Department Press Briefing – March 20, 2024

12:34 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Wednesday. I don’t have anything off the top today. Shaun, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sure. I guess starting with Gaza.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: NSM-20 – follow up on that. I mean, there’s – the clock is ticking for a Israeli response, and not just Israel but – can you say what extent now has Israel submitted a response? Has there been any correspondence with the department?

MR PATEL: So as I said yesterday, I’m just not going to speak to the specifics of any singular country at this moment. This is a broad memorandum touching various different corners of the world. And to take a step back, since the signing of the national security memorandum on February 8th, partner countries deemed to be in active armed conflict have 45 days to share letters of assurances. And upon receipt of each of those, the United States will assess whether or not a partner country – whether those assurances are credible and reliable.

And so that work is ongoing, and implementation of that national security memorandum is ongoing, as is the assessment of those assurances from partner countries. So I just – I don’t – I’m not going to get into more specifics. I know Camilla asked about this yesterday.

QUESTION: Right. The Secretary, of course – it’s been announced he’s going to continue on to Israel this week. Do you expect this to be a – to be one of the issues that’s raised, I mean, this response on NSM-20?

MR PATEL: Well, we expect him to talk a wide – about a wide range of issues. The Secretary, as you note, is headed to Israel at the end of this week. He’s going to discuss with the Government of Israel, its leadership, the ongoing negotiations to secure the release of hostages. He’s going to discuss the need to defeat Hamas, including in Rafah, in a way that we believe will hopefully protect civilian populations, does not hinder the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and advances Israel’s overall security.

He’s also going to discuss the United States and international efforts to dramatically increase and sustain delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians, who are suffering from a lack of adequate food supplies. That’s obviously been a immense priority for us. And he’s also going to update Israeli leaders on his talks in the earlier part of this week with Arab leaders to build a lasting peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians, and the broader region.

QUESTION: Just one for me before I pass it on, but the – Rafah, how much do you figure of that will be in the discussions? I mean, there’s – there have been calls from the U.S. quite explicitly to hold off without a plan for civilians in Rafah. Do you expect the Secretary to speak in depth about Rafah with the Israeli leaders?

MR PATEL: I don’t have a percentage or an assessment to offer, Shaun. But we have been very clear that we believe that in order to undertake any kind of operation in Rafah, it would require a serious and significant plan, one that addresses the varying and complex humanitarian challenges that are posed in the Rafah region, talking specifically about more than 1 million people who are seeking refuge in the area, it continuing to be an area that is a conduit for the flow of humanitarian aid.

So I have no doubt it will be one of the things that will be discussed, but also, as a reminder, National Security Advisor Sullivan spoke to this earlier in this week. We expect a team from Israel to meet with members of the interagency in the United States to also discuss ways in which we believe that Hamas can be defeated, but done so in a targeted and more precise manner, and hopefully does not impact or have any negative impact on Palestinian civilians.

Daphne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Netanyahu has said that he will soon approve a plan for the evacuation of Palestinian civilians from fighting areas after having green-lit the military’s operational plans for Rafah. Has the U.S. seen any of these plans yet?

MR PATEL: I have not seen – I don’t have any plan to read out or to offer an assessment on. But let me be very clear, and this has come up a couple of times this week: There should be no full-scale military operation in Rafah without a credible and executable plan to protect the civilian population. Part of that also, and this has been a – something that the Secretary has made clear and reiterated in some remarks he gave in Tokyo last year, that we do not support the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza to outside of Gaza. That’s not something that we would support or condone.

QUESTION: And sorry, just not looking for any assessment, but have you actually received these plans from Israel?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware. I’m not aware of that.

QUESTION: And I have a few more on Haiti, but if you have —

MR PATEL: Yes.

QUESTION: Still on Rafah for one second?

MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Will the Secretary be in the conversations next week with administration officials with the Israelis who are coming here to discuss Rafah?

