a couple questions on Gaza. It’s been over two weeks since Israeli forces attacked Hind Rajab’s family, killing her aunt, uncle, and cousins, leaving her trapped alone in her vehicle. We heard her pleas to the Red Crescent Society. Two medics were sent, all to be blown up, allegedly by Israeli forces. I wanted to ask about the status of the inquiry into this just because it seems if the Israeli government, which seemingly does have a pretty sophisticated operation, is prioritizing this and they don’t already know which soldiers to interview, for instance. They have Red Crescent calls, timestamps,

… timestamps, the location of the Red Crescent staff to question and rely on, plenty material to figure out who exactly to inquire with and to figure out who to hold accountable. So, I want to first ask about the status of this investigation.

Sure. So, I think that question is appropriately directed to the governor of Israel. I will say on behalf of the United States, we have made clear to them that we want that incident to be investigated. They have told us they are investigating it. It’s our understanding that investigation is not yet complete, should direct questions to them about where it stands, but we want to see it completed as soon as possible. And as I said from this podium several days ago, if accountability is appropriate, we want to want to see accountability put in place.

And a follow-up to that before the second one is just similarly with regards to the Al Jazeera cameraman, Samer Abudaqa, being left to bleed out while Israeli forces reportedly stopped medics from reaching him, I know that previously you have said there’s investigations into that, is there any updates on that investigation?

I don’t have any update on that. Again, we pressed the government of Israel on these matters. And at times, I’m able to comment on specific incidents from here, where we’ve gotten answers, but ultimately, those are questions better directed to the government of Israel.

Thank you. Okay. And then, the last question, as you’ve said repeatedly, the U.S. chose to be cautious as it suspended funding to UNRWA for allegations that 12 of its 30,000-person staff may have been involved in the atrocities on October 7th. And as you described yesterday, that’s kind of standard U.S. policy, to have this type of caution with all sorts of entities. But as our colleagues have asked you over the past few months, there have been broad and specific human rights violations that we’ve been concerned about, human attacks against hospitals and churches, targeting people with white flags, both Israeli hostages and Palestinians, torturing Palestinians. And now, of course this attack on Henry Jobs’ family and then leaving her to die horribly.

(28:47)
And so, I’m wondering on all this you’ve said, “We’re looking into it and Israel is investigating,” but in each of these cases, the U.S. doesn’t seem to be as cautious with its money and support as it is with UNWRA. It’s to the point that the ICJ and the U.S. court both say Israel may be plausibly committing genocide. Still, U.S. money is coming while the U.S. shut off UNRWA funding immediately. So, I’m just wondering if you could explain that sort of difference.

Let me say there is, I think, a false equivalency embedded in that question between members of a terrorist organization who went out and intentionally killed innocent civilians. That is the difference, when you have members of Hamas who participated in October 7th, according to the allegations made by the government of Israel, that I should say UNRWA itself found credible. Those are allegations that UNRWA found credible, of people intentionally participating in a terrorist action to murder civilians. That is different than a military campaign conducted in an environment where that terrorist organization hides behind human shields.

(29:48)
And so, we will continue to engage with the Governor of Israel about how to minimize civilian casualties. There have been far too many over the course of this campaign and how to prevent civilians from being killed, but I think there are very different matters for the reasons I just articulated.

Just a follow-up.

Saheed, go ahead. I’m going to have to wrap in a minute to go to a meeting.

Secretary Antony Blinken yesterday spoke about hostage diplomacy as an international security threat and so on. I want to ask you, the Israelis have arrested roughly 5,000 Palestinians from the West Bank, not in Gaza, from the West Bank. Almost none of them have been charged with anything since October, no charges. What do you call this? I mean, they come in the middle of the night, they take young men and women and so on. Many are children as a matter of fact, 12, 13, 14 years old, and so on. Isn’t this really something that a government in this case, leveraging the taking of people, incarcerating them without any charges, or maybe a future kind of a bargaining?

So, I’ll say two things about that. Number one, that we want to see due process for those individuals, as we want to see for anyone. And number two, we will continue to encourage Israel not to take any steps that can increase tensions in the West Bank. Let me go to Kesenia and then I’ll come back to you. Then, I got to wrap, because I do have a meeting. Sorry to quick wrap today. Go ahead, Kesenia.

So, we say in this room that the word of United States matter, but despite this Prime Minister of Kosovo, Albin Kurti, he has not been responding to the [inaudible 00:31:18], as you’re aware, to the United States to suspend his unilateral decisions immediately. You had James O’Brien going on record yesterday sending message to Kosovo about this happening. So besides the words, what other tools do you intend to use next to compel Kurti to stop with his unilateral actions, given that at the end of the day, this is a question that concerns the U.S. taxpayer?

So, I’ll say that we will continue to engage in diplomacy to resolve this matter. And we want both sides to return to the EU-facilitated dialogue. And beyond that, I don’t want to preview any specific steps from here.

(31:56)
Sean-

Can you just say about-

Sean, only because I have to wrap up and I said Sean, I’d go to him.

… Albania is tomorrow.

What’s that?

Albania is tomorrow. I just want to ask if Secretary Blinken in Albania is going to talk to Prime Minister Edi Rama about Kosovo issue and try to compel him to reason with Kurti.

Whatever the secretary is going to say to the Prime Minister, I think I’ll wait and let him say it privately to them. He does have a press conference in Albania afterwards where he’ll talk about that meeting. So, please tune into that.

(32:25)
Sean, go ahead and then I-

Can you just follow-up on a statement that you had earlier on the elections in Indonesia, I know it’s quite general, I know in line with what we said about Pakistan, you’re not getting ahead of who is taking power, but Subianto has claimed a victory in this. Of course, as you know, until recently, he was barred from entering the United States on human rights grounds. I mean, that’s been resolved since. But do you think that there’s any lingering issue on human rights regarding a Subianto presidency?

So, you’re right. We did say we would wait for the results to come in. It does appear that he’s received the most votes, but I don’t want to get ahead of the process that still needs to unfold, the official process in Indonesia. We are committed to the comprehensive strategic partnership with Indonesia that we have had, and of course, our 75-year diplomatic relationship with Indonesia. And we are prepared to work with whoever the Indonesian people choose as their democratically elected leader, whether it’s Subianto, or as it appears to be President Subianto.

Just very quickly, the other statement that you had on the call with the Algerian foreign minister, do you know if there was discussion about the security council resolution that the Algerians are putting forward about a ceasefire? Did the secretary say it’s not a good idea or some other message?

I don’t want to get into the private conversation other than what we already included in the readout.

(33:39)
With that, sorry for the quick wrap, but I do have to go. So, we wrap for today.