U.S. State Department Press Briefing 5/2/24

As things stand now, how does the international community keep the bar from being lowered in setting the stage for future conflicts in the Middle East and globally to allow for the bombing of schools, and hospitals, and ambulances, and aid convoys, and journalists, and places of worship, and with the conclusion that there won’t be practical penalties for them?

So, I’d say we absolutely do not want the bar to be lowered. The bar should be the same standards should be applied to every conflict everywhere in the world, including in this one. Now, the nature of this conflict does make it a little bit more difficult because, for example, when you look at other conflicts around the world, it is not always true that you see one side of the conflict hiding itself in civilian sites, using ambulances to hide the passage of fighters around territory, embedding themselves under hospitals, inside hospitals. So, that makes it difficult. That makes it a much more difficult conflict. But the principles of international humanitarian law apply the same to this conflict as they do anywhere else in the world. And they should be upheld the same way in this conflict as they are anywhere else in the world.

Do there need to be penalties to make sure that happens?

International humanitarian law needs to be enforced. Absolutely. That is true. That is the position of the United States everywhere in the world. Go ahead.

Thank you. What’s the latest on the hostage deal? A delegation from Hamas is set to visit Egypt soon for further ceasefire talks according to a statement today. And Israel’s war cabinet is meant to meet today on hostages in a plan for Rafah. Has there been any movement toward a deal?

There has not been any movement in the past few days. You heard the secretary speak about this extensively while he was in the region, that there is a proposal on the table that answers much of the demands that Hamas made in previous rounds of negotiations. Israel made a significant offer in this last proposal that went forward. They compromised on many long-held positions that they had taken, and as I said, met many of the demands that Hamas had said they needed to agree to a deal. So, we believe it’s now incumbent upon them to take the deal. The deal that they demanded that has been offered, they should accept and move forward. It is Hamas that is the only barrier to a ceasefire right now, an immediate ceasefire, and we are awaiting their response.

Why do you think they’ve taken so long?

I am not at all going to put myself in the heads of the leadership of Hamas, but I will say every day that goes by without a ceasefire right now is on Hamas because they’re the ones that are holding up an answer to this proposal, and they’re the ones that are holding up reaching an ceasefire that would help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

And then, just quickly, there’s been reporting that a Saudi-US bilateral defense pact is close to completion as part of a wider Saudi-Israeli normalization deal. When do you plan to announce the full plan, and how confident are you that it will materialize if no truce between Israel and Hamas is reached?

So, I’m not going to speak to a US-Saudi defense pact in specific terms. What I will say is that the secretary did meet with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia this week when he was in Riyadh, as he’s met with him on previous meetings. And we are very close to reaching an agreement on the bilateral pieces of a normalization agreement. The normalization agreement would of course be between the Saudi Arabia and Israel. But as part of the bilateral piece, the package that is between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we are very close to reaching an agreement on that. There are a few details that we have to continue to work through, but we think we can reach agreement on those details in very short order. There is still more work to be done on a separate piece of that, which is the proposal for a pathway to a Palestinian state.

(04:09)
But we are actively discussing that with our Saudi counterparts as we are with the broader group of Arab countries that the secretary met with, also Monday in Riyadh, where we were looking at not just the path to two states, but also, the reconstruction of Gaza, governance in Gaza, security for Gaza. So, we are working on all of those. Some pieces are further along than others. The bilateral piece between the United States and Saudi Arabia, most relevantly, and some pieces are a little bit further along, but we hope to make progress on that and have the agreements ready to put forward as soon as is possible.

So, sorry, just to clarify, you’re close on US-Saudi parts, but not the Israeli parts.

Correct. So, let me unpack that a little bit. The idea of this agreement is that you would have a bilateral piece that are agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to speak to those in specific, but the details of them have been widely reported. I think everyone knows what they are. And that part is fairly well advanced, and the secretary has spoken to this. We have work to do to finalize some of the details, but we are very far along. I think the Saudi foreign minister also spoke to this on Monday in Riyadh after we met with him. Separately, and I say, “separate,” but it will be a part of this package, there are pieces that relate to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. That’s something that’s important to the United States. It’s something that is important and essential to Saudi Arabia and would be a key part of the deal. While there are pieces of it that are closer than that, the entire package will include all of those pieces together.

And how confident are you that that will materialize while there’s no truce between Israel and Hamas?