MR PATEL: I don’t have – one, I don’t have specific scheduling to offer on, like, when those conversations will take place. Two, I don’t have an exact delegation makeup both from the United States side or the Israeli side. But what I can say is that I have no doubt the State Department will be deeply engaged in those conversations. I do not believe that they will be happening at the Secretary’s level, but of course we are deeply engaged on this issue from across the department.

QUESTION: And just on Rafah generally, you guys have repeatedly talked about the importance of protecting the civilian population there. And given the outreach to Israel to discuss this plan in more detail, is the administration in a position where you guys would be willing to provide resources to Israel to actually protect the civilian population if they’re going to go ahead with this operation? Or is the onus on Israel to do that with their own resources?

MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the – these conversations, Kylie. As you know, over the course of – since October 7th, but even prior to that, we have a longstanding relationship with Israel in terms of provisions of security assistance and things like that. What we hope to happen through this conversation is for there to be a clear and direct engagement on how they are thinking about this and offer some insight into advice on how we would approach this situation were we in that position.

And so I don’t want to get ahead of that conversation, and if in the course of that it is determined that our Israeli partners need X, Y, and Z, that is of course a conversation that we’ll continue to have.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR PATEL: Can I – then I’ll go to you. Go ahead, Camilla. Still on Gaza, I assume?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: No? Okay, then go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: First, I wanted to ask about a colleague of mine in Gaza. He’s in fact the bureau chief of Gaza for our newspaper, and the editor-in-chief for the electronic version. His name is Mahmoud Abu Awad Abu Musab, but I’ll send you his name and his picture. He was taken by the Israelis on Sunday night, Sunday or Monday morning, and we lost his whereabouts. We don’t know anything about him. Then there was a picture published with him stripped naked along with other men and so on.

So my point is: When will the United States demand and say that this cannot keep on going, where journalists that are credentialed, that have worked there for year after year, decade after decade, well-known to the Israelis – well-known to the Israelis – why do they keep taking them, targeting them, killing them, imprisoning them? With impunity? Why is that not outrageous to you?

MR PATEL: Said, when we talk about continuing to press Israel to enhance its mechanisms to better protect civilians, we of course are also talking about extending that to journalists as well. We are always concerned for the safety of journalists, especially in conflict zones, especially in somewhere like Gaza, where journalism plays a critical role. And as Secretary Blinken has said, journalists – including many Palestinians in Gaza – are doing extraordinary work under the most dangerous conditions. And we’ve been unequivocal here. We also have been clear and reiterated the fact that Israel needs to abide by international humanitarian law, especially as it conducts these operations. And that’s something we’ll continue to reiterate with them.

QUESTION: Yeah, well, honestly, Vedant, this slap-on-the-wrist kind of language is not going – in any way, shape, or form – to sway the Israelis, or to pressure them, or to make them do stuff. You should – everybody believes that a civilized country like the United States of America, who is basically the umbilical cord for Israel to do everything under the sun, can stand and say: This should not go on.

MR PATEL: We —

QUESTION: This should not go on. Not just “we urge them not to harm them” and so on because this is obviously a systematic – I mean, when you – when 150 – I don’t know how many, 150 journalists are killed —

MR PATEL: Said —

QUESTION: — and imprisoned and taken, and so on, this is not just something that happens.

MR PATEL: It doesn’t sound like you have a follow-up question, so let me just jump in and say from the President on down, we have reiterated that Israel needs to – it has a moral and strategic imperative to do more, and to do everything it can to work on and bolster its deconfliction mechanisms, to take additional steps to protect civilians and minimize civilian casualties. And that, of course, includes and extends to journalists, who we believe are doing important and vital work in the region.

QUESTION: A couple of things on Rafah. It has been assessed that it is impossible to evacuate Gazans from Rafah – there’s about a hundred – 1.4 million and so on. And it seems that the United States is having meetings next week, or the administration will be having meetings with Ron Dermer and Hanegbi to discuss Rafah. So if you are convinced, and that’s what we get, at least the suggestion is that it is really very difficult, very – it’s impossible – why cannot this be made, like, restatement or the standard U.S. position? The standard U.S. position that Rafah should not be invaded?

