Aug 10, 2023

Department of State Daily Press Briefing August 9, 2023

Department of State Daily Press Briefing August 9, 2023 Transcript
RevBlogTranscriptsDepartment of StateDepartment of State Daily Press Briefing August 9, 2023

Spokesperson Matthew Miller leads the Department Press Briefing, at the Department of State, on August 9, 2023. Read the transcript here.


Matt (00:02):

Good afternoon, everyone. Start with some comments at the top. Three years ago, hundreds of thousands of Belarusians from all walks of life took to the streets to demand change in response to Belarus’s fraudulent 2020 election. Their peaceful calls for free and fair elections and respect for human rights were met with by brute force by the Lukashenko regime, which continues to carry out systematic repression of the Belarusian people. Today, the Lukashenko regime holds more than 1500 political prisoners, including individuals detained for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In coordination with our allies and partners, the United States is today sanctioning eight individuals and five entities that enable Lukashenko’s brutal domestic repression and human rights violations and abuses. Additionally, the State Department is taking action to impose visa restrictions on 101 regime officials and their affiliates for their involvement in undermining or injuring democratic institutions in Belarus.

The people of Belarus have shown incredible courage and resilience at great personal cost. We commence Sviatlana Tsikhanouskayavet and the Democratic movement as they mark one year since the formation of the United Transition Cabinet together, Tsikhanouskaya, the United Transition Cabinet, the Coordination Council and countless journalists, human rights defenders, and Belarusians from all segments of society continue to demand free and fair elections and a sovereign and peaceful Belarus. They have refused to give up hope for a brighter democratic future and the United States will continue to stand with them. With that, Matt?

Matt (01:45):

Okay. That’s all?

Matt (01:46):

That’s all.

Matt (01:47):

Okay. Let me just start very quickly. I hope we can dispense with this rapidly, just on Haiti and the release of the two Americans. Do you have anything more to say than what the language that came out earlier today?

Matt (02:02):

I’ll say that we welcome the reports of their release. We have no greater priority, of course, than the safety and security of US citizens overseas. We express our deepest appreciation to our Haitian and US inter-agency partners for their assistance in facilitating for their safe release. And out of respect for their privacy, we’ll let the individual speak for them themselves when they feel ready.

Matt (02:25):

This is so, in other words, the answer was no, you don’t have anything to add to what was said before. But I am just a little bit curious about it. I don’t understand. Why do you open it up by saying, “we welcome reports of the release,” and then you go on and thank the Haitians and your other partners or facilitating-

Matt (02:42):

We welcome their-

Matt (02:42):

We released. Not the reported release. Why can’t you just say, “yes,” we have?

Matt (02:47):

That is a very pedantic quibble, but I think you’re right. We welcome their release. Correct.

Matt (02:53):

I don’t think it’s pedantic at all. It’s just-

Matt (02:55):

I didn’t think you would, but you’re right. You’re right. I’ll edit myself. We welcome their release. Fair point.

Matt (03:01):

And then on Niger, again, just any more detail on the amount of aid that has been paused, the specific amount of aid and what specific programs? I know that you went into this a little bit yesterday. And the situation of President Bizum.

Matt (03:20):

No more detail on the number of aid or specific programs beyond what I said yesterday.

With respect to President Bizum, we are greatly worried about his health and his personal safety and the personal safety of his family. In all of the conversations Secretary Blinken has had with President Bizum inquiring about his safety, has been one of the first things he has brought up. It is one of the reasons that acting Deputy Secretary Newland wanted to see him personally when she was in the country on Monday, and it’s a matter that remains of concern to us.

Matt (03:55):

Thank you.

Matt (03:57):

Just briefly say they’re greatly worried about his condition. Is there something new that has developed that makes you think that either his conversation with the secretary or other information?

Matt (04:05):

I don’t want to give specific details from the conversation, but obviously, he’s been there for a number of weeks, now, and as the time goes on, as he’s held in isolation, it’s a situation that is of growing concern to us.

Tamara (04:18):

Can I just follow up on that?

Matt (04:20):


Tamara (04:20):

We actually do have his party saying Bizum and his family were being detained under cruel and inhumane conditions with no running water, no electricity, no access to fresh goods. Does the United States aware of these specific conditions?

Matt (04:36):

I will not speak to specific conditions. I think it’s hard for us to do from Washington DC a long ways away, but I have no reason to dispute those reports.

Tamara (04:45):

All right.