So, we could reach an agreement. This gets a little bit of speculating about timing because we don’t know whether there’ll be a ceasefire. That’s in Hamas’s hands right now. But I’ll say we could reach an agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought look like and we could reach agreement with the other Arab countries we’re working with about what the broader package looks like. Not just normalization, but the post-conflict issues that relate to Gaza. But Saudi Arabia has been very clear for this, putting a proposal on the table is one thing, a proposal that we could take to Israel. But there will be no agreement in this regard while the conflict in Gaza is still raging. Saudi Arabia has made very clear that as part of any normalization deal with Israel, they have two requirements: one, calm in Gaza, and two, a path to an independent Palestinian state. So, you could see where we might reach agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like. But in terms of an actual deal that includes normalization with Israel, there needs to be calm in Gaza.

And, sorry, just one more follow-up. Netanyahu has repeatedly objected to a Palestinian statehood, a key condition for Saudi to agree to normalization as you’ve said. What’s the point of your progress with Riyadh if in the end, Netanyahu will end up objecting anyway?

So, the secretary has spoken to this in detail a number of times, including quite extensively in Israel in January, when we first put together this group of Arab countries with whom we wanted to work on these issues. And the point he made then, it continues to be our point today, is that we believe broader integration is key to Israel’s long-term security. It’s not just the right thing to do for the Palestinian people, and it is very much the right thing to do for the Palestinian people, to answer their legitimate political aspirations. It is also the best thing that you can do to achieve Israel’s long-term goal. The goal that Israel’s had since the founding of its country, which is normal relations with its neighbors.

(07:46)
It would provide broader security to Israel. It would isolate Iran, and significantly, it would address some very real challenges Israel is going to face in Gaza when you look at the end of this conflict with figuring out how to rebuild Gaza, with figuring out how to provide security to Gaza. Ultimately, the government of Israel will have to make the choice about what’s in the best interest of their people. But for the United States, we have a point of view. We’re going to work to finish up the proposals that we are working on with our Arab partners, and we’re going to put that point of view forward, and Israel can decide. Go ahead.

Following up on Daphne’s question, I understand you could reach an agreement, I guess, in principle with the Saudis on this bilateral component, but is there any world in which that would be operationalized without this broader mega two-state normalization-

We have been very clear, Saudi Arabia has been very clear that this is a package deal that would include a bilateral component, and also, include a path to two states.

So, there was no discussion in the meetings in Riyadh about breaking off that bilateral piece and getting it into-

No. No.

Okay. And then, on Rafah, did you get any sense of timing on when the Israelis plan to move forward on their-

I will let Israel speak to that question.

Do you get the sense that they are waiting on Hamas’s response before making a-

Again, I’m just going to let Israel speak to what their plans are. I’ll speak on behalf of the secretary. And the secretary in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, made very clear the United States’ position on Rafah, which is that we do not support a major military operation there. We do not believe a major military operation is Israel’s long-term security interest. We believe there are better ways to address the threat that Hamas does still pose in Gaza because of the four battalions that are in Rafah. Secretary spoke in some detail about our ideas in that regard yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that.

What was the reception to those deals?

We had a very direct conversation about it, and I’ll just leave it at that.

And did you get any sort of commitment or is it you’re understanding that if a deal was reached on the hostages and ceasefire, that Israel would not move forward on Rafah incursion?

I think let’s take it one step at a time. The proposal that is on the table right now, as I said, is a significant offer that would achieve an immediate ceasefire. That is our goal. That’s what we’re trying to accomplish. We have always said that if we get a ceasefire, we want to work to build enduring peace, enduring calm from that ceasefire. But let’s get a ceasefire first, and then, we can talk about what would be the next steps.

If I could quickly, on the determinations under Leahy law, are there any updates on the status of cutting military assistance to that fifth unit?

No, with that one remaining unit, we are still engaging in a process where we’re collecting information from the government of Israel that they have provided to us and examining that information and… Hold on, one second. I don’t have a timetable.

Is that new information since the last time you guys said, “There was new information,” have they presented even more information?

Which is what? Couple days ago.

Couple days ago. Yeah.

When [inaudible 00:10:48] said it? No.

Okay.

Michelle, did she answer it? Okay. [inaudible 00:10:50], go ahead.