MR PATEL: Said, it is our position that such an operation should not and cannot be conducted without a credible and serious plan, a plan that needs to account for and address the varying humanitarian factors in the Rafah region: firstly, the more than 1 million people seeking refuge in the area; two, it continuing to be an area that is a conduit for humanitarian aid. It is out of serious concern for these two factors that we have not been unambiguous about our concerns as it relates to an operation in Rafah, and we’ll continue to have these conversations with our Israeli partners.

Anything else?

QUESTION: After weeks – my last one – after weeks of this Rafah dilemma has been going on, is there a conceivable way to remove such a huge amount of people and move them safely, in your view or anybody’s view?

MR PATEL: When we’re talking about dealing with the more than one million people who are seeking refuge in Rafah, Said, we’re certainly not being prescriptive about how to go about and do that. And when it comes to the movement of the Palestinian people, especially those residing in Gaza, we’ve been very clear that the forcible movement or the forcible removal of them is certainly not something that we would support. But beyond that, I don’t have – we’re not aiming to be prescriptive here, Said. We’re going to continue to have these conversations with our Israeli partners on what we believe can hopefully be a path forward that will help defeat Hamas, but also be mindful of these varying humanitarian factors.

On Gaza? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. So you said that you expect Israel to act in line with international law. And last month you announced publicly that you are assessing whether or not Israel is complying with the international law and you’re also assessing the use of U.S. weapons in Israel’s war. Have you come to any conclusion, and do you have any expectation of that, how long it might take to – for this investigation?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates – I don’t have any updates to offer in that space. When we talk about that ongoing work, we’re talking about it in the context of how this kind of work is ongoing in all conflict areas where we’re assessing the circumstances and anecdotes on the ground, and we’re assessing what is happening. And of course there are a number of vectors and a number of lines of efforts within the State Department to assess those kinds of things. We’ve talked about a couple of them from up here: processes like the Leahy process, the – processes like CHIRG. And some of that work is just going to continue, and I don’t have any update to offer on that.

QUESTION: Just one more on that. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam said that they submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Government regarding Israel’s violations of international law, and this includes the misuse of U.S. weapons and blocking the U.S-funded humanitarian aid. Have you (inaudible) – what is your assessment of this report? Because this includes like serious allegations like use of white phosphorous in Lebanon, in Gaza, and attacking ambulances, hospitals, and blocking the U.S. humanitarian aid. Do you have any response?

MR PATEL: I’ve seen the open-source reporting of it as it relates to the report. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer on that, specifically as it relates to the national security memorandum and its linkage to that report. And just speaking to Shaun’s question, the implementation of the NSM is ongoing, and so I don’t have anything else to offer on that.

Anything else on Gaza before – I want to make sure —

QUESTION: One more Gaza one? Yeah.

MR PATEL: I mean, we can do as many as you want. I just want to stay on topic.

On Gaza – can I do Camilla first because she —

QUESTION: Yeah, of course. Yeah.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just following up on Said’s question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You and Matt have stood at the podium and you have confirmed that there are incidents that are raised with the Israelis every time something happens in Gaza that you guys want answers on. Every time a journalist is subjected to inhumane treatment or there’s evidence of that, or a journalist is killed in Gaza, is this treated the same way where you go to the Israelis and you ask them what has happened? And is there a list of journalists that you guys have asked about, especially ones that are colleagues of ours in Gaza who are working with us on this story every day? And have you had any response from the Israelis on any individual case in regards to Gaza?

MR PATEL: There are – there certainly are. There certainly are specific incidents, especially as it relates to journalists, in which we have asked our partners in the Government of Israel for more information.

QUESTION: Have they given any —

MR PATEL: And in instances we have gotten more information on the specifics to those circumstances or things of that nature. I’m not at liberty to speak to some of those given privacy concerns, but this is something that we raise, and we raise it as – at the seriousness that we raise others issues that we have concerns about and we’re seeking more information on.