Speaker 1 (04:46):

Matt, back here at home, I don’t know if the State was able to watch any of this pretty gut-wrenching testimony from these gold star families this earlier this week of the 13 service members that were killed in Afghanistan two years ago, now. They had a lot of accusations against the Biden administration, particularly the State Department. They felt like the administration botched this withdrawal, that they, then, try to cover it up and that they feel that they haven’t been explained to properly, in terms of what led to the decisions that were made that ultimately led to this fatal blast. What State’s response to that?

Matt (05:23):

I’ll say that, obviously, our hearts go out to those family members. I cannot begin to imagine the tragedies that they have suffered and they will always be in our thoughts and we’ll hold the great deepest sympathy for them. With respect to the decision making that went into the withdrawal from Afghanistan, that’s something that we’ve spoken to a number of times.

Speaker 1 (05:45):

But what about-

Matt (05:46):

Go ahead.

Speaker 1 (05:46):

Do you still believe that this was a success? Because they have a real hard time when the administration calls this withdrawal a success. Do you still believe it was a success?

Matt (05:55):

We believe it was the correct policy choice, but again-

Speaker 1 (05:56):

Was it a success?

Matt (05:57):

Hold on. We leave it as a correct policy choice, but again, I would never want to quibble with a family member who has suffered such an enormous tragedy.

Speaker 1 (06:03):

But I think it’s, I think that word is-

Matt (06:05):

I’m going to move on to someone else. [inaudible 00:06:07].

Speaker 2 (06:07):

You called on me, now.

Matt (06:09):

Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

Speaker 3 (06:11):

So Reuters reported that there is thinking among EU that they can unveil some sanctions. I’m just wondering, especially in light of information about the conditions that President Bizum is in, is that something that the US is considering, may consider, if those conditions deteriorate or any other conditions?

Matt (06:33):

We are considering a number of different policy options, but I wouldn’t want to preview them from here, at this point.

Matt (06:36):

Can I just go back [inaudible 00:06:41] here?

Speaker 3 (06:41):

Just one thing. Are you guys still trying to reverse this? I guess that’s link.

Matt (06:44):


Speaker 3 (06:45):

But I mean, what avenues do you have left for that?

Matt (06:48):

We continue to engage with our partners in the region. We continue to engage with other governments. The secretaries discussed this a number of times with the French foreign minister. We continue to engage with civil society and NGOs in Niger to try and reverse and lead to a different outcome that restores constitutional order.

Matt (07:08):

Do you notice, to brief thought, on the diplomacy, of course, the secretary met with the Foreign Minister of Algeria this morning. Algeria, as you know, borders Niger. Was there any substantive discussion about the crisis or any?

Matt (07:18):

Unfortunately, I haven’t gotten a readout of that meeting, yet. I think we’ll have something coming out later, but I, personally, haven’t had any discussion.

Matt (07:25):

Can I just go back to the question on Afghanistan for a second? You guys have put out the AAR, or at least a redacted, unclassified version of the AAR, and shown the HVAC, the descent cable, and I think, if I remember correctly-

Matt (07:43):

The response.

Matt (07:43):

The response to that. In your guys’ minds, is this a done deal? Is there anything more that they’re apparently still looking for more? The committee is looking.

Matt (07:55):

The committee is, I am not aware.

Matt (07:57):

Potentially the families. I’m not aware of this testimony, but.

Matt (08:01):

I’m not aware of.

Matt (08:02):

But are you guys, in terms of the State Department, you guys think that you put out everything that there is?

Matt (08:10):

So I’m not aware of the latest status of discussions with the committee or what their latest asks are. I know that they’ve made a number of additional asks, but we’ve been engaged in a back and forth with them and I’m just not sure where we are, where that stands right now. I haven’t checked in on it in sometime.

Matt (08:24):

Okay. Well, do you think though that they should be satisfied they, and that the committee and the families of the 13th should be satisfied with what has been released, thus far?

Matt (08:35):

Again, I’m reluctant to speak about this in detail, not knowing what the latest status of the discussions with the committee are.

Matt (08:41):

Yeah, I know, but do you think that you’ve fulfilled your obligations or your commitments to being transparent about what happened?

Matt (08:49):

I believe we’ve been incredibly transparent about the actions this department has taken. But with respect to requests from the committee, I’ve seen a number of requests come in. I know we’ve been in discussions with them, but I don’t want to characterize those, given that I’m just not sure where Congress is in recess right now. The discussions have obviously slowed down over the recess, so I don’t want to comment on detail in the middle of those discussions.

Matt (09:13):

I would just point out that I think that there are people that would take issue with the incredibly transparent line, considering it took how many weeks, months for them to even be able to see the dissent cable and response.

Matt (09:25):

Understood. I’m going to people that raise their, I’m going to work. You have four questions. I’m going to work the room a little bit.