Thank you. Just had to follow up on something that Alan Gray, on the hospitals, and ambulances, and so on. I want to bring your attention, I don’t know how we could probe this issue further. The Palestinian surgeon, Adnan Ahmad Albursh, was killed on the 19th of April. He was taken from Shifa Hospital back in December and was killed by the Israelis recently. Shot, I guess, in cold blood and so on. Is there any way that the United States could look into this issue and find out the authenticity of such a…

I’m not familiar with that case. I’m happy to see if we have any further information.

All right. Just to follow up on a couple things. Now, you said that it’s a generous offer. Everybody used that word and so on. Now, if the Prime Minister of Israel keeps saying that he will not agree to any permanent ceasefire, that this war will go on, I ask, what incentive is there for Hamas or the militant groups to say, “Okay, we will give whatever leverage we have, and then, they can come and so on.” I’m just curious.

What incentive

Is there for Hamas?

No, I think-

Hold on. How about the wellbeing of the Palestinian people in Gaza?

Yeah, but they-

No, no, no, let me say. That ought to be an incentive.

I’m with you. I’m with you.

That ought to be incentive enough. Good.

I follow up.

Well, then that answers the question.

But they-

But to be clear, that is the incentive.

Okay. Well, maybe we have just the-

The incentive for Hamas is that an immediate ceasefire-

That’s right.

… would help alleviate the suffering of the — hold on — of the Palestinian people. It would make it easier for aid to get in, it would make it easier for aid to move to people in Gaza, it would allow people in Gaza to return to their homes and their neighborhoods and rebuild them.

(12:31)
So, I get your point about arguing about leverage-

Okay, but-

… but let me-

I-

Said, Said, Said, Said-

I don’t-

… let me finish. Said, just let me finish. You will get your chance.

Go ahead.

The wellbeing of the people in Gaza, that Hamas has always claimed they represent, ought to be incentive enough for them to take this deal. Period.

I agree.

Period.

I agree.

Good.

But the Prime Minister is not committing himself to a ceasefire, he’s saying that this war will continue. I’m saying that in the long run he has the prerogative to continue this war however they please. Go in, destroy, conquer, whatever, take hostages, do all kinds of things in the future. I’m not defending or saying. I’m asking, exploring. If the Prime Minister of Israel, if the cabinet in Israel is determined not to have a ceasefire doesn’t that make it less generous than the people think it is?

So, no. I would not agree with that. First of all, as the secretary said yesterday, we’re going to judge every entity in this conflict by their actions.

Right.

And the actions that Israel has shown in this negotiation process is making an offer for a ceasefire that, as I said, was a significant offer that answers a number of the demands that Hamas had said were prerequisites for them to agree to a deal. So, if Hamas really does care about the Palestinian people, they should agree to the deal. Period.

Okay. Let me ask you about-

This is one of those rare issues where it’s just actually not that complicated.

Okay. Let me ask you a couple of question on the aid. Israeli settlers have vandalized Gaza aid trucks, and so on, I think the trucks that left from Jordan, probably the ones that you guys bade farewell to. I don’t know. Do you have any comment on that? Do you know of what happened, and do you have any comment about that?

I do. I’ve been following this issue very closely because it happened while we were in Israel. And I’ll tell you what the secretary said about it to the prime minister, which is that these attacks on aid shipments are unacceptable, and that Israel ought to take steps to prevent them, and it ought take steps to hold people accountable for them. And I will tell you, we were glad to hear that Israel, yesterday, arrested three of the people involved in the attacks on this convoy. That is the appropriate step. That’s the step that they ought to take whenever there are attacks on aid convoys. And that, furthermore, they ought to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. That’s what we will hope they’ll do because these are aid shipments that are being delivered to innocent civilians who had nothing to do with October 7th, and they ought to continue unimpeded.

Now, lastly, the prime minister of Israel says that the ICC arrest warrant would be an anti-Semitic hate crime. Do you agree with that?

I will let the Prime Minister speak for himself. On behalf of the United States, we have made clear that the ICC, in our view, has no jurisdiction in this conflict, and we oppose this investigation.

Thank you.

Yeah. Ellen.

Can you say anything about how distribution of that aid, the aid shipment that was attacked by settlers, how the distribution went once inside Gaza?

I think you’re referring to these reports, and the statement that Hamas put out about the diversion of that aid. So, those aid convoys came from Jordan into Erez crossing, which was just open, something that the president insisted on in his April 4th phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yesterday was the first major shipment of aid from Jordan over this new land route through Erez crossing.