QUESTION: And would this be – for Said’s colleague, would this be a case in which you would raise it with the Israelis?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the specifics around this case. I’m happy to check, but I don’t want to speak to something in that specificity that – when I don’t have information in front of me.

QUESTION: Just for the record, if this were a CBS colleague in Gaza, we would be expecting that to be something that would make the list of things to be raised with the Israelis. And then I can turn to Haiti after Gaza.

MR PATEL: Kylie.

QUESTION: With regard to the ongoing operation on the largest hospital complex in Gaza, obviously it was the same location where the Israelis carried out another operation in November. So I just wonder, if they’re having to go back again, if there are concerns about the efficacy of their operations as they continue to go after what they say are terrorists in this hospital?

MR PATEL: So I will let the Israelis speak to their own operation and how they’re conducting it as well as any assessment that they have made that would make – that goes into their reasoning for why they’re deciding to conduct such an operation. What I will just say is that there continues to be plenty of open-source reporting out there of Hamas using civilian institutions – like hospitals, like schools – as command and control nodes, as areas in which hostages are being held, as areas that lead into their tunnel networks. So that is not something that is surprising to us. There is a clear track record of that. But as it relates to this specific – this specific operation, I’ll defer to the – to our Israeli partners.

QUESTION: Just one more on Gaza?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Realizing, of course, it relates to another country’s policies —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — but do you have any comment on Canada saying they’re going to stop arms shipments to Israel?

MR PATEL: That’s for our Canadian partners to speak to, and it’s a sovereign decision of theirs to make. The United States has been clear – you saw the President speak to this not too long ago – we continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and have been clear that we must do so while also being very clear the moral and strategic imperative our partners in Israel have to protecting the lives of civilians. And our position hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: And has there been discussion with the Canadians on this, on —

MR PATEL: I – we talk to our Canadian partners all the time. I’m not aware of a specific conversation to read out though.

On Gaza, Daphne?

QUESTION: Haiti.

MR PATEL: I want to make sure there’s – I think folks still have questions on Gaza, but then I will – we’ll have time to talk Haiti.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have this and – maritime corridor, when will it be ready?

MR PATEL: So that is something that we’re continuing to work on around the clock. Since the beginning of this conflict we have been leading efforts to get lifesaving humanitarian aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering. You saw at State of the Union the President announced this undertaking that he has directed the U.S. military to establish, and so that work is happening. I don’t have any other details to offer. But on the construction or any updates on the pier itself – the temporary pier itself, rather – I’m sure my Department of Defense colleagues would be happy to speak to that.

QUESTION: And on Secretary’s trip to the region —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — will he be meeting Arab foreign ministers in Cairo tomorrow other than the Egyptian foreign minister?

MR PATEL: I don’t want to get too much ahead of the Secretary’s schedule and will let his visit to the specific countries play out, but we fully expect him to engage with Arab leaders while he’s in the region.

On Gaza, Nick? Okay. All right, anything else on Gaza? Okay. Camilla has been patiently waiting for Haiti. So go ahead – or Daphne, whoever wants to go.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on Americans trying to leave Haiti? Are there any more U.S.-organized flights planned?

MR PATEL: So as of March 20th, the U.S. Government is facilitating the safe departure of U.S. citizens from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. We are in the process of organizing government-chartered helicopter flights from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, where U.S. Government personnel are present to provide consular assistance. And from Santo Domingo, American citizens will be responsible for their own onward travel to the United States.

I assume your next question is going to be is – will there be more of these, and that is going to depend on the demand, the situations on the ground, the reliability of commercial transportation. Our hope is to keep these options available for American citizens who need it, and the feasibility and the assessment of that work is going to be ongoing.

QUESTION: And how many Americans are on the flights today?

MR PATEL: So I – for operational security reasons, and they’re ongoing, I don’t want to speak with greater specificity. But we do expect these helicopter movements to make multiple trips in order to try and get as many American citizens as we can today, while also continuing to look at what options might be available and how – what options might be available for reoccurring movements in the days ahead and even beyond.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just on that transition council, any update on its formation? And are you concerned by how long this is taking?