Alex (09:35):

[inaudible 00:09:34] If you don’t mind. [inaudible 00:09:35] Before the human rights angle, there are reports that another Wagner camp is being built in Belarus. Ukraine confirmed it. Do you have anything about it?

Matt (09:44):

So we do know that some fighters, some Wagner fighters are in Belarus. We continue to monitor that situation. As we’ve said before, the arrival of those forces in Belarus is another example of Lukashenko seeding further control and decision-making to the Kremlin, contrary to the interests and wishes of the Belarusian people. We continue to look closely at the actions that Wagner forces take against the interests of the countries where they operate, and we’ll continue to take actions to hold them accountable. But with respect to any specific reports of a new camp, I don’t have any comment on that other than to say that, of course, we’ve seen Wagner forces redeploying to Belarus, and as I said, that’s obviously not an action that’s in the interest of the Belarusian people.

Alex (10:30):

And what is your assessment on how Poland and other frontline states are dealing with increasing threat from Belarus?

Matt (10:34):

With that Poland?

Alex (10:35):

Yeah, mm-hmm.

Matt (10:37):

We have full confidence in the actions that Poland, which of course is an important ally of ours, takes.

Alex (10:43):

On human rights, that’s your topic. Can you assure the Russian opposition democratic forces that the administration has done, in these three years, everything you can to support them? There are new sanctions on [inaudible 00:10:58] regime officials are welcomed, but why

Alex (11:00):

… did we wait for three years to punish him? Are there other [inaudible 00:11:04] officials still out there?

Matt (11:05):

I don’t think we have waited. We have taken a number of actions over the course of the last three years to hold Belarusian officials accountable. We have spoken to this on a number of occasions. We have made clear that we stand with the Belarusian people and the sanctions that we rolled out today are just the latest in a long series of sanctions that we have imposed. [inaudible 00:11:26] Alex, that was three. I’m going to try to work-

Alex (11:27):

It’s just related to the topic.

Matt (11:29):

I’ll come back to you if there’s time, but I want to make sure other people get a chance.

Speaker 4 (11:32):

Yeah, thank you, Matt. You made aware that the Russian companies are still active in Iraq and there is a big issue between the US and Iraq that due to Euro sanctions on Iraq, that Iraqi government cannot pay the bills to Russia. And are aware that since February the Iraqi government are in close contact with the US government to get some sorts of waiver to pay the bills to that owed to Russia. My question is that have you [inaudible 00:11:58] Iraq to pay any bills to Russia? And then not withstanding with your sanctions on Iraq, but what’s your reaction to the Russian companies that are still active in Iraq?

Matt (12:08):

So first of all, no, we have not. We continue to implement all of our sanctions on Russia. There has been no change to Iraq policy vis-a-vis Russia. We have stood firm, of course, in opposing Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. And since Russia has shown no signs that it intends to deescalate or enter into serious negotiations, we will continue to impose costs including by reducing the amount of revenue it receives from its oil and gas sector. And finally, I’d say Russia has clearly demonstrated it is not a reliable supplier of energy and repeatedly has used foreign dependence on Russian energy to influence other countries towards the Kremlin’s interests. But the bottom line is no, we have not changed our sanctions.

Speaker 4 (12:50):

Are you going to put any restrictions on the Iraqi government while they are letting the Russian companies to be active in their country?

Matt (12:57):

We will continue to enforce all of our sanctions. But beyond that, I wouldn’t want to preview any specific action from here.

Alex (13:02):

Thank you.

Matt (13:03):

Go ahead. Olivia, I’ll come to you next.

Speaker 5 (13:05):

This week, the Washington Post reported that China hacked into Japan sensitive defense networks beginning in 2020. Are you worried that Japan’s cybersecurity capability could slow the information sharing with Japan? And a follow-up, do you expect that President Biden will discuss cybersecurity at the upcoming US Japan South Korea summit next week?

Matt (13:27):

So we obviously saw those reports. I’ll leave it to the government of Japan to speak to them specifically. Obviously cybersecurity is an issue that we take seriously. We have encouraged both domestic US companies as well as our allies and partners to take steps to strengthen their defenses as we have taken steps to strengthen ours. And I would, without getting into specific previews of that meeting, which I will to a large extent leave to the White House. Of course, cybersecurity is an issue that regularly comes up in discussions with our allies and partners. So come to Olivia next.

Olivia (14:01):

Thank you, Matt. As the Biden administration today rolls out these new rules limiting certain American investments in certain Chinese tech sectors, has this department engaged on the diplomatic front to understand the possible reaction or retaliation from Beijing?