(15:57)
The convoys from the Jordan military that brought the aid in unloaded the aid inside Gaza. It was then picked up by a humanitarian implementer for distribution inside Gaza. And that aid was intercepted and diverted by Hamas on the ground in Gaza.

(16:14)
And ultimately, the UN is either in the process, or has by now recovered that aid, but it was an unacceptable act by Hamas to divert this aid to begin with, to seize this aid. We have made clear that it’s an unacceptable act. I think the UN partners will be also making clear that it’s an unacceptable act. If there is one thing that Hamas could do to jeopardize the shipment of aid, it would be diverting it for their own use rather than allowing it to go to the innocent civilians that need it. So, they certainly should refrain from doing that in the future.

Has this been a widespread issue, Matt, [inaudible 00:16:54]?

No, it has not. This is the first widespread case of diversion that we have seen. Hamas had diverted these trucks for some time. Not the original, just to be clear. This could be misleading. The original trucks came in, unloaded the aid. They were then picked up on different trucks for distribution inside Gaza.

(17:10)
They did divert those trucks. They were held for some time. To my understanding, the aid has now been released. It’s been returned to the humanitarian implementer that was responsible for it in the first place. And we have made clear, and we think the United Nations relief organizations involved will also make clear, it’s an unacceptable act that Hamas should not repeat in the future because it jeopardizes the delivery of aid to the Palestinian people.

But in terms of the number of occurrences that Hamas has diverted aid, how many times would you say this has happened?

There may have been minor ones in the past. I can’t speak to minor. This is the first major diversion of aid. And, as I said, it ultimately has now been returned to the humanitarian implementer, so it will get where it needed to go. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was an unacceptable act.

And what happened, the team that was with the aid at the time?

I can’t speak to that. I don’t have the details. I do know that they’re all safe now. I don’t-

Do you know which organization it was?

I do, but I don’t think it should be my prerogative to speak for them. Anything else on the region before we go, Michel. Yeah.

Are you looking now about a permanent ceasefire or a temporary ceasefire? And did you talk to the… And how will you build on it, as the secretary has said yesterday? And second, did you talk to the Israelis about their northern front with the Hezbollah?

So, the proposal that is on the table is for an immediate ceasefire for a defined period of time. But as we have always made clear, we do want to build that into an enduring calm. We don’t want this conflict to go on a day longer than it has to. We want to see it brought to a close in a way that ends Hamas’s ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th in a way that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people — and ultimately gets to this broader point I was making in response to some of the earlier questions — in a way that establishes a political path forward for the Palestinian people, for the citizens of Israel, that provides greater peace, security, stability for the entire region.

And on the-

Oh, and on the north. Sorry. It was a subject of our conversations. I don’t have any updates. Our goal remains the same as it has been since the outset of this conflict, which is to resolve the dispute in the north of Israel diplomatically.

And one more on Syria, if you don’t mind. Why did the administration oppose to include the Assad regime Anti-Normalization Act in the supplement aid package that passed last week?

So, I don’t have any specific comment that. We generally don’t comment when it involves pending legislation. Our position, however, has been clear, which is that we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is meaningful progress toward a political solution consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

(19:57)
Our sanctions remain in full effect — I know that was one of the other pieces of this particular legislation — and we remain committed to using all tools at our disposal to promote accountability in Syria, including by issuing sanctions under the Caesar Act and other authorities.

Thank you.

Can I follow up on that?

But this is-

Sure, go ahead.

Also, under the Syria policy, it’s reported that the Caesar Act that you just mentioned expires at the end of this year. Are you guys looking to extend that?

I’ll have to take that one back and get you a specific answer. Yeah.

And secondly, can you talk about… There was report a group in Bahrain today claimed to have attacked Israel. If accurate and true, that’s a new front that’s open. Is it the department’s assessment that U.S. policy towards trying to contain this conflict in Gaza is successful today?

So, I’m not aware of that report, so I wouldn’t want to comment on it, or the veracity of it, specifically. But it has been our goal to prevent this conflict from spreading. We’ve seen a couple points since October 7th where there have been the serious potential of it spreading and having it escalate, and you’ve seen us work quite intensively during that period. Of course, the last month, with respect to Iran, was one of the most intense periods.

(21:19)
So, it continues to be our goal, and it is something that you have to work on every day. When you see the conflict in Gaza continue, obviously it adds to tensions in the region. And so, it is a type of thing that you can never rest on, in terms of trying to prevent the conflict from spreading.