MR PATEL: Well, certainly every day counts, and our hope is that conversations are continuing with the membership of the transitional presidential council. We understand that Haitian stakeholders are very closely finalizing membership and remain in active discussions with CARICOM. And we think that this needs to happen swiftly because it is clear to us that this Haitian-led process is key for paving the way for free and fair elections, as well as the deployment of the Multinational Security Support Mission as well.

Anything else on Haiti? Yeah, go ahead, Camilla.

QUESTION: Just on the helicopters.

MR PATEL: Yeah

QUESTION: Granted that it’s a – sensitive security wise, but are you able to comment at all on, like, concerns around helicopters taking off from Port-au-Prince and back – going that particular route from the capital where there’s —

MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly first, and you’ve heard me say this before, Haiti is a Level 4 Do Not Travels country. It’s been so since 2020. The violence on the ground in Port-au-Prince has been dire. The security situation is certainly one of high risk. But I will also just say that we would not conduct such an operation if we did not feel that it was safe to do so and that we did not have the expertise to conduct something like this. So I will just leave it at that given security concerns.

And of course the situation on the ground is one of the biggest factors into determining the frequency at which we can do this and what other options might be available to American citizens, including potential commercial options.

QUESTION: And can you give any update on numbers of Americans interested in getting assistance or departure —

MR PATEL: So again, when – remember, when we’re talking about the crisis intake form, we’re talking about a wide population of American citizens. Some are interested in exploring departure options. Some just want to stay in touch with the United States of America or the embassy. Some want expertise advice on how they may be able to remain safe, and others may not be in a place for safe departure now but may be down the line. So it’s important we talk about this population in the broad sense that it is, but our – the number of Americans who have reached out to us through this form is approaching 1,600.

QUESTION: Can I just ask a clarifying question on the —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: How we can discuss the movements given that they’re ongoing? So we can say that they’re ongoing today and then the department is exploring options for continuing them as soon as tomorrow? Is that accurate?

MR PATEL: The – we are exploring what options are possible for continuing them. And should the circumstances be proper, it’s very likely that they will continue. But again, I want to take this one day at a time given the very fluid situation on the ground.

QUESTION: One more clarification —

MR PATEL: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: Because you said we are in the process of organizing government-chartered helicopter flights. Have they already started or are they starting later today, or —

MR PATEL: That is what I am intentionally being vague about given operational security. So hopefully we’ll have more for you later today, but again, this is – the safety and security of American citizens is – we have no higher priority than that, and so wanted to make sure that you all had clarity on what we were doing while also maintaining the security for this operation to be conducted.

Anything else on Haiti before we close out? Okay, Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple of separate topics. On Ukraine, a UN human rights report says that Russia is using fear to control occupied territories. Can I get a reaction?

MR PATEL: Look, Alex, I have not seen that specific report, but it should be no surprise to anybody that the Russian Federation is using – partaking in repressive tactics to silence the voice of dissenters, to silence the voices of opposition. And again, when it comes to these territories, let me just be unequivocally clear: They are Ukraine, and we’ll continue to support our Ukrainian partners as they continue to defend and fight for their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

QUESTION: Polish foreign minister today was quoted as saying that success in Ukraine against Russian occupation is a question of U.S. credibility. Do you agree with that assessment that U.S. credibility is at stake here?

MR PATEL: I would – I think that when it comes to our credibility, you needn’t look any further than the immense support that the United States and its allies and partners have provided to our Ukrainian partners since February of 2022, and that work is going to continue and we’re going to continue to do so in close coordination with our allies and partners. It is because – of course, the courageousness and the heroism of the Ukrainian people, but also the convergence with our partners in Europe and others around the country that we have been able to continue to support Ukraine in the way that we have and it has been able to defend itself so fiercely.