Matt (14:18):

So this is actually an issue that came up in our meetings in Beijing when we had a back and forth, a very detailed back and forth with Chinese government officials. And one of the things that the then Chinese foreign minister objected to quite strenuously was reports that we would be imposing outbound investment controls. And I won’t get into their objections in details other than to say that they objected to those as they have objected to our export controls and other measures that we have taken with respect to China. And the point that the secretary made clear in those meetings is that the United States has taken and will continue to take whatever actions we believe are necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

Olivia (15:01):

Sure. I mean Chinese officials here, the Chinese ambassador here said publicly that this would be viewed as a provocation by the Chinese government. So have they previewed any potential responses in these recent conversations either with the secretary or more recent conversation?

Matt (15:15):

Not that I’m aware of, but one of the things that we have made clear to them repeatedly in all of our engagements with them is that we will continue to say things and we will continue to do things and by do things, I mean taking policy actions that they object to. But we will do that because we believe it is in the national security interest of the United States. And we have also made the point to them a number of times that we believe it’s important that even though we will be taking these actions just as they take policy actions that we don’t agree with, we think it’s still important that we have the ability to have conversations about our areas of disagreements so we can make sure that the relationship doesn’t deteriorate. And so that we have the ability to manage through crises and manage through other situations. Go ahead.

Speaker 6 (15:59):

Thanks, Matthew. What is the state department’s reaction to South African politician Peter [inaudible 00:16:07] calling for white farmers to be killed? And second, was the State Department involved in the release of those Americans from Haiti? Was there anything given like sanctions relief in exchange for their release?

Matt (16:18):

Sanctions relief to kidnappers? No.

Speaker 6 (16:21):

To Haiti with the government?

Matt (16:24):

No. With respect to the first question, I haven’t seen the comments to which you’re referring. So I’m certainly going to follow the rule I always take, which is I’m not going to comment on any purported comment that I haven’t seen myself that’s read to me at the briefing. Obviously we oppose violence directed at any individual group, but with respect to the specific comments, not having seen them myself, I’m reluctant to speak to them. Janet, go ahead.

Janet (16:47):

Thank you, Matt. North Korea is currently operating the [inaudible 00:16:53] in the steel complex, which blew up three years ago. And the North Korea and China are working together to export products. And do you know that the machinery and product are under UN sanctions? Do you have any comment on that?

Matt (17:12):

Only that we will continue to enforce our sanctions and impose new sanctions when necessary.

Janet (17:17):

But the military uniforms produced here are being sent to Russia. How can you see this? Because their military stopped.

Matt (17:29):

So I’m not going to speak to it specifically other than to say that we will continue to enforce our sanctions. We will look for evidence of people who are invaded our sanctions. If necessary, we will tighten our sanctions and we will crack down using all the tools available to us on anyone that evades our sanctions.

Janet (17:47):

So you never say that US have additional sanctions regarding violations, North Korea, China, or Russia. Why not?

Matt (17:57):

Because I don’t make announcements from here before we have imposed a sanction. I don’t like to preview anything that hasn’t yet been imposed. And that’s true with respect to every country in the world. Go ahead.

Speaker 7 (18:07):

Thank you. To the delegation from the United States, including your embassy, CDA. David Berger, visited Kurdistan and meet with Kurdish officials. I would like to inquire about the topics covered and how you would characterize your policy in Kurdistan. Is there anything new to share with us today?

Matt (18:32):

No. With respect to the visit, I would refer you to the embassy in Baghdad. Go ahead.

Speaker 8 (18:37):

Thank you, sir. John from Air Venue. A couple of days ago on the arrest of [inaudible 00:18:43] you said there are cases that are so obviously unfounded that United States believe it should say something about the matter and the US has not made the determination in this case. So what is it in [inaudible 00:18:55] case that makes you think it is not unfounded? What criteria do you use to make that determination if it is a founded or unfounded case?

Matt (19:02):

I will just say that we continue to believe that these are matters for the Pakistani people to decide. Our bottom line principle is that we continue to call for the respect of democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law in Pakistan as we do around the world.

Speaker 8 (19:16):

So Pakistani ambassador, [inaudible 00:19:18] called on the US to engage more closely with Pakistan as it continues to grapple with the host of threats, including last week suicide bombing that killed at least 63 people. How can US can help Pakistan counter the ongoing terrorism threat to the region that threatens both US economic and security interest in the region?

Matt (19:36):

So we deeply value our relationship with Pakistan, including our relationship with respect to counter-terrorism. We have supported Pakistan through a number of pieces of assistance to help with counter-terrorism with other law enforcement activities, and we’ll continue to do so.

