Department of State Daily Press Briefing 4/24/24

… Anything off the top. So, Ellen, you’d like to kick us off?

Hi, Vedant. A former State Department Security and Human Rights Official, Charles Blaha, took part in a panel presentation on credible allegations of human rights abuses by Israeli forces this afternoon, and he said that in his experience in 30 years at the State Department, the State Department gave Israel special treatment that no other country in the world got, and that it showed undue preference to Israel in accepting its accounts of incidents that involve allegations against Palestinians.

(00:54)
So, aside from the fact that he’s a free citizen, free to say what he wants to say, is he correct? Is the person who was central to the kind of reviews that are happening now in the State Department, is he correct in saying that’s the situation, or did he misunderstand how things worked over three decades?

I can’t speak to these comments. I haven’t seen them or can’t really speak to this individual and what their role may have been here at the State Department.

(01:28)
What I can say unequivocally is that we apply the principles and guidelines that are outlined in clear legislation when it comes to the security relationships we have with countries around the world, including Israel, consistently. I will also note that when it comes to the appropriate use of American security assistance, we also apply the principles and guidelines as it relates to those consistently with countries across the board.

(02:03)
Simultaneously, we have a number of measures and efforts in place when it comes to ensuring that there is compliance with international humanitarian law. We’ve talked about a number of those levers from this briefing room, and we apply the tenets laid out in those measures consistently across the board with countries across the board. There is no such thing as special or preferential treatment when it comes to the implementation and enforcement of what we believe to be U.S. law.

(02:38)
Simultaneously, when it comes to Israel, at every conversation, we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative to ensure that every possible step is taken when it comes to ensuring that civilian casualties are minimized, that deconfliction measures are implemented immediately, and that humanitarian aid can get to the place that it needs to go and that humanitarian aid workers are protected. And we’ll continue to be very direct about those efforts, and we’ll continue to apply the tenets of these factors consistently across the board with all countries.

A couple of former senior State Department officials involved in the process have come forward now to say that’s not the case. Should that prompt an examination of the State Department of its own process?

Again, I have not seen these other comments, but what I can say unequivocally is that there is no such thing as double standards or preferential treatment. We apply the rule of the law, and the standards outlined and the various accountability mechanisms we have consistently across the board with all countries that we have security relationships with.

(03:51)
I assume these individuals that you outlined are private citizens, so they have every right to speak whatever it is their opinion is on issues pertaining to global affairs, but we, as you know, we see no indication of, or reason to, reassess our policy or the steps and procedures that we have in place.

[inaudible 00:04:16].

Daphne, go ahead.

Thank you. A senior Israeli defense official has said that Israel’s military is poised to evacuate Palestinian civilians from Rafah and assault Hamas holdouts in the city. Do you feel that U. S. concerns about an operation in Rafah have been heard or addressed?

We don’t. This is an ongoing process. We continue to be very clear, and Ambassador Satterfield reiterated some of this yesterday, that when it comes to a military operation in Rafah, there needs to be a serious, credible plan when it comes to how to deal with some of the very pressing humanitarian challenges.

(04:59)
You’ve heard me talk about these before: First and foremost, we have more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah. Rafah, as a region, continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid, as well as a region of safe departure for foreign nationals. For these reasons and many others, we continue to engage directly with our partners in Israel about them needing a very serious, coordinated, and well-thought-out plan when it comes to any military operation in Rafah.

Have you gotten any assurances on protection of civilians from the Israelis?

We are having these conversations. They are ongoing. Obviously, in the broader sense of the conflict, we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative of protecting civilians and making sure that every possible step is taken to protect and minimize civilian casualties. But on the topic of an operation in Rafah, this is a conversation that we’re going to continue to have.

(05:56)
You might have been in the briefing last week, in which we talked about National Security Advisor Sullivan’s meeting through the Strategic Consultative Group to talk about some of these issues. These conversations will continue to be ongoing, and we’ll continue to engage with our Israeli partners on this.

Will the U.S. take any action if they go ahead with an operation?

I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals here.

Okay. And if I could just ask, Palestinian Authority’s reported finding hundreds of bodies in mass graves at a hospital in Khan Younis this week after it was abandoned by Israeli troops. I know you said earlier this week that the reports are troubling, but will the U.S. call for an independent inquiry?