QUESTION: And I have a couple more on human rights, if I may. There were expectations that annual Human Rights Reports will be released either during or before democracy summit. Is there any reason for a delay?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any scheduling items to offer. I have no doubt that we will share the Human Rights Report with you all at some point soon.

QUESTION: And broadly speaking, I’ve seen this morning the White House’s fact sheet on the democracy summit. Why do you think it was a successful summit? There are reports out there that it was a low-key – outcome was not really comparable with the previous year. Is it a successful summit this year?

MR PATEL: We certainly would say it was a successful summit, and I know that the Secretary really appreciated the opportunity to be there and appreciated the Republic of Korea for hosting. The – I will also add that, outside of the Secretary, there continue to be or have been senior officials in Korea continuing to participate in this summit, folks like Under Secretary Zeya. The Secretary, as you saw, Alex – I spoke a little bit about this earlier this week – had the opportunity to give a set of remarks on information integrity, which we think is one of the most critical aspects at the nexus of democracy when we’re talking about it, and I’m sure we’ll have more to share on this space going forward.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Go ahead – I’m going to work the room a little bit, Alex. Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. La Repubblica today reported that Secretary Blinken blocked the release of a G7 statement condemning the presidential election in Russia. Can you confirm that? Can you explain the decision?

MR PATEL: I have not seen that report and I don’t believe it to be true, and we have taken a number of steps in close coordination with our G7 partners as well as independently to hold the Russian Federation to account for its actions and its infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.

QUESTION: And one more: On Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the United States stands ready to engage in bilateral arms control talks with China and Russia without any preconditions. Do you know if Washington has put forward any propositions to Moscow or Beijing?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any meetings or engagements to read out, but I’m happy to check.

Go ahead. Yeah, you. Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: So recently Prime Minister Modi has visited the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and as a reaction, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has said that China “strongly deplores and firmly opposes” the Indian leader’s visit to east section of China-India boundary. I want to get your comment on that.

And secondly, China’s encroachments into other lands have – it seems like have encroachments happening within the Indo-Pacific as well, particularly in places like Solomon Islands, and now we’re seeing all over Micronesia. It seems like the folks on the ground are demanding for a counter to China’s encroachments into their sovereign territories. Can I also get your comment on that as well?

MR PATEL: So let me take your first question. The United States recognizes Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory and we strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to advance territorial claims by incursions or encroachments, military or civilian, across the Line of Actual Control.

I think I’m going to need you to repeat your second – your follow-up.

QUESTION: So, very simply, Chinese encroachments into the Indo-Pacific has been very visible, especially in the past few months, and many folks within the Solomon Islands to Fiji all the way to places within the Micronesia have been demanding for a counter to the spread of Chinese influence in their area. A lot of them are also wondering what the U.S.’s position is on this.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: And so what – can I get your comment please?

MR PATEL: Yeah. So when we talk about the Indo-Pacific, you have to remember we’re talking about a significant portion of the world’s population. We’re talking about one of the fastest growing economies, and I can’t think of a more important place where we want to make sure that the rules-based international order, the UN Charter, all of those things are being respected and abided by, and that’s been one of our tenets of our engagements in the region. The Secretary was just there in Seoul for this Summit for Democracy in the Republic of Korea, where he had the opportunity to meet with not just his foreign minister counterparts but also President Yoon.

And over the course of this administration, there’s a number of steps that we’ve taken to bolster our engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. I’d remind you that just last year President Biden hosted the first trilateral summit at Camp David with our Japanese counterparts and our ROK counterparts. We have upped our engagement in the Quad. Secretary Blinken has had the opportunity to engage with his Quad counterparts a number of times since just when I’ve been on this job, but even more when you look at since the beginning of this administration. So it’s going to – something that we’re going to continue to emphasize and play a focus on.

Go ahead in the back. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Yesterday, two U.S. retired generals – General Milley and McKenzie – testified at Congress about Afghanistan, and they said that they wanted 2,500 American troops in Afghanistan but the final decision was made by the President Biden and also State Department. And also I talked to some lawmakers, including Michael Waltz – they blamed President Biden and the State Department that made the final decision and the outcome was what we have seen in Afghanistan. So I would like to know what is the State Department’s reaction on that, and then if I may, I have another question too.

MR PATEL: Okay. So I think it’s really important that we zoom out and widen the aperture to remember what it is that we’re exactly talking about, and we’re talking about the 20-year end of a complex war, America’s longest war. Thousands of troops were killed, many more thousands physically or mentally harmed, and we honor their service and mourn their losses and injuries with their families and loved ones. You have to remember that President Biden made the decision to end this war and has repeatedly said it was the right thing to do, and today our nation is stronger as a result.

And as part of the robust, intense interagency process to end America’s longest war, the decision was made to keep an embassy and diplomatic presence in Kabul following the withdrawal of U.S. combatant troops. The embassy maintained an active emergency action committee planning process that convened repeatedly in 2021 to assess the situation on the ground. As many of you in this room so well know, embassies all around the world where we have diplomats maintain an EAC process, and a noncombatant evacuation operation was one of the tools available to an embassy, and Embassy Kabul was well versed in NEO planning. It had a plan and the generals testified to the existence of this plan yesterday. This is an entity that coordinated and met regularly. This kind of contingency and feasibility planning happens around the world.

It’s also well documented that the U.S. did not want to publicly announce planning for or the start of a NEO so as to not weaken the position of the then Afghan government, potentially signaling a potential lack of faith. Again, our intention at the time was to keep open and operating Embassy Kabul, but by the summer of 2021, there was a task force stood up prepared to execute a NEO if and when it was called for.

It’s also worth reminding and repeating that it was the previous administration that negotiated the Doha agreement with no subsequent plan for evacuating U.S. citizens or our Afghan allies and their families, and it was up to this administration, including from the garbled transition period, to do that. And in collaboration with our military colleagues, as the NEO was intended, we achieved the largest and most successful air lift in history, nearly 124,000 people on planes out of the country due to the Taliban’s overrunning of the city and the collapsing of the Afghan government.

This occurred in a very fluid and dynamic and dangerous environment at the Kabul airport and included the death of 13 military colleagues of ours, hundreds of civilians, and injuries to many others, and those losses are tragic. Within weeks of the collapse of the Afghan government, the U.S. began relocation flights by continuing to protect Americans in harm’s way, as well as standing by our Afghan allies and their families.

I’ll also note – and I know so many in this room are well aware of it – that Secretary Blinken also called for an after-action review to learn the important lessons and to fortify processes in how we respond to unexpected crises around the world and how we support American citizens and foreign nationals and others engaging with our diplomatic missions. This whole week I’ve been taking questions on places like Haiti, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza – these are all places in which – where we have taken lessons from this after-action report and implemented them to further improve in the areas of communication, resources, preparedness, and that work will continue. We’re going to work to better inform our response in times of crisis, and we’ve already taken more than 40 concrete actions and identified additional steps to guide itself.

We’re also going to continue to comply with the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee’s legitimate oversight of the Afghanistan war, building on the dozens of witness and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony, and the tens of thousands of pages of documents that we have already made available and will continue to make available.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. So you talked about this previously as well. But I’m – so the Taliban announced reopening the schools for – only for boys again – a long story. So girls cannot go to school. I know – I’m aware that you have talked about this before. But my specific question for today is that: Is United States leverage declining over Taliban? If not, which kind of leverage is left to use in terms of convincing the Taliban to allow girls to go to school?

MR PATEL: We continue to have a number of tools in our toolbelt at our disposal, and we have been clear that girls should have never been blocked from going to school in the first place. Advancing respect for the rights of Afghan women and girls is critical to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

Shaun, I saw that you had your hand up.

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

MR PATEL: Then I’ll come back to you, Leah. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: I’ll just (inaudible) very quickly, a few different topics.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Indonesia. I saw there’s a statement from the Secretary this morning, but on Prabowo’s victory in the presidential race, of course it wasn’t so long ago that he wasn’t welcome in the United States due to human rights concerns. Are those going to figure into the relationship, do you think, with Indonesia, as he takes office?