Speaker 8 (19:53):

One last question. If you allow me, what is the US role in tamping down terrorism in the region after 20 years of war in Afghanistan?

Matt (19:59):

I’ll just say, as I said, we continue to support Pakistan’s counterterrorism operations. Go ahead. Say next.

Speaker 9 (20:05):

Thank you so much. We have seen ups and downs in US Pakistan relation in decent past. What kind of confidence spending layers are being taken to avoid mistrust between these two countries? My second question is, there is upcoming elections in Pakistan. We already spoke few days ago, will US sending independent observer to monitor the general elections in Pakistan?

Matt (20:36):

I’m not aware if a decision has been made with respect to sending observers. With respect to your first question, we will continue to engage directly with the Pakistani government as we do at a number of different levels. And we will continue to engage in people to people contacts with Pakistan, who we consider a close partner.

Speaker 10 (20:56):

Wall Street Journal reported this morning that the US and Saudi Arabia had agreed to a broad strokes plan for normalization with Israel. Any veracity to that? And where are we in that process?

Matt (21:07):

I saw that report. I think it vastly overstated the reality of the situation. We continue to discuss the possibility of normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia with Saudi Arabia, with Israel. The secretary has traveled personally to the region to discuss this. There are a number of matters that are under discussion between the three countries and we will continue to work towards that aim, recognizing that it is a long and difficult process, but I think the reports that we have reached some sort of agreement vastly overstate where things stand. You follow up on that? Yeah.

Matt (21:48):

This is a different topic.

Matt (21:49):

Oh, sure.

Matt (21:50):

Ethiopia, I think this might’ve been addressed briefly before, but the situation, Amara, the Ethiopian military today is saying that it’s defeated

Matt (22:00):

Needed fighters there? Does the United States have any information on the humanitarian situation there and any general comment about where things have gone there?

Matt (22:07):

Let me take back the question on the humanitarian situation and see if we have any details that we can provide. And with respect to the situation, obviously we’re concerned about the violence. It’s a situation that the secretary discussed in his call with Ethiopian government last week.

Matt (22:28):

Can I take you back to Pakistan?

Matt (22:29):


Matt (22:31):

The cypher cable supposedly that’s been reported. I know you’ve had some on record comments on this, but I wanted to ask you about the veracity of the comments. It’s obviously a Pakistani document. Does the United States generally think that what was reported there? What was that?

Matt (22:49):

So a few things. One, yes, it’s reported to be a Pakistani document. I can’t speak to whether it is an actual Pakistani document or not. Just simply don’t know. With respect to the comments that were reported, I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic exchanges other than to say that even if those comments were accurate as reported, they in no way show the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan ought to be. We expressed concern privately to the government of Pakistan, as we expressed concern publicly about the visit of then Prime Minister Khan to Moscow on the very day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We made that concern quite clear. But as the former Pakistani ambassador of the United States himself has stated, the allegations that the United States has interfered in internal decisions about the leadership of Pakistan are false. As we’ve stated, they’re false, they’ve always been false and they remain false.

Matt (23:49):

Just to pursue that briefly, I guess the money quote in that was saying that Pakistan would, or that Imran Khan personally would have continued isolation because of his visit to Moscow. Can you explain that in terms of, if we take that as given that that was an accurate comment, what that meant?

Matt (24:07):

So without stipulating whether it’s an accurate or common or not, if you take all of the comments in context that were reported in that purported cable, I think what they show is the United States government expressing concern about the policy choices that the Prime Minister was taking. It is not in any way the United States government expressing a preference on who the leadership of Pakistan ought to be.

Matt (24:30):

But Matt, just you can go. I think what I’m hearing is that essentially the substance of this report and the purported Pakistani cable back to Islamabad is accurate. But you’re saying that but it is not the US saying that then Prime Minister Khan should leave office. Is that correct?

Matt (24:58):

Close-ish. I cannot speak to the veracity-

Matt (25:00):


Matt (25:00):

Close-ish. And I’ll explain what I mean by close-

Matt (25:02):

Ish. I understand that’s a diplomatic term.

Matt (25:05):

Exactly. I’ll explain what I mean by that, which is I cannot speak to the veracity of this document.

Matt (25:11):


Matt (25:11):

Let me just finish. What I can say, even if those comments were all a hundred percent accurate as reported, which I do not know them to be, they do not in any way show a representative of the State Department taking a position on who the leadership. They’re commenting on-

Matt (25:27):

You can understand though, perhaps you can understand, why other countries might think when the US weighs in, even in a way like this, that it is taking a position on it. I can name five or 10 leaders who the United States has sought to oust, including some that it has been successful in ousting, although not only after military invasions. So it’s not an unprecedented thing for a country to think that the US is trying to pressure it into or trying to make its views known about who it thinks should be the leader of a country. Right?