(21:37)
Go ahead.

My questions out of the region, if that’s okay.

Go ahead.

Okay. I wanted to ask if the State Department is aware of the American that has gone missing in Mexico on a surfing trip. Jack Carter rode along with two Australians. Was wondering if State Department’s aware, is working on it, and/or has comment.

There may be people who are aware of it. I’m not, personally. And often, I think, as you know, that we have Privacy Act rules when it involves cases of Americans overseas. I’ll have to take that back and check with others in the building to see if we have a more specific answer.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Matt. Two topics, Russia first. I was wondering, in light of your latest finding that Russia has been using chemical weapons in Ukraine, is the Department getting any closer to state the obvious, that Russia is a terrorist state?

We have not changed our position with regard to that designation, but it in no way changes the actions that we have taken to hold Russia accountable. You’ve seen, since the outset of this conflict, the United States imposing sanctions on Russia, imposing export controls on Russia. We imposed new sanctions on Russia yesterday. You’ve seen us use our diplomacy to press other countries to stop their support for Russia. It was a focus of the Secretary’s recent trip to China where he made clear that China should stop supporting Russia by rebuilding its defense industrial base, and also making clear that if they didn’t take action, we would.

(23:01)
And, most significantly, we’ve taken action to hold Russia accountable by supporting Ukraine and its fight for its territory. So, I know you always like to ask this question about this one particular designation, but if you look at the entirety of our policy with respect to Russia, I think you would see that it shows us taking actions across the board to hold them accountable for their aggression.

But just so I understand it correctly, is there any ongoing effort for that SSD designation, or this is just done deal? We are not going to review that?

I’m going to defer to my previous answer on this.

Thank you. Georgia, if I may.

Yeah.

We have seen all the warning lights are blinking red these days. So, the embassy made a statement saying that we offered them engagement, they refused. We have heard oligarch Ivanishvili’s statements about the U.S., the NGOs. I don’t want to repeat everything he said, but there are calls from the Hill for policy shift. I know that you made it clear that you are deeply concerned, but that’s not enough. So, when

Are you going

Are you’re going to make policy claims now or are you going to ask a question, Alex? No offense, but …

When is the right time for the US government to announce the policy shift?

So I’ll say, as we reiterated in the statement we put out last night, we are deeply concerned with the legislation that is currently working its way through the Georgian legislature. And we’re also concerned and condemn the false narrative that government officials have adopted to defend it. The legislation and the anti-Western rhetoric of Georgia Dream’s leadership has put Georgia on a precarious trajectory that jeopardizes Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermines the US-Georgia relationship. It is still draft legislation and I’m not going to comment on specific responses that we might take or preview specific responses that we might take while it remains pending legislation, but I think we have made quite clear how seriously we take this issue and how concerned we are about it.

How close the secretary has been involved into this? We haven’t heard from him on this very topic.

I can assure you he’s watching it incredibly closely, even on travels around the world and other countries, it’s something that he’s regularly updated on.

Thank you.

Jannie.

Thank you, Matt. Two questions, if I may. National Security Communication Advisor Kirby said this morning about the Russian refined petroleum, and the shipment have already pushed North Korea import above the 500 barrel annual cap mandated by the U.N. Security Council March alone. Russia shipped more than 165,000 barrels of refined petroleum to North Korea. So annual refined oil import limit is 500 barrels. Kirby said 165,000 barrels transactions was over the limit. 165,000 is less than the actual import limit of 500,000 barrels. What is the North Korea’s actual annual limit on the refined petroleum import?

So I’m not going to speak to that number. I’ll just say that the United States will continue to impose sanctions against those working to facilitate arms and refined petroleum transfers between Russia and the DPRK. We are currently working with our partners, including Australia, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom to announce new coordinated sanctions designations this month.

Do you think Kirby made [inaudible 00:26:47]-

I think I just violated one of my own rules. How many times have I said I’m not going to preview sanctions actions? So always an exception to every rule.

But do you think Kirby made a little mistake about numbers?

No, I will defer to him to comment on those numbers.

Okay. One more quick. Regarding terrorist threat alert, South Korea’s National Intelligence Services reported that North Korea is searching for terrorist attacks, targeting diplomatic missions and officers abroad. Can you give us some comment or are there any terrorist threat around for U.S. diplomatic missions or abroad?

The safety and security of our personnel is our number one priority. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer, but we are constantly monitoring the situations around the world and adjusting to events as is appropriate and necessary.

Thank you.

Shannon.

Thank you. I know these cases have been addressed from the podium before, but I wanted to ask about Brian Hagerich and Ryan Watson, the two Americans who are facing more than a decade behind bars in Turks and Caicos potentially, for carrying a relatively small amount of hunting ammunition in the country. Do you have any updates on their cases or assistance that the State Department might be offering?

So the safety and security of United States citizens is our first priority and as you know, oftentimes we’re limited in what we can say about some of these cases. There are times when there’s much that I’d like to say from this podium that I’m not able to for privacy reasons, but we are aware of the arrests of US citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a US citizen is arrested overseas, we stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance and we do that in every case where we can.

And just as more generally speaking, there’ve been a spate of high-profile cases involving US citizens who are facing very serious punishments for carrying what would be considered domestically, innocuous items into foreign countries. Is the State Department considering any action to either warn Americans or address the issue by perhaps coordinating with TSA to stop them from carrying these items overseas?

Well, presumably if you make it through … you shouldn’t be able to make it through an airport with ammunition in the first place, but we constantly update our travel alerts to make sure or to warn people that they are, of course, subject to local laws when they travel overseas. That’s true … we expect when citizens of other countries come to the United States, we expect them to abide by United States law and we hold them accountable if they don’t, and that is true for people traveling overseas. In the Turks and Caicos, firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited. Our travel alert for the Turks and Caicos makes that clear, so people are aware of that before they travel. And I would once again, as we always do, urge every American to check State Department travel alerts before they travel to a country. We put them out for every country in the world so they can see what the local rules, what the local laws are, and it’s very important that they follow those laws so they aren’t put in this position. Go ahead.

Thank you, sir. Two questions please. As far as these demonstrations are concerned across the US universities and colleges … before my question, if I say one thing, that when I used to go to college and a university in Chandigarh in India, my mother told me, “You are going there to study, not create any trouble for yourself and for others.”

(30:18)
My question is now here, that who is behind these demonstrations? How the US diplomacy with other countries around the globe who also have many students from across other nations also, in these higher universities and colleges, their studies are also affecting because I’m getting many calls from the Indian-American community and their parents also. So how the relations affecting as far as the demonstrations are concerned, violations are going on and breakings and all that. We never heard in the US as far as students and colleges and university, except during Vietnam War because there was a cause because America was involved in the Vietnam War, but America is not involved as far as these … what’s going on in the Palestine and other places.

So the president spoke to this earlier today and I don’t have much to add to his remarks, but the thing that he made very clear is that one of the things that makes this country great is the right to free expression and free speech. And we welcome free speech and we welcome free expression, even when it is people protesting in opposition to policies that we have promulgated in this Administration. But it’s also true that we expect people to follow the law and law enforcement has a right and responsibility to enforce the law when people don’t. Leave it at that. One more.

My other question, please. Thank you so much. These are in connection with that, in one side, India’s largest democracy is going on elections, like more than 700 million people are going elections. In Pakistan, other side, in the parliament of Pakistan, they are saying that US and IMF and other countries should not give any aid to Pakistan because it’s not reaching to the basics people are needing today, and parliamentarians are saying that Pakistan is now going bankrupt, and Pakistan’s Prime Minister is going in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and IMF and all that because otherwise Pakistan will break down and will be filing a bankruptcy and all that.

(32:24)
My question is, people of Pakistan are telling me and saying that US and other international institutions give aid to the basics in people for the development of Pakistanis. And at the same time, recently State Department had four companies in China and Belarus that they were supplying ballistic missile parts to Pakistan. So in the one hand they’re saying in Pakistan, Pakistan is spending all this money on the ballistic missile parts and others, not on the people of Pakistan. What they’re saying, finally, look at India today and look at Pakistan today. And both countries got freedom on the same day. And today India is one of the largest trading partner of the United States. So where do we stand?

I was waiting for the question. That was a lot. I was wondering what the question was going to be.

What message do we have for Pakistan from the Secretary of State, that basics the Pakistan can be uplifted like India in the future and their people?