MR PATEL: So we extend our sincerest congratulation to the Indonesian president-elect, and we applaud, once again, the Indonesian people for the robust turnout and commitment to democracy and the rule of law. As close partners and friends under our comprehensive strategic partnership, we’re going to work hand in hand to better deliver for the future of our citizens, and we look forward to continuing to engage on that and partnering with the president-elect and his administration when they take office in October.

QUESTION: Okay, and the rights concerns are not –

MR PATEL: The is – look, just to take a bit of a step back, in any bilateral relationship that we have in countries around the world, we – when we have concerns about human rights or violations of other kinds, we raise those, and we raise those directly and candidly. And we’ll continue to do that when appropriate.

QUESTION: Sure. I know also – a separate topic – I know probably from the podium you don’t want to engage too, too directly in campaign politics. But also regarding the previous administration, former President Trump has denounced the Australian ambassador here in the U.S., Kevin Rudd, saying that he should be – I think his term was, he’s not the brightest bulb or something. Is – does the U.S. have anything to say about that, and whether – about the relationship with Kevin Rudd (inaudible)?

MR PATEL: Well, one of your colleagues just asked about the Indo-Pacific, and I would say that Australia is one of our most vital partners, not just when it comes to the Indo-Pacific but when we think about the world broadly. It is a country in which we share a number of likeminded points of view, and who also have done immense work to support our Ukrainian partners. And we’re going to continue to work closely and cooperate with them. I know Prime Minister Rudd, Ambassador Rudd, has been an important partner here in D.C. as ambassador, and I know folks around this building have enjoyed working with him and will continue to do so.

QUESTION: Sure. Just —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Completely different part of the world. A follow-up to the question I asked yesterday on Serbia-Kosovo. Do you by chance have anything more to say about that – basically whether there’s an agreement arranged by U.S. for euros rather than Serbian dinars to and from Serbia?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on the processes, Shaun, other than the concerns that we raised yesterday. And we’re going to continue to work through the EU-facilitated dialogue, and we’ll let the process go from there.

Leah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Back to the Indo-Pacific.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So on Monday the White House announced that President Biden will host the first trilateral U.S.-Japan-Philippines leaders summit on April 11th. Especially given China’s continued provocations in the South China Sea, could you talk a little bit about what the significance of this meeting will be and what signal it’s intended to send?

MR PATEL: So you – this is happening on the margins of Prime Minister Kishida’s visit to the United States for his state visit, but the Secretary spent a lot of time talking about this in his trip to Manila. And part of it is when we talk about our approach to the Indo-Pacific, a big key piece of that is coordinating closely with our allies and investing in those allies and partnerships. And when it comes to Japan and the Philippines, they are some of our most key, integral, and vital partners in a number of areas – in addressing the climate crisis, security cooperation, economic cooperation, trade, and a number of other spaces. And we look forward to talking about and discussing a number of these issues, both bilaterally with them but also through this trilateral mechanism as well.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Today Mr. Donald Lu was appear in congressional committee, and a congressman asked a question about the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. He was asking that – if Pakistan is going to swap Dr. Afridi with Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who’s in the American jails. He couldn’t complete his answer because there were, like, many questions the congressmen were asking. So I’m – could you tell us that – is there any plan to swap Dr. Aafia Siddiqui with Dr. Shakil Afridi?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates as it relates to that. I didn’t catch that part of the hearing. But you have to remember that one of the – this department’s most important priorities is engaging with Congress on our foreign policy. This was a routine hearing, and Assistant Secretary Lu’s testimony provided insight on the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship as a whole and a number of areas where we are hoping to deepen our collaboration. And I believe we – he spent a little bit of time talking about the U.S.-Pakistan Green Alliance framework, also bolstering respect for human rights. And so we’ll look forward to continuing to engage in these kinds of hearings.

Okay. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)

# # #