Matt (26:19):

I will say that I can understand how those comments, number one, could be taken out of context, and number two, how people might desire for them to be taken out of context and might try to use them to advance an agenda that is not represented by the comments of themselves.

Matt (26:40):

And do you think that’s what’s happening here?

Matt (26:40):

I think a number of people have taken them out of context and used them for political purposes.

Matt (26:42):

Intentionally for-

Matt (26:44):

I won’t speak to intentions, but I think that’s what’s happened.

Matt (26:46):

Thank you.

Speaker 11 (26:46):

Matt has a followup, sorry.

Matt (26:49):

I’m going to continue to go to people that haven’t had questions yet.

Speaker 11 (26:51):

[inaudible 00:26:53].

Matt (26:53):

Matt is here every day with questions, so the people that are-

Speaker 11 (26:55):

I will return.

Matt (26:57):

I appreciate that. Go ahead.

Speaker 12 (26:59):

Thank you Matt. You may have seen this letter and tell me if you have or haven’t, several US lawmakers including Chip Roy, have written the letter to the State Department saying that Finland is trying to silence Christianity. Have you seen that letter? It came just the other day.

Matt (27:13):

I haven’t personally seen that letter. I’m sure it’s here under review.

Speaker 12 (27:15):

Okay. This has to do with a member of Finland’s parliament, Paivi Rasanen. She’s going back on trial in just a few days. She was found not guilty of hate speech for sharing a biblical based view on marriage and sexuality in a 2019 tweet. But you’re not following this case right now?

Matt (27:34):

I’m just not familiar with the letter there.

Speaker 12 (27:35):

Oh, all right. All right. Maybe you can get back to me on that and see if there’s any reaction to. I’m sure you know this, the FBI has been accused of spying on Catholics here in the US. This based on a memo out of the FBI office, Congress has looked at this. Does that accusation of spying, the US government FBI spying on Catholics right here in the US in any way undermine the state department’s ability to evaluate religious freedom globally?

Matt (28:00):

I’m trying to think how I can answer that without commenting on an FBI matter, to which I should of course refer a comment to the FBI and the Justice Department. But no and no, I don’t think in any way, I will say it generally, I don’t think any way actions by the United States government with respect to any of these issues undermine our ability to speak out about repression overseas. And Geeta, go ahead.

Geeta (28:22):

Thanks Matt. Iran’s President has promised to bring down the hammer on women and girls who are not observing the mandatory hijab. Any comments?

Matt (28:32):

Yeah, I saw his remarks. It is our belief, as we’ve said before, that women in Iran and everywhere should be free to wear what they want. Iranian women should not have to worry about Iranian authorities using surveillance technology or any other methods to impose control over them. And the United States has and will continue to take action to support the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Iran, including the women and girls of Iran, and to work with allies and partners to pursue accountability for the perpetrators of human rights abuses.

Geeta (29:03):

Thank you.

Matt (29:04):

Go ahead.

Speaker 13 (29:05):

Thank you Matt. So last week I asked you about Gonzalo Lira, he was the US citizen arrested in Ukraine, got out briefly, tweeted about it, and since then no one’s heard from him. And last week when I asked you, you said you would verify it. So has the State Department looked into that case?

Matt (29:20):

So I’ll say that the safety and security of every American overseas is our first priority, because of privacy rules, we’re unable in a lot of cases to talk about specific cases, but obviously the safety and security of Americans is our top priority.

Speaker 13 (29:35):

Are you working with Ukraine on this to [inaudible 00:29:37] released?

Matt (29:37):

Again, because of privacy considerations, there’s nothing further I can say. Go ahead.

Speaker 14 (29:42):

Yes, the question is on Mexico. The secretary is meeting the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico tomorrow here at the State Department. How big you think the topic of fentanyl will be in the meeting, and will they discuss the situation at the Rio Grande with these floating barrier that Mexico has complained about?

Matt (30:06):

So I don’t want to preview the meeting in too much detail, but obviously fentanyl will be one of the top topics that is discussed, migration will be another topic. And with respect to other issues, the secretary and the foreign minister will be holding a press conference at the conclusion of that meeting where they will talk about exactly what they discussed.

Speaker 14 (30:23):

They will take questions?

Matt (30:23):

They will.

Speaker 14 (30:24):

Thank you.

Matt (30:25):

Alex, go ahead.