First, let me just say the allegations are troubling, they are disturbing, we take them very seriously, and we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. It’s our understanding the IDF has spoken to some of this publicly. They have stated that in search of Israeli hostages, they have uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously been buried.

(06:58)
And after determining that no hostages were there, these graves were recovered. Obviously, the IDF can speak to specifically about their operations in the region. But we’re also continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information onto what this is and what the circumstances are here. And when we have that information, we’ll be happy to share that with you.

Can I ask a follow-up?

Sure.

[inaudible 00:07:22] my colleague. At that event, actually, where they released something called the Independent Task Force on the application of National Security Memorandum 20, I’m sure you are aware of. Now, these two former officials from the State Department, they were… of course they’re private citizens, but they were speaking officially of their time spent in the State Department. So, you are saying that there has never been, at any time, a special treatment of Israel in terms of the dispensing aid, military aid, or otherwise, or even political aid?

Said, what I am saying is that when it comes to the security relationships that we have with countries around the world, whether it be Israel, whether it be any other country where we have a robust security relationship, the applications and standards of the laws that guide that security relationship, including the laws and procedures that guide accountability measures that are in place within our system to ensure that human rights are not being violated, to ensure that American assistance is being used properly, the laws and guidelines and standards of those are applied consistently across the board. There is no double standards and is there no special treatment, regardless of country.

There is absolutely no special treatment of Israel at any given point in the past 50 years, whatever?

Said, I can only speak to this administration and the work that is ongoing here. I think we always don’t like turning these press briefings into history lessons. I’m not here to speak about-

That’s fine. I’m not-

50 years. What I can say is that since the onset of this administration and our long-standing security relationship with Israel, this has been the case.

Yeah, I’m not interested in relitigating history either. I just wanted to ask you, now, the report they are talking about, or the memo they are talking about, was issued back on February 8th. I believe there is another one coming up soon in May. Can you tell us what it will do and will not do?

Said, I’m going to not get ahead of the process here. You saw around in March us speak to this first benchmark, which was receiving these letters from the various ministers and government officials who we have security relationships with. But beyond that, there is of course an additional component around the May 8th date, and so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.

Yeah. Two more points. On the Patrick Leahy Law, now we understand that it is obligatory, right? It is obligatory that whatever arms sent to anyone of your security partners and so on, would abide by what is stated or what is dictated by the Leahy Law. It is a law. So, can you share with us the mechanism that you apply in enforcing that law?

Said, without getting technical, let me just be clear. Of course, we take our obligations to the Leahy Law incredibly seriously. It is another example of a tool that we have at our disposal that we continue to apply consistently across the board when it comes to countries in which we have security relationships. A determination on a Leahy Law

A violation would essentially mean that we would have been found gross violations of human rights. And then particular components under a particular country where we have a security relationship, those specific components would be ineligible for US assistance. But again, that is talking about it in a broad term, and I’m not going to get more specific than that.

Okay. And lastly, on the mass grave. Now an Israeli spokeswoman for the Israeli army basically dismissed the whole thing, dismissed the charge. Now you’re saying you find it troubling and you asked the Israeli government for clarification. Do you expect them to come back to you with these clarifications? Do you have a timeframe?

I don’t have a timeframe for you, and we do expect them to provide us with more information.

But considering that this is just happening and it has a certain level of urgency, I mean considering that the UN is asking for an independent investigation and so on, do you say that we need a response within this period of time?

We are stressing the urgency of not just this incident, but other incidents in which we continue to press our partners in Israel for more information and more details about the circumstances surrounding it. We don’t always read those conversations out. Some of the times they’re private. But our partners in Israel are ones in which we engage with regularly around the clock at varying levels, and we’ll continue to do so.

Thank you.

Elizabeth, go ahead.

There was a report in Israeli media over the weekend that Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich is pushing to legalize 68 outposts in the West Bank. Does the State Department have a reaction to that report? And is this something you’ve raised with Israeli officials?

So look, these reports about directives to support illegal outposts in the West Bank, we believe that to be dangerous and reckless. Our policy, US policy, remains that settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace and the government of Israel’s program is inconsistent with international law, and we’ll continue to urge Israeli officials to refrain from taking actions to fund outposts that have long been illegal under Israeli law. Actions or announcements seeking to expand outposts will only move the goal of peace and stability in the region further away.

(13:19)
Abby. On the region or anything else?

On the region.

Yeah, go ahead.

Hamas released a video today of Israeli-American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, and I wondered if you had any comment on the video and if you had any further information on proof of life or the date of the video. And more broadly, if you could give an update on the hostage discussions.

Sure. The video itself is being actively examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. I can’t comment on it any further at this time on any of the specific parameters on the verification of it or not, but I will just note that if it’s real, that this is another example of Hamas preferring to hold hostages rather than end the war and bring much needed relief to the Palestinian people in Gaza.

(14:18)
On the matter of hostage talks and negotiations, Abby, there is a deal on the table. Release the sick, the wounded, the elderly, women, and there is a ceasefire. It’s simple as that. The whole situation continues to be totally unacceptable to us. Since October 7th, we have stressed at every tide and turn that every single hostage needs to be released. And candidly, over the course of this conversation, it’s something that the world has lost focus on a little bit, that it is Hamas that started its war, it’s Hamas that is continuing to hold hostages, and has the ability to end it by releasing them.

(14:59)
When it comes to this video, Hersh should be home with his family. And we and Secretary Blinken are not going to rest a single minute until that happens. Including the President, of course.

(15:12)
Alex, on the region?

On Iran, if I may. [inaudible 00:15:15].

Let me see if there’s anything else on Gaza specifically before we pivot to some of the broader topics. Go ahead in the back.

Does the US support an investigation into the mass graves found in Gaza, an independent investigation?

So as I said, we’re continuing to ask our partners in Israel for more information. I don’t have an additional assessment to offer on that.

So you want Israel to investigate but not an independent?

We are asking for more information on the circumstances relating to the reporting of the mass grave, as I said to both of your colleagues when they asked this very same question.

That’s not-

Go ahead.

[inaudible 00:15:49] rights report released on Monday, you said that Israel, the government, took some credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses. However, we have not seen some credible steps regarding several investigations since October 7th, including the killing of Hind Rajab. I wanted to follow up on what Matt said last week. He said that you would ask for more information in light of the recent Washington Post report, which cast doubts on earlier Israeli findings. Any updates on these? Have Israel gotten back to you?

Specifically as to what mechanisms might be in place within the Israeli system, I will let our partners in Israel speak to that about any efforts that they’re undertaking.

(16:47)
From the United States’ perspective, you’ve heard me say this before. We consistently in all conflict zones continue to assess and identify evidence, facts, situations on the ground. Those are analyzed. Those are looked through the various inputs and systems that we have to assess violations of possible human rights. And we take the process from there, and we’ll make additional assessments as we need. But these are deliberative processes that are rigorous, that are detail-oriented, that are rooted in the law and rooted in facts, and they take time. I don’t have anything additional to offer.

Specifically, I’m asking about the killing of Hind Rajab. Have you asked them for more information and have they gotten back?

I’m happy to check on this case specifically. I don’t have anything from up here.

Any updates on World Central Kitchen aid workers? You were reviewing Israeli findings. Have you made an assessment?

When it comes to the findings in the World Central Kitchen, that tragic event, you saw our partners in Israel take a number of steps when it comes to accountability measures, specifically as it relates to dismissing three officers and placing some additional others on probation. In light of that, we’ve also continued to see some steps in the right direction when it comes to humanitarian assistance.

(18:09)
But we also continue to stress the importance and we need to see additional steps being taken when it comes to deconfliction mechanisms and steps that they can take to protect humanitarian workers. Ambassador Satterfield spoke a great deal about that yesterday, about things like comms equipment and other ways in which steps can be taken to ensure that humanitarian workers are kept safe. And we’re going to continue to press our partners in Israel for those kinds of things.

(18:38)
I’ll go back to you, Ellen. Go ahead.

Can I ask about the work being done for the findings that will be finished on May 8th? Are there any additional new investigations or inquiries being done as part of that examination of Israel’s…

So the National Security Memorandum is not a new process or a new policy process in which there are new standards or some sort of new thing that is applied to the countries that we have a relationship on. It is an assessment of whether we find a particular country who we have a security relationship with. Whether we find their assurances to use US security assistance properly. Whether we find those assurances credible and viable. And that work is ongoing.

Yeah-

When it comes to, though, but when it comes to ensuring that there are not violations of human rights and that US assistance is being used appropriately, there are a number of processes in place that already exist within the federal government.

But I understand-

We’ve talked a lot about them here.

I understand it’s the same processes and standards as before. My question is, are there any additional investigations, reviews, interviews being done?

It’s not an investigation, Ellen. It’s not an investigation. It is an assessment. I don’t fully understand what you are asking.

I mean, are you looking at… Is there a deeper look being taken into specific instances in Gaza?

This is work that is already ongoing and totally separate from the National Security Memorandum. You are conflating these two very separate things.

No, I’m talking about the National Security-

I understand. I understand. And what I’m stressing to you is what we have said from the onset since the National Security Memorandum was signed. It is not a new investigation or a new process. When it comes to ensuring the appropriate use of American security assistance and ensuring that human rights violations are not taking place, there are a number of steps that already exist within the US government that are being inputted into, that are being assessed. We are looking at the facts on the ground as we would in any conflict zone.

[inaudible 00:20:52] facts on the ground.

But I’m not going to speak to these ongoing deliberative processes. We’re not gathering new facts. This gathering of facts has been ongoing since the onset of October 7th, as it would in any conflict zone. The National Security Memorandum process is a totally separate thing. It is not an outlining any new process or any new investigation. It is an assessment of assurances offered by host governments when it comes to the assurances that they provide on the use of US assistance. We’ve been pretty clear about this dating back to a number of press briefings.

Right. I guess I’m saying are you doing any additional… You’ve got the assurances, but how do you determine their [inaudible 00:21:32].

That is the work that’s ongoing. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but this is the work that has been ongoing, not just in this conflict zone, but in every conflict zone on the face of this planet, where we look at the facts on the ground, we work with civil society organizations, we work through our embassies and consulates to assess what is happening on the ground. And those facts, they then are assessed, looked at further, they are examined, and they can move into various other processes as well, whether they be CHIRG, whether

… be a Leahy process, whether it be something else. That work is always ongoing.

(22:06)
Go ahead in the back.

It’s about Colombia.

Okay. I’m going to come back to you at the end.

(22:12)
Go ahead, Alex.

Thank you. Staying with Iran for a while, I have a couple of other questions on Ukraine, Toomaj Salehi, very well-known dissident rapper, very well known for his criticism of the Iranian regime, got sentenced today to death. Any reaction, and any steps the U.S. can take to prevent this from happening?

We’ve seen those disturbing reports. We’re talking about someone who has already faced torture and other harsh treatments in detention. This is just another example of the Iranian regime’s horrific and pervasive human rights abuses. We once again condemn the Iranian regime’s use of the death sentence as a tool to suppress people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms. We continue to closely follow reports of Mr. Salehi’s situation.

The MAHSA Act is now the law of the land. Can you guys give us a sense of how you’re going to implement it, when, and will you be willing to directly target Iranian supreme leader for his gross human rights violations?

So, Alex, we continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to hold the Iranian regime accountable, the MAHSA and SHIP Act, as you so noted. We’re of course going to implement the law, but I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, and we’ll wait on speaking to any of the Iran-related provisions specifically for now.

May I move to Ukraine if I may, or …

Let me finish out on the region and then-

Please come back to me.

I’ll come back to you.

(23:43)
Go ahead.

Regarding Toomaj Salehi and the sentence he was just given, is there anything you can do on the international scene to stop it?

Well, look, Guita, we continue to have tools at our disposal when it comes to pressuring the Iranian regime, when it comes to their crackdown and their various serious egregious violations of human rights. I’m not going to preview those from up here. But again, this is just another example of the regime’s pervasive and egregious human rights abuses.

Sure. Among the tools you always refer to is sanctions, but sanctions is not going to stop them from executing somebody who has spoken in support of freedoms. Anything else you may be able to do?

Well, look, the reports are incredibly disturbing and troubling. And we’ll continue to raise cases like this one and raise violations of human rights like this and continue to make clear these kinds of egregious crackdowns, in public forums like this one, through the international community, so that we can further collectively hold the Iranian regime accountable for its crackdowns. On the region?

On the region.

Go ahead, Doc.

Okay, thank you, Vedant. I just had really a follow-up, but I didn’t get to finish my question about the Netzah Yehuda Battalion. And this is the question: In light of jewishpress.com and Middle East Forum reports regarding the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization criticism of the IDF, that battalion, and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas in its war against Israel, does the U.S. Government vouch for the credibility of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization reports regarding those U.S. sanctions against the Netzah Yehuda Battalion? And a quick follow-up.

I’m not sure I fully am following your question. What exactly are you asking about?

Have you heard of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization?

I’m not familiar with this organization.

Okay. I’ll go to the next question here.

Great.

Right. United States continues to sanction more and more Israelis. Can you describe in detail what is the basis for these sanctions, why there isn’t a public hearing so that the American public can see or hear the evidence, and which other allies does the United States currently have sanctions against the citizens and military units?

So generally, public hearings are not part of the process of designating individuals or entities under our system. But let me just be clear and let’s talk about what this is about. This is about violence in the West Bank, violence that we believe to be destabilizing when it comes to our ultimate goal of peace and stability in the region. And that’s why you saw the administration take steps last week to designate individuals that we believe to be contributing to that instability through violent extremism.

(26:47)
Go ahead. Yep.

Thank you, Vedant. A question on Iran. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Agency, said in an interview with Deutsche Welle that Iran is weeks rather than months away from having enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. What’s the U.S. assessment on that? Do you have the same belief?

So I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here. What I can say is that we sincerely appreciate the IAEA’s extensive efforts to engage Iran on longstanding questions relating to Iran’s safeguard obligations. And we’re going to continue to support Director General Grossi and the IAEA in their efforts. We’ll also continue to consult closely with the E3 and other appropriate partners on this, but I’m not going to, don’t have anything …

What about his comments? He says that Iran is weeks closer to enriched uranium to have the nuclear. Does that concern the U.S. Government?

Look, the President has been very clear that we will go at all lengths to ensure that Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon. But I don’t have an assessment to offer on Director General Grossi’s comments, but we certainly continue to appreciate his efforts to engage the Iranian regime as it relates to their safeguard obligations.

And one last question, if I may.

Sure.

Yeah. This week and after the Iraqi prime minister went back to Baghdad, the militia group has resumed their attacks. The Pentagon spoke of that, and here at the State Department Matthew spoke of that, too. But my question is that were there any connections with the Iraqi Government on that specific attacks and the resumption of the militia groups attacks on the U.S. forces?

I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon to speak in greater detail about this. I don’t have anything to offer from here.

No connections from State Department?

I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here.

(28:39)
Go ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Patel. Just a few and promise to make them brief. On Monday Secretary gave detail about the Human Rights Report, and you said you do not have double standards. Since last year and a half, you do not see a million Pakistani moving out of the country, journalists being put in jail, women in jail, political workers in jail.

Is there a question here?

So Pakistan was not part of human rights violation in the yearly report. Do you guys not see any violation happening there since last one year?

I am sure that there is a section that includes Pakistan. But beyond that, did you attend the briefing on Monday?

Yes.

Then you probably recall both the Secretary, Matt, Ambassador Gilchrist being pretty explicit about the fact that the Human Rights Report is not a compendium of every single human rights violation that has occurred in calendar 2023. It has picked certain specific entries. It is not supposed to be some sort of cross-cutting total list that includes every single violation. Of course, when it comes to any country in the world, including of course Pakistan, human rights continues to be on the agenda, and it’s something that we’ll continue to raise with them.

Okay, just one, sir?

Yeah, just one. Go ahead.

On the same topic, the Human Rights Report, the Mexican president spent 40 minutes today early in morning criticizing the report. He said, among many other things, that the reporting itself, it’s a breach of international law. He also said that the criticisms of his Mexican Government in the report were not accurate. So what do you have to say about this? Is it unlawful under international law issuing these kind of reports? And do you give assurances of the things that you included regarding Mexico?

One, certainly the publication of the Human Rights Report is not a violation of international law. It’s something that we have done every year that this secretary has been secretary and for every year almost before that. I can’t think of a year in which the State Department, across administrations, across Secretaries, have issued Human Rights Reports.

(30:57)
Again, I’ve said this a number of times this week: the Human Rights Report is not a United States assessment on these various anecdotes and entries that are in there. It is a compilation of entries made from credible inputs, media organizations, government organizations, civil society actors, our embassies and consulates, who input these specific entries.

(31:25)
And as it relates to the section on Mexico, I just am not going to speak to these specific entries. Your opportunity to do that was on Wednesday or Monday when Ambassador Gilchrist was here. So you all should have attended to talk about some of these entries more specifically.

(31:40)
Go ahead, in the back.

It’s about Colombia, about the Human Rights Reports. Colombia also sent a diplomatic note of protest because of the inclusion of an investigation against the son of the president, of President Petro. Colombia believes that it’s unfriendly, it shouldn’t be included there. And on the other hand, they protested against you, your statements yesterday, because they believe you gave credibility to the information of the investigation.

(32:05)
I want to clarify exactly what were you trying to say when you said that you gave credibility, because, let me be clear, some people are even saying that you said that money enter the campaign.

I don’t think that … There should be no confusion as it relates to my comments. Let’s just take a step back and talk about this as a matter of fact. First, the Colombian Government, is their prerogative to conduct whatever kind of diplomacy or take whatever actions that they see fit under their government. But what we’re talking about here is that in the 2023 Human Rights Report, in the Columbia section, there are references to an inquiry that was opened by the Colombian attorney general’s office. It’s a matter of public record, that the attorney general’s office

…office has opened this inquiry. The State Department didn’t announce it. The human rights report didn’t announce it. This is a matter of public record and government organizations are one of the many credible inputs that go into compiling the human rights reports. This report, one of the things it’s known for is compiling credible actions that governments take. But the inclusion of any entry in the human rights report does not denote any kind of fact finding or assessment by the United States government as it relates to these specific entries. And on the case that you note yesterday, I was pretty clear yesterday and I will be so again, I have no comments or assessment or details to offer as it relates to this specific matter that the Attorney General’s Office has raised that is for them to speak to, including the details and any specifics around the inquiry that they’re looking into. The United States government does not have an opinion or point of view or an assessment on what’s laid out there.

Mr. Patel, just one last thing. There’s a new attorney in Colombia. It was appointed by President Petro and the course of that investigation is already changing. Does the US trust that the investigation can be conducted fairly? Do you trust the Colombian institutions on this? On the attorney general office appointed by President Petro investigating his son?

I have no different assessment to offer when it comes to the justice system in Colombia. This is an issue for the government of Colombia and the Colombian Attorney General’s office. I don’t have any other perspective from the United States. Thank you. Abby, go ahead,

Turks and Caicos.

Sure. What a pivot.

Yeah, serious pivot. At least two Americans are currently being detained in Turks and Caicos after bringing ammunition to the country earlier this year. Does the State Department have any concerns regarding the detention of Americans for bringing ammunition into the country? They’re both looking at the potential of 12-year sentences.

So Abby, as you know, our embassy’s in conflict, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens overseas. We’re aware of the arrest of US citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a US citizen is arrested, we stand by ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. But in a foreign country, US citizens are subject to that country’s laws, even if they may differ from what is law in the United States. I will note that our department put out a security alert in September of 2023 that states that in the Turks and Caicos Islands, firearms, ammunitions, and other weapons are not permitted. Turks and Caicos Island authorities strictly enforce all firearms-related laws. And the penalty for traveling to Turks and Caicos islands with a firearm or ammunition or other weapon is a minimum of custodial sentence of 12 years. But beyond that, we are aware of these reports and we are continuing to engage and provide all appropriate counselor assistance.

Are you able to provide any estimate for how many Americans are being detained in Turks and Caicos?

As you know, Abby, as a veteran covering this department, the number of American citizens, not just in Turks and Caicos, but in any country that is a number that fluctuates. We do not ask or even require American citizens to register or notify with us when they travel, when they head to any destination. So that is just a number I can offer from up here. Go ahead.

Thank you. There have been reports that President Erdogan’s meeting with the Hamas leader might have affected his anticipated White House visit. I will not ask you to confirm whether the Turkish president is coming, but I will ask you, what is your message to your allies? Will a meeting with the Hamas leader potentially set an obstacle to White House visit?