So a couple of things. First, as it relates to the ballistic missile program, we made quite clear our position on that, including to the actions that we took last month that you referenced. But when it comes to efforts to stabilize its economy, including through reaching an agreement with the IMF, we support those efforts. We support the progress that Pakistan has made to stabilize its economy and manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges. And our support for Pakistan’s economic success is unwavering and we will continue to engage with them through technical engagements as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.

(34:13)
Go ahead.

Thank you, Matthew. Excuse me. Is the Administration looking to admit into the United States refugees from Gaza? If so, how would the Administration ensure there is no Hamas infiltration?

Since the beginning of the conflict, we have helped more than 1,800 American citizens and their families leave Gaza, many of whom have come to the United States. President Biden’s direction, we have also helped and will continue to help some particularly vulnerable individuals, such as children with serious health problems and children who were receiving treatment for cancer get out of harm’s way and receive care at nearby hospitals in the region. And Palestinians may be eligible for a variety of existing pathways to enter the United States, such as immigrant or non-immigrant visas. We are constantly evaluating policy proposals to further support Palestinians who are family members of American citizens and may want to join them in the United States.

(35:10)
I don’t have any potential changes to preview at this time, but as is true everywhere in the world, we have strict vetting whenever we admit people to the United States

And Republicans have called for the Administration to revoke visas of students on American college and university campuses who express support for Hamas. What’s the Administration’s reaction to those calls? Would the Administration do such a thing?

I just don’t have any comment on that.

One more thing. What is the Administration doing regarding Qatari funding of America’s college and universities that critics have said have contributed to the [inaudible 00:35:45]-

Is there evidence of that?

That Qatar is the largest foreign donor of American college and university campuses? Yes.

No, but I mean if they’re supporting the protests. I’ve heard that claim, but I’m just asking before I comment on whether there’s evidence that you can put forward

Substantiated.

Not just these protests, but the protests on American college and university campuses regarding Israel, even before October 7th. There have been critics who have said that Qatari money has contributed to this through funding-

What critics-

University programs.

Just what critics, specifically, so I know what I’m responding to?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the critics, yeah.

No, no, but who?

Conservatives, foreign policy folks, scholars.

Before I respond to something in general, I’d like to see a piece of evidence, specifically.

Mostly pro-Israel-

A specific… I would love to see a specific charge or piece of evidence before I respond to something that may or may not be true.

I can send.

Okay.

Thank you.

Me?

Yeah.

Thank you. Vladimir Zelensky said last week that Ukraine and the United States are working on a new bilateral agreement on security and have already begun discussing a specific text of this agreement. Do you have any comments, confirmation?

I’m not going to speak to it in specific, other than to say that we have made clear that we are working on ways to provide long-term support for Ukraine security. Obviously, we provide significant assistance to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s aggression, and we have been working on long-term security arrangements. That’s something that the President made public around the time of the last NATO Summit. Those discussions continue, but I’m not going to speak to them in any detail.

One more question. Polish media reported last week that Poland has made a formal request to deploy American nuclear weapons in the country. Is the United discussing this?

I don’t have any comment on that.

(37:42)
Go ahead.

Thank you, Matthew. I just want to get back to the protests and ask if there’s any concern in the State Department about these protests reflecting a spread of the conflict that you’ve been expressing fears about earlier. And secondly, have these protests at the universities featured in any of the conversations that the secretary had on his recent trip?

When we speak to being concerned about the spread of the conflict, we’re worried about kinetic conflict in the region. We’re not talking about free speech on United States campuses. So I’m not sure I understand what the linkage is between the two.

Well, it’s a spread of conflict regardless, in many people’s eyes, there is a conflict emerging on US campuses as a direct result of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Okay. It’s a very different thing than what we’re talking about when we talk about diplomatic efforts, which are, by nature, overseas, to address the spread of the conflict between Israel and other terrorist organizations, between Israel and other countries in the region. That’s specifically what we’re referring to. It’s in no way related to, I think, the actions you’ve seen on United States campuses.

(38:54)
And then the second question, remind me again, was?

Did it come up in any of the conversations?

Yeah, it did come up somewhat in conversations, as you would expect. It’s been all over TV. People around the world watch American television, and so of course it’s come up in conversations, but not in any substantive or serious way

Following up on that, is Israel seeing these protests, and is it concern about losing the messaging more? And then conversely, are there any concerns that Hamas is seeing these protests and is feeling emboldened by the anti-Israel sentiment of that?

I will let Israel speak for itself, and I’m not going to speak for Hamas either.

(39:32)
Go ahead.

Thank you, Matt. The world’s largest election has begun in India. However, there has been significant increase in intimidation, harassment. Prime Minister Modi’s inflammatory rhetoric against Muslim community has heightened fear and uncertainty within the 200 Muslim community in India. At the same time, major social media platform, like Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Meta, are removing critical content and blocking channels at the request of the Indian authority, raising concern about the censorship and the impact on free speech. What steps are being taken to protect these U.S.-based social media platforms and ensure that the right to free expression is upheld?

Let me take that one back if it regards to any specific actions, which is not to say there are any. But of course we support freedom of expression all around the world, in every country in the world.

One more, just can I draw your attention? One of my colleague was asking a question about India, and it is very difficult, someone asking questions and facing harassment. I also have faced even life threats sometimes in my social media message and text that I’m receiving. They’re questioning about the ethnicity. Is that a matter that someone is asking questions he has to be, or he or she has to be that ethnicity or from that country’s background in this briefing room?

I don’t even know where to go with that question. Obviously, we welcome people from all over the world, of any ethnicity, from countries all over the world, to ask whatever questions they want to ask us. Unfortunately, one of the sad features of social media is that people make all sorts of inappropriate comments and threats and intimidation. I see that on social media. I’m sure you do too. It doesn’t make it acceptable in any way.

(41:24)
Go ahead. Go ahead.

Thank you. On the student protests in the U.S., have you find any sign of foreign intervention, be it social media campaigns, funding, et cetera?

It’s not the kind of assessment we make here at the State Department. But no, we’ve not made that-

Are you going to look for it, or it’s not part of?

It’s just not, it’s not the kind of thing that we do here at the State Department, so no.

And on the bilateral agreement you have with the Saudi Arabia, I got a bit confused there when you were answering at the beginning. The disagreement that you are going to have with Saudi Arabia, is it tied to the conflict between Israel and Palestine? Because you said it’s a package.

Yeah. I’ve realized, as I was going through it, it was probably a bit confusing. In the normalization agreement, the potential normalization agreement that we are talking about with Saudi Arabia, there are several components. One component is a package of agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Another component is normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And another package would be a path to two states for the Palestinian people. All of them are linked together. None go forward without the others.

So obviously, you’re not going to have a finalized package to present to Senate to give the approval, to get Senate’s approval. So my question is that a few of these components, like the AI or nuclear or the security agreement, all of that, can they be executed before the other components even being finalized or achieved?

I would say this is a package deal, but we are also putting the cart before the horse a little bit here, and getting too much into the details. And that’s because as I said, one of the things that Saudi Arabia has made clear is a prerequisite for them agreeing to any normalization deal in the first place is calm in Gaza, which of course we don’t have right now. It’s not the reason why we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire. We’re trying to pursue a ceasefire with the release of hostages for its own sake and the benefits it would bring. But it is absolutely one of the things that we would try to push forward, should we achieve that ceasefire that includes the release of hostages.

But you’re going to go ahead with the nuclear agreement, regardless of what is happening?

No. As I just said, it is a package deal.

(43:35)
And Dita, go ahead, and we’ll wrap for the day.

Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions on Iran. You may have seen that the BBC World has obtained some documents, which seemed to be minutes of a hearing in Iran on the reason and the how and when and who caused the death of Nika Shakarami, one of the teenage protesters a couple of years ago. The UN spokesperson suggested that if these documents were presented to the UN Human Rights Council, that they could start a proceeding, look into it, those conversations that outline how she was killed. As a member of the UNHCR, would the United States encourage presentation of these documents to hold the people responsible for the death of Nika Shakarami?

Let me just apologize. I haven’t seen that actual report. Been on the road a little bit. Spoke about it at the beginning of the briefing. But let me take that back and get you an answer to it.

Okay. It’s kind of follow-up, but it can go separately, I think.

Yeah, I’ll get you an answer. If you have a follow-up, we can get an answer to that too.

Well, the follow-up could be separate. It’s not dependent, necessarily.

Go ahead.

The Iranian Constitution, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, actually, it says that the Supreme Leader sets the policies and is the ultimate decision-maker in the country. As such, does the State Department believe that Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, is responsible for the suppression of demonstrators and death of a high number of people two years ago and general suppression of the public?

He is absolutely responsible for the actions that government has taken. Wit that that’s be it for today. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.