Alex (30:28):

[inaudible 00:30:27]. I have another one on Azerbaijan. When the secretary said this morning, he called on Lukashenko to release immediately and unconditionally 1,500 political prisoners. I was wondering if he had any practical measures in mind to take if it doesn’t happen, or this was sort of a moonshot?

Matt (30:45):

Well, we imposed sanctions and other enforcement measures on Belarusian officials today. So we will continue to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to hold them accountable for the actions that they take to stifle democracy and dissent in the country.

Alex (31:01):

Thank you. On Azerbaijan. Washington Post had an editorial this week, urgent administration, to use every possible particular way of phone calls to [inaudible 00:31:11], every negotiation on other topics including Karabakh conflict, to plea the release of political prisoners, particularly Gubad Ibadoghlu, who just got arrested recently. The conventional victims that is a secretary did not mention his name or he got ignored. So which one is it?

Matt (31:28):

So I’m not going to speak to conversations that we’ve had. As usual, private diplomatic conversations. But it is an arrest that we have followed closely. We remain strongly committed to advancing respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. And we urge Azerbaijan to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens, including Gubad Ibadoghlu, consistent with Azerbaijan’s own constitution and international obligations and commitments.

Alex (31:53):

Thank you.

Matt (31:54):

Tamara. Yeah.

Tamara (31:56):

Have you guys received a response from the Chinese side about the invitation you have extended for Wong Yi?

Matt (32:02):

Again, as I’ve said before, I will let the Chinese government speak to their side of it.

Tamara (32:08):

It’s your invitation.

Matt (32:08):

I’m aware, and we spoke to the fact that we’ve invited him. We’ll let them speak to acceptance of that invitation, but it is our full expectation based on our conversations with them, that he will travel to the United States and that he will hold a meeting with Secretary Blinken.

Tamara (32:23):

Do you have any reason to believe that the expected actions from the administration restricting Chinese investment could be linked to this seemingly delay in them responding to this invite?

Matt (32:36):

I don’t know that there is any seeming delay. You’re jumping to a conclusion that I have not made publicly, and my deferring to the Chinese government to speak to Chinese government matters does not in any way speak to that. Our full expectation is that he will attend and they will have a meeting. Go ahead.

Speaker 1 (32:51):

Just one more on [inaudible 00:32:53] families and then one on Taiwan please, if I may. I think these families feel at the very least they deserve some sort of an apology.

Speaker 1 (33:00):

Do you think that state can admit that some mistakes were made during this withdrawal?

Matt (33:05):

So I will just say, as I said before, we express our deepest sympathy to the families and I can’t imagine the situation that they are in. I would never quibble with any position that they take. We, of course, the administration made policy choices that we believe in. We executed those policy choices. We recently released an after action report that details or that runs through in great detail things that the State Department could have done better. The secretary endorsed the conclusions of that report. I would commend it to you for a very detailed read about what we could have done better at the time. But we stand by the underlying policy choice to end the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

Speaker 1 (33:50):

And then one on Taiwan. The island has been reporting that there’s been some large scale Chinese Air Force incursions that have happened this week. What’s state’s reaction to that?

Matt (34:01):

I won’t speak to those specific reports. Other than that, I’ll say we have always urged China not to take actions that would escalate cross straight tensions. Kylie?

Kylie (34:12):

Sorry, to [inaudible 00:34:13]-

Matt (34:12):

Further back than usual today. Sorry, what?

Kylie (34:16):

To ping pong for a second, but just one quick question on Haiti and the nurse that has been released with her daughter, do you guys know where she is right now?

Matt (34:26):

I can’t speak to that level of detail, just with respect for their privacy. And I think given the situation that they’ve been through, they should be the first ones to speak to the media about their situation, not me from a podium in Washington.

Kylie (34:41):

Can or will the US government assist them in getting back to the United States if that’s what their plan is?

Matt (34:48):

I don’t want to speak in detail to that question because I don’t know what requests they have made to us. But obviously we always try to assist US citizens in foreign countries if they need help exiting a country, I would expect we would do so here. But I just don’t want to speak specifically to the situation that they have not yet spoken to publicly.

Kylie (35:07):

Okay. And then one quick question on the Wall Street Journal report today on the Saudi Arabia normalization with Israel conversations, they’ve reported that there’s an agreement on a path to normalize relations between the two countries. The White House has said that’s going a little bit farther. There’s a lot of conversations that need to be had before that path is agreed to. Can you just give us a status update from this building as to where you view those conversations at this moment in time?