So our message to our allies and partners today is the same that it was on October 7th, which is that it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas and that any country who may have a relationship with Hamas, influence with Hamas needs to send a very clear message that they should take the deal on the table that will release hostages and help bring about much needed relief to the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and that they should ultimately ensure that every single hostage is released. But I don’t have any other-

So does that mean that a meeting with the Hamas leader is business as usual, so you can influence a visit in the United States?

I have no assessments to offer on that meeting beyond that.

So can I just follow up on that?

Sure.

Hey, quickly. So would you like to see your allies like Qatar for instance, through the Hamas leadership from Qatar? There’s been a lot of talk about this.

I spoke a little bit about this last week-

I understand this was brought up.

I will, again, leave it to the government of Qatar to speak to any steps that they may be taking as it relates to their own government. Go ahead.

Thank you. On the secretary’s visit to China, he said he would address human rights, but on this report that came out on Monday, will he specifically address the persecution of religious groups like the Uyghurs and Falun Gong and what have talks been like on this in the past?

What I can say is that in every engagement that we have had with the People’s Republic of China since the onset of this administration, human rights have always been on the agenda and they will continue to be so. And I have no doubt that human rights will be discussed this week while the secretary’s there. Go ahead.

The secretary’s trip to China comes on the appeals of the state visit by the Japanese Prime Minister, the unprecedented US-Philippines trilateral and forward movement on AUKUS. And next month, the inauguration of the Taiwanese President-Elect is approaching. How will these factor into discussions with Chinese officials potentially President Xi?

Look broadly, the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region continues to be a key tenet of what we will be engaging on, not just with these countries that you laid out, but also in our engagements with the PRC over the course of this week. It’s important to note that there’s a number of other topics that we expect to come up. We talked a little bit about them earlier this week. He’s going to work, the secretary, to accomplish three main goals. First, make progress on key US priorities, including resuming counter-narcotics cooperation, continuing military-to-military communication issues around artificial intelligence and strengthening people-to-people ties. He’ll also clearly and directly communicate concerns on regional and global issues. As I said, peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, maintaining cross-strait ties, ensuring that tensions are kept in check.

(40:06)
We also will discuss managing our relationship and competition responsibly with the PRC. You can expect all of these things to be talked about and more importantly, you’ll have a chance to hear from the secretary at the end of the week when he has a press conference at the conclusion of his trip. You had your hand up in the back, did you not?

Yeah, but my question’s being asked. But just to follow up-

Relax, Alex, I will get to you.

Does the Secretary want to have his ending press conference in China or back here in the US?

It will be in Beijing at the end of the week. Go ahead, Alex.

Thank you. Two topics, Ukraine first. The first [inaudible 00:40:49] is out today. It did not include long-range ATACMS, but there are reports that president has already directed organization officials to send them. I think the reports actually said it has already been delivered and it’s being used. Can you just confirm that and overall your reaction?

Sure, Alex. So yes, I can confirm that the United States provided Ukraine with long-range ATACMS at the President’s direction. He quietly directed his national security team to send ATACMS to Ukraine for use inside Ukrainian sovereign territory in February. They started moving as part of the military aid package we announced on March 12th, and those missiles arrived in Ukraine this month. We did not announce this at the onset in order to maintain operational security for Ukraine at their request. And I’ll defer to them to speak about their use and how they may or may not be operationalized in their own military operations.

It’s extremely helpful. Moving forward. Can you guys give us a sense of how you guys are going to determine what kind of guns, weapons do they need to make a tangible change?

So I’m just not going to speculate on any forthcoming drawdowns or any forthcoming security systems or assets we may be providing our Ukrainian partners only to say, you saw us take a huge step today with the announcement of this $1 billion package. It was incredibly helpful and our message to our Ukrainian partners is that this assistance is on the way and that our commitment to their defense is unwavering

Thank you. On Armenia Azerbaijan, there are reports about some progress has been made in terms of border delimitation. Any reaction? Are you guys involved? Is Special Advisor Bono planning to go to the region or is involved at all?

I don’t have any travel to announce, Alex, but the secretary mentioned this in his tweet that we welcome the announcement that Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed upon the 1991, Alma-Ada, Declaration as the basis for border delimitation between the two countries. This is an important step towards concluding a durable and dignified peace agreement. Daphne, did you have your hand up?

Yeah, I was just going to ask how many long-range ATACMS-

Again, I’m not going to speak to the specifics. All right, thanks everybody.