Matt (35:40):

I will say that we’ve had productive conversations. There’s a number of issues that we have discussed both with the Israeli government and with the Saudi government. Those conversations continue. I expect there will be more happening in coming weeks. We’ve made progress on a number of issues. I’m not going to get into what the progress is, but it is still a long road to go with an uncertain future. But it is an important initiative that we think we should continue to pursue.

Kylie (36:03):

Israel’s national security advisor said today that they don’t expect any agreement to be announced before the end of the year. Would you concur with that assessment?

Matt (36:11):

I wouldn’t want to put a timetable on it at all.

Kylie (36:13):

And then last question, the Wall Street Journal said that part of the conversations between the US and Saudi Arabia on this are putting pressure on the Saudis to distance themselves from China as part of an agreement to normalize Saudi/ Israel relations. Is that part of this conversation?

Matt (36:33):

Not that I’m aware of. Again, I don’t want to speak to it in details, but from our perspective, the purpose of this agreement is to increase stability in the region and to normalize relations between the two countries. Potential agreement, yeah. Thank you. I think I’ve made clear we don’t have agreement, but yes, in case anyone would take that out of context. Go ahead.

Speaker 16 (36:56):

I just wanted to ask, it seems like the State Department used to host the annual International Religious Freedom Summit. I know that Summit has kind of continued on a more private capacity and the State Department participates in it. But please inform me why do you guys no longer host the IRF Summit?

Matt (37:14):

I’ll take that one back and get you an answer. Go ahead. You had your hand up. Go ahead.

Speaker 15 (37:18):

Thank you. I have a question on the initiative by the president of the United Arab Emirates who offered to organize a meeting between President Putin and Zelenskyy are in Dubai at the Climate Conference. And reportedly he already talked with Biden about that. Whether there is any conversation between State Department and the White House about the possibility of that and how would you look at this initiative?

Matt (37:51):

So I’m going to let the White House speak to any conversations the president may or may not have had. And with respect to any meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Putin, I would say that is a decision for President Zelenskyy to make. We have made clear that Ukraine is in the driver’s seat when it comes to deciding the future of Ukraine, and that is true with respect to any potential negotiations. I would add, however, that President Zelenskyy has made clear for some time, including since before the outset of this war, that he is open to conversations with Russia that respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Ukraine’s sovereignty. So I will let him speak to when he’s ready or when they would have any such conversations. But the impediment has always been and continues to be that Vladimir Putin has not renounced his imperialist aims, has not renounced his belief that Ukraine is not a real country in his words and has not withdrawn his troops from beyond Ukraine’s borders. So with respect to any negotiations, though, I will defer a comment to the Ukrainian government. One more, yeah.

Speaker 15 (38:58):

When a possible meeting between Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov, if the UN General Assembly, although it’s still away, but maybe there is any preparation on the way, and if there are any plans to organize a conversation between them to discuss such issues as a Grain Initiative.

Matt (39:25):

There are not any plans for meeting that I’m aware of. I would never make any announcements about meetings this far in advance. But again, we think with respect to the Grain Initiative that Russia needs to return to the Black Sea Grain Initiative as not just the United States has encouraged it to do, but as Turkey has encouraged it to do, as African countries have encouraged it to do so, we’ll continue to make that case. I think our position is pretty well known. All right, let me take one more at the very back and then we’ll wrap for today.

Speaker 17 (39:51):

Just also on Ukraine, Donald Trump is now clearly the runaway favorite for the Republican nomination and has talked about diminishing support for Ukraine significantly, and other Republicans have said similar things. Are you picking up concerns from President Zelenskyy and allies that perhaps the US will not last the course, that today, Putin just has to run down the clock?

Matt (40:16):

So I’m still relatively new to this podium, but one thing I do think I know to do is not comment about politics. So I will refrain from discussing the first part of the question. But with respect to our conversations with allies overseas, we have made clear that we need to do two things. One is to continue to support Ukraine for the battle it’s facing now, but then the second is to lock in long-term security agreements that will outlive any one administration, any one government, both here in the United States and among our allies and partners who have signed up for the same type of long-term security commitments. So we are in discussions with Ukraine about what those security commitments look like right now. We are in discussions with the United States Congress about what both our current funding posture for Ukraine ought to be and what the long-term funding posture ought to be.

And we’ll continue to have those conversations. But I will say that we have, and I said this yesterday, we still have been heartened despite all the churn about this question that really has been out there since the outset of this war. We have been heartened that every time we have gone to the Congress to look for more support for the government of Ukraine, the military of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, Congress has always been there and we expect that they will continue to be there. And with that we’ll wrap for today. Thanks everyone. I’m going to wrap for today. Thank you.

Transcribe Your Own Content

Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling.