Department Press Briefing – December 19, 2024 – United States Department of State

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: And how you see things going forward.

MR PATEL: Sure. Matt, so it should be no surprise to you, not much has really changed since I talked about this yesterday. We have been in touch, in contact, with all the groups in Syria, including HTS. I’m certainly not going to get into the private diplomatic channels. But we have once again and will continue to stress upon everybody that we have an importance of doing everything we can to find missing U.S. citizens, including Austin Tice, and bringing them home.

The Secretary, on his trip – which I know you were on – stressed quite clearly the transition principles that have been the cornerstone of our ongoing diplomatic engagements, principles that now have been taken up by countries throughout the region and well beyond that, which – if you’ll humor me – our view is that when whatever government arises out of this transition, it needs to be inclusive, it needs to protect the rights of all Syrians including women and minorities. Like all governments, it needs to preserve critical state institutions and deliver essential services.

And perhaps most important, we want to see a Syria that does not pose a threat to its neighbors or the regions or Syrians – or Syria being a place that’s going to serve as a base for terrorism or allying with groups like ISIS. Also, Syria is a member to the Chemical Weapons Convention and has an obligation to ensure that any chemical weapons are secured and destroyed. That continues to be our north star when it comes to our engagements as it relates to Syria.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR PATEL: Shaun.

QUESTION: Sure. Well, we can save the things – save all the comments for the end, but echoing, Matt, but thank you for being accessible.

MR PATEL: Thank you.

QUESTION: I know sometimes the questions are not always comfortable. Sometimes they are comfortable. But thanks for being accessible, thanks for actually having the briefings, which hasn’t always been the case in the past.

MR PATEL: Of course.

QUESTION: To continue on Syria, just can you say a little bit about the situation in the north, the diplomacy on getting a ceasefire or getting truces in —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — with the pro-Turkish fighters?

MR PATEL: So talked a little bit about this yesterday. Our assessment continues to be that the ceasefire in Manbij has been extended, and that is holding, and we’re closely monitoring the situation around Kobani. As we talked about yesterday, Shaun, that situation continues to be fluid. But we have not drawn the conclusion that we are seeing large-scale fighting.

I’m not going to get into some of these private discussions, but we’re working very hard to avoid an escalation in the north, and that would certainly be of concern to us because it would limit the ability of our local partners, the SDF, to continue to carry out our shared D-ISIS mission, which is – has been – a top U.S. policy priority in Syria. We’ll continue to pay close attention to this. But beyond that, we support the immediate de-escalation and cessation of violence in all parts of Syria, and it’s our view that this is the time to increase stability.

QUESTION: Sure. I know you said you don’t want to get into the details of the negotiations, but I mean Türkiye has publicly said that they want the Kurdish fighters to disarm, and that’s sort of a red line for them before going in. Is that something that the U.S. agrees with? What’s your conversations there?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into some of these private diplomatic conversations, Shaun. Our focus is on promoting a Syrian-led political process while also ensuring a top priority for us, which is maintaining the enduring defeat of ISIS and terrorism that’s been originating in Syria. Given that we know ISIS exploits instability, it’s incumbent on all countries with influence on the ground – including, of course, Türkiye – to promote stability, dialogue, and restraint. And ultimately, at the end of the day, Shaun, we support Syria’s territorial integrity.

QUESTION: I’ll let others continue here.

MR PATEL: Jenny, go ahead.

QUESTION: Staying on Syria, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Where is Roger Carstens? Is he still in Amman?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific updates to offer as it relates to Roger. What I can say as it relates to our efforts to locate or ascertain more information on missing American citizens – including, of course, Austin Tice – that that is a top priority for us in the region. It is something that we’re continuing to engage on around the clock. We are working with counterparts in the region. We are working with interlocuters and making it very clear that this is a key priority for the United States. I don’t have any additional specifics on that line of effort to offer for obvious reasons, which I’m sure you can understand, but this is something that will remain a focus for us.

QUESTION: And does this department have any comment on Vladimir Putin saying he would ask about Tice’s whereabouts after Debra Tice requested his assistance?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to – I don’t have anything to offer on that. If there is any country that wants to play a constructive role in locating Austin Tice, we certainly would welcome that. I will note, though, that for the many, many years that the Russian Federation has been the one to prop up the brutal Assad regime that Mr. Putin had the opportunity to try and help ascertain the whereabouts or location or information about Mr. Tice and hadn’t done that in any of these previous instances. So I guess actions are going to speak louder than words, but Mr. Putin is welcome to do whatever he wants. What we are focused on is everything that we can do in our disposal.

QUESTION: And the next one on Gaza —

QUESTION: Well, sorry. Can you just go back on Roger Carstens?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So you said you don’t have anything specific to say? Is that – so is he missing too?

MR PATEL: He is not missing. I don’t have anything to offer.

QUESTION: So where is he?

MR PATEL: He continues to be in the region —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: — working on this very important issue, Matt.

QUESTION: All right. So he’s not back in D.C.?

MR PATEL: Correct.

QUESTION: And he’s still out in the Middle East?

MR PATEL: Correct. He is in the region. I don’t have any other updates to offer.

Shannon.

QUESTION: On Russia – Vladimir Putin and Austin Tice.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has there ever been any effort from this building to communicate with Russia to try to ascertain Tice’s location? Because obviously the hostage discussion channels with Russia have been fruitful in the past.

MR PATEL: I’m certainly – that – I wouldn’t be able to get into something of that level of specificity, Shannon. It has been no secret for many, many years now that a priority for us in the Middle East region has been locating and determining information about the whereabouts of Austin Tice. The Russian Federation has known that. Every country in the region has known that, and we have indicated that to just about everybody that this is a key regional focus of ours and it’s ultimately one of our main priorities – the safety and security of the American people.

No country on the planet needs an invitation to help us in that work, if they feel a responsibility that they have information that can help safely get American citizens home. No one needs an invitation. And I will just echo what I said to Jenny again is that for years and years and years the Russian Federation has been one of the main pillars that has propped up the brutal Assad regime. They certainly were not useful interlocutors when it came to Austin Tice in that regard then. And so again, actions are going to speak louder than words, and I’m not going to opine about what role they may or may not have to play.

QUESTION: Sure. But going forward, since at least Putin’s words are indicating that the top of the Russian Government wants to play a helpful role now, will there by any effort by the State Department to communicate with Russia to see if those actions will follow up?

MR PATEL: Again, if a country has a constructive role to play in terms of sharing information about Austin Tice or locating his whereabouts, we certainly would be – would welcome any information as it relates to that.

All right. Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I’m not going to wait till the end. So I just want to thank you.

MR PATEL: Thank you.

QUESTION: For always being the perfect gentleman, always calling on me. It is something that I never take for granted. I just want you to know that.

MR PATEL: You’re welcome, Said.

QUESTION: So I appreciate every time you called on me.

MR PATEL: Sure, my pleasure.

QUESTION: And now with that said, let me just ask you on Syria now.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it – I mean, in theory, is it possible for U.S. officials to visit Damascus while the Israelis are still bombing Syria?

MR PATEL: Are you talking about is it —

QUESTION: I’m talking about in theory —

MR PATEL: — in a feasibility sense?

QUESTION: Well, I mean, there is expectations that, at one point, you guys might just go to Damascus, I mean, whether to look at the whereabouts of Tice or something else. I mean —

MR PATEL: Said, I —

QUESTION: Is it possible? I’m just asking in theory. Is it possible to go to Damascus, to go to Syria, while the Israelis are bombing Syria with American weapons?

MR PATEL: Said, I’m going to refrain from getting into the theoretical and hypothetical and what’s feasible versus not. So let me just say that, as it relates to government officials and their travel to Syria, U.S. Government officials specifically, I don’t have anything to announce at this time. We’re continuing to assess the situation and consider when it might be appropriate for us to send personnel into Syria, beyond our previously discussed concentrated presence in the northeast.

QUESTION: Yeah. But it would be natural to expect that you would call on the Israelis to cease and desist while —

MR PATEL: Said, it —

QUESTION: — U.S. officials are there, right?

MR PATEL: In any corner of the world, we, of course, take the safety and security of our diplomats doing just about anything – that is tantamount to us. I certainly appreciate the point that you may be trying to make. As it relates to government official travel in this area, I just don’t have anything to announce for you.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m going to Gaza and the Palestinian issue —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — if you’ll allow me.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

MR PATEL: Well, Said, when we – if you look at the trajectory of this conflict and the things that we have – we’ve been working so tirelessly on, of course this – what is required here for this conflict to end is an agreement between two parties, of course, Israel and Hamas. And we have seen time and time again Hamas’s unwillingness to engage in good faith, its unwillingness to accept deals that have been on the table. Of course, now, it is always going to be incumbent on both of these parties, Israel and Hamas, to come to an agreement.

And what we’re working on intensely is to bring a ceasefire to the finish line so that ultimately Palestinians and Israelis can live securely, and perhaps most importantly, the remaining hostages, including the Americans, can be returned home. We think a deal is possible. I don’t have anything new to announce but are hopeful that parties can come to an agreement soon.

QUESTION: Okay. But the – I mean, the language of the Secretary of State on this issue, it seems like he’s saying that what Hamas was suing for – which is a broader war – it did not happen and will not happen, so now there are new terms. That’s what you’re saying, that what we have had back in May, on May 31, was the President of the United States said that I have a – I have a suggestion, the cessation is in Israeli – this is no longer on the table, correct?

MR PATEL: I can’t opine on what Hamas’s thinking or strategy is, Said.

QUESTION: No, I’m – more on your thinking, not Hamas’s thinking.

MR PATEL: Our thinking is that we think a deal is possible and we’re working intensely to bring that ceasefire across a finish line. But absolutely, the Secretary is correct – and I would echo what he had said – Hamas and through its – through malign actors like Iran, it was very clear that perhaps a possible end goal here was a broader regional conflict. Out of much great work on behalf of the United States and its allies and partners, that has largely been avoided. And that is what the Secretary was alluding to.

QUESTION: Let me – a couple of other questions —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — if you and my colleagues indulge me. I wanted to ask you about a report in Haaretz, where it was reported that they really have a kill zone. And it doesn’t matter, children or not children, whatever it is, they kill. I wonder if you saw such a report, and if you have any comment on it.

MR PATEL: I have not seen that specific reporting, Said, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to specifically.

QUESTION: But – well, it’s a report in Haaretz about the Netzarim crossing, and they basically have established a kill zone, and anyone that comes close to that kill zone is shot dead. There are kids, time and time again, that were shot. If this is the case, is this a war crime?

MR PATEL: So Said, I – again, I’m just not familiar with this policy, and we have stressed again that for Israel, every civilian casualty is a tragedy, and that they not only need to comply with IHL, they need to take every possible step to prevent civilian harm.

Broadly, though, we of course support Israel’s right to defend itself. But as it relates to this, I will defer to the IDF to speak to any operational adjustments they may or may not be making in the region. I’m just not familiar with this.

QUESTION: All right. Okay. And finally, I want to ask you about aid.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: It seems that one third of the aid required has entered Gaza since the beginning of December. Do you have any comment on that? Because I know that you guys were pushing for more aid, there was that famous letter, and so on. So where are we with aid now?

MR PATEL: These are conversations we continue to have with counterparts in the region, including with our Israeli partners. We’re stressing that every possible measure needs to be taken to open more border crossings, do everything we can to open more commercial corridors, and really take additional steps to bolster the humanitarian flow into Gaza. I believe it was a number of weeks ago I talked about some of the steps that have been taken by the IDF and COGAT and others to help be on the right track. We continue to think that is the case, but this is – there is no silver bullet here, and we’re going to continue to pursue this at all angles.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly on —

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do one on —

MR PATEL: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I was just – Human Rights Watch.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I know you commented when Amnesty released a report, but Human Rights Watch released a report accusing Israel of genocide. I believe also today Doctors Without Borders had a report that’s accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing. I’m not in suspense about what your response is going to be, but what does the U.S. feel about this? Do you think that there is something to it, something worth checking out? How do you feel about the —

MR PATEL: So first – why don’t we break those into two questions, Shaun.

First, I will defer to Doctors Without Borders to speak to the details of their report. What I can say is that even within their report, they make pretty clear that they don’t have the legal authority to determine intentionality, and I certainly don’t have an assessment from the U.S. Government to offer today as it relates to ethnic cleansing. But we continue to appreciate the important role that’s played by civil society organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, and we’re deeply concerned about the scale of civilian harm in this conflict, and we’re continuing to emphasize that the parties need to comply with IHO. But most importantly, it is because of the circumstances and the crises that we’re seeing that we are working so tirelessly on an agreement to stop the war and bring all the hostages home, and ultimately improve the humanitarian situation and get us on a path to an enduring resolution to the conflict in Gaza. That’s what we are squarely focused on.

On Human Rights Watch separately, it should come as no surprise that we disagree with the conclusions in this particular report. Certainly appreciate the role that groups like Human Rights Watch have played over the course of this conflict, but also other conflicts around the world. We disagree with the conclusions and we have not concurred with past findings regarding genocide, and we do not now, and we do not believe that term applies here.

Now, if you’ll all remember, when it came to the National Security Memorandum report – NSM-20, as some of you like to call it – we previously had said that it’s reasonable to assess that the IDF in certain instances didn’t meet its IHL obligations. But on something like genocide, that is just a conclusion that we disagree with. We’ve disagreed it when other entities have come to this conclusion, and do so here.

But ultimately – again, I’ll stress the same point that I said in the context of Doctors Without Borders – is that we’re continuing to work towards an agreement to stop the war, bring all the hostages home, and put it on a path to a resolution to the conflict in Gaza.

QUESTION: Just briefly.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: One thing specifically Human Rights Watch is saying to base this on is water access, saying that – I don’t have it in front of me, but that a large number of civilians likely die because of lack of water access, and what they’re saying is Israeli action is causing that.

What’s your assessment of that? I mean, is that a reason to – is that an equally concerning finding, and why does the U.S. not think that that —

MR PATEL: So certainly, we need to be doing everything we can to ensure that water access is strong and that everybody who needs water in Gaza is able to get it. That is something that we have stressed when we have talked about the influx of humanitarian aid, of the need for products like water and food and shelter and medicines. But again, specifically, when it comes to a determination of something like genocide, the legal standard is just incredibly high. And so the finding in this scenario we just disagree with.

That does not take away from the fact that there is a dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and it doesn’t take away from the fact that, of course, there might be – there are so many in Gaza who are struggling from water scarcity. And these are the kinds of things that we’re continuing to press with partners in the region, including with Israel.

QUESTION: Okay. A follow-up —

QUESTION: Sorry. Vedant, but this report is not a lone thing. It’s not – it did not come out of the blue sky. I mean, two weeks ago, there was the Amnesty International report saying exactly the same thing: It’s genocide. Other organizations said the same thing. So you will continue to dismiss this, but the facts on the ground speaks of genocide.

MR PATEL: Said, organizations not affiliated with the U.S. Government have the right to draw any conclusion based on their analyses that they want to, and they can. And we certainly welcome the work that they do. But on the perspective of the U.S. Government, I will stress again, as I did stress in the scenario of Amnesty International, that this is not a conclusion that we agree with.

Jenny, go ahead.

QUESTION: How is the U.S. Government making these conclusions given you have no one on the ground in Gaza?

MR PATEL: Jenny, the point that I’m making is a broad one, that the legal standard for genocide is incredibly – is incredibly large. But you’ve also heard us say previously – and I just spoke about that in NSM-20 – we made the conclusion that it was reasonable to assess that the IDF in certain instances didn’t meet its IHL violations. But in the context of genocide, we just disagree with this conclusion. Our belief is that this is a legal standard that is incredibly high, and we get into conversations about things like intentionality or not, and our assessment is – is that that’s just not been the case in this scenario.

QUESTION: Other than the NSM-20 conclusion, have there been any other scenarios or incidents that you have been investigating that you’ve come to a final conclusion on that this was a human rights violation? For example, that this was —

MR PATEL: We’ve spent a lot of time up here, Jenny, talking about the deliberative processes that we have.

QUESTION: Sure, but has that deliberative process ended in any of the incidents you’ve been investigating?

MR PATEL: These are processes that are ongoing, and I don’t have any other conclusions to share today.

QUESTION: And then my last question related to this: There is another Foreign Service officer who resigned, he said over inaction over Gaza, the fact that – he said that his findings and reports to the department were largely ignored. Do you have any response?

MR PATEL: So I’m not familiar with the specific circumstance. I will just say that someone’s decision to work here or not or stay employed, that’s ultimately a very personal decision. I will say that from the President on down and the Secretary, we welcome and encourage differing points of view, dissenting points of view. We think that the end product is, again, better public policy. This is nothing that you haven’t heard me say before. And I will say that when it comes to our policy as it relates to the Middle East, particularly our policy as it relates to the conflict in Gaza, this is something that we continue to be incredibly deliberative about, and we welcome varying points of view on the – what our aim is.

But at the end of the day – I will just say again – is that we are working tirelessly to do everything we can to get the ceasefire proposal across the finish line and stop the war and bring all the remaining hostages home.

QUESTION: Sorry. Can I just —

MR PATEL: Janne – yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: The question was about – and maybe this should be directed at Jen – this is about the guy who resigned in July?

QUESTION: Yes, and just came forward —

QUESTION: Five month —

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: — more than – almost six months ago. Okay.

MR PATEL: Was there a question?

QUESTION: Well, no, I just wanted to make sure I understood who it was.

MR PATEL: No? Got it. Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on South Korea —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

My question is: Is it possible for South Korea and the United States have normal diplomacy in this situation? And do you think a diplomatic evaluation can be grounds for impeachment?

MR PATEL: So let me just say – I’ll make two broad points first, Janne, that I want to be very clear about. First is that we strongly support the ironclad alliance that joins our two countries together, and that’s done so much over the last few years, especially under the Biden administration. In recent years, the alliance has made enormous strides, and the United States looks forward to partnering with the ROK, achieving further progress.

But if you recall, on the Secretary’s trip, he said the most important thing as it relates to the current issues ongoing in South Korea is that the Republic of Korea has demonstrated its democratic resilience, and that’s something we strongly support and we strongly support the Korean people throughout this process. We’ve seen what’s happening. We’ve seen it follow peacefully a process that is clearly laid out in the ROK constitution, and we’ll continue to be ready to work with Acting President Han and the ROK Government. And we’ll look forward to sharing engagements in the future should any get scheduled.

MR PATEL: I don’t have a legal determination to – or an assessment to offer on that, Janne. What I can say is that the DPRK continues to be a regime that represses human rights, and not only that, is a volatile regime that has contributed to much of the de-stability that we’re seeing not just in the region but also in a – encroaching on other areas like Europe as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I follow up – sorry, to interrupt.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on Korea?

MR PATEL: Yeah, of course.

QUESTION: Just briefly, South Korea said yesterday that it estimates that at least 100 North Koreans have died so far fighting on behalf of the Russians. Does the U.S. have any assessment it can share?

MR PATEL: So thanks, Shaun. Our assessment is that there have been several hundred casualties in – of DPRK soldiers in Ukraine. That’s what we’re seeing. But I don’t – I’m not in a place to parse it more specifically for you than that.

QUESTION: Casualties, of course, is a general thing. It could mean, like, wounded or killed. You mean specifically North Korean casualties?

MR PATEL: Correct. Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: That is correct.

QUESTION: And just briefly, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield yesterday suggesting that Russia might formally conclude that – accept —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. Is that something that you’re tracking? Is that something that you think – that you fear could be imminent? Is that something that you’re —

MR PATEL: Well, I don’t have a timeline to prognosticate on, Shaun, but should that come to fruition, should that – should the Russian Federation make that declaration, it, of course, would be what we would view as another step in a long line of examples of the closening of relationships between these two countries, and it would be of great concern to us.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Several hundred casualties all from Kursk operation?

MR PATEL: I don’t have – I’m not in a place to parse it more specifically than that.

QUESTION: Thank you. I – of course, I want to echo everything my colleagues said. I can’t thank you enough for being always accessible, available, professional. I have so many adjectives to offer —

MR PATEL: Oh, thanks.

QUESTION: — but I’ll wait for —

MR PATEL: Thanks, Alex.

QUESTION: — how you – depending on how you answer my questions on Georgia. Let’s unpack a little bit the sanctions that you guys have announced.

MR PATEL: Sure.

MR PATEL: Sure. So, Alex, to give some additional color for the room on this, today the Department of Treasury’s OFAC imposed sanctions on Georgia’s minister of internal affairs and Georgia’s deputy head of the ministry’s special task department. These are leaders who have been involved in the brutal crackdowns on members of the media and peaceful protestors, including during demonstrations throughout 2024. The Department of State also announced that it took steps to impose additional visa restrictions on individuals responsible for or complicit in undermining democracy in Georgia and their immediate family members.

Alex, these actions follow the visa actions that we announced last week, and ultimately this is something the United States strongly condemns Georgian Dreams’ ongoing brutal violence against Georgian citizens, Georgian protestors, and members of the media, human rights activists and opposition figures. Our view is that the Georgian Dream party has turned away from Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic future, which the Georgian people overwhelmingly desire and the Georgian constitution envisions. We are reminded – we remain committed to promoting accountability for those complicit in human rights abuses and undermining democracy in Georgia.

QUESTION: And in terms of the numbers, so on top of hundreds of violators that you have sanctioned until last week, how many new names have been added to the State Department’s list?

MR PATEL: So I just spoke about those two ministers at the top of the answer to the question.

QUESTION: You talked about Magnitsky, but on top of that?

MR PATEL: I will see if there’s a more technical breakdown for you, Alex, but I think I’ve parsed it as much as I’m able to.

QUESTION: Thank you. And what kind of message are you sending to Ivanishvili by letting him off the hook one more time?

MR PATEL: Look, Alex, as you’ve heard us say before, taking one designation or taking a particular action one day doesn’t certainly designate us doing something else in the future. This is just the latest example of the United States using the tools at its disposal to hold perpetrators in Georgia accountable, and we of course continue to have these various tools at our disposal.

QUESTION: That means it’s not the end of your comprehensive review, is it?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to preview potential actions.

QUESTION: And one more on this, Vedant. Does it – is it fair to, like, to say that this is a reflection of bipartisan – well, President-elect Trump met with President Zourabichvili a couple of weeks ago, and we have heard different statements on —

MR PATEL: I am just not going to – I will let the incoming administration speak to its own foreign policy. What I can say is that this is a priority for us based on our values.

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I also want to thank you —

MR PATEL: Of course.

QUESTION: — for your professionalism, echoing my colleagues. I have a question on Syria, if I may.

MR PATEL: Sure.

MR PATEL: So the Assad – let’s be very clear. The Assad regime brutalized, detained, disappeared, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria. And now, at long last, the Assad regime has fallen. That is a fundamental act of justice. It is a moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering people of Syria to build a better future for their proud country. It’s also a moment of risk and uncertainty. And what we are focused on is looking to work with our partners, with the stakeholders in Syria, with the Syrian people to seize this opportunity and manage that risk.

And going forward, what we’re going to do is engage with all communities in Syria to establish an inclusive transition away from the Assad regime toward an independent, sovereign Syria that respects human rights, takes all precautions to protect civilians, and upholds international humanitarian law. We want to establish an infrastructure to support Syria’s neighbors, including Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Türkiye, and Israel should any threats from – arise from Syria during that period and transition. And we want to maintain our mission against ISIS and protect our forces against any threats, maintaining security of detention facilities, displaced persons camp, et cetera.

QUESTION: But on the accountability of these war crimes, do you support any international or independent investigation into Assad regime’s war crimes, potentially maybe referring him or the regime officials to the ICC?

MR PATEL: So, Rabia, in practicality I’m just unsure how that would ultimately work given that Mr. Assad is not in the country, and ultimately that is something that is for the future governance of Syria and the representatives of the Syrian people to determine. Make no mistake, the Assad regime is one that brutalized, detained, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, and something that we think is incredibly serious and concerning. But the Assad regime has fallen and that in itself is an act of fundamental justice. We are now focused on doing everything we can to engage with stakeholders in Syria, first and foremost the Syrian people, to chart a new path forward.

QUESTION: Do you – do you plan to engage or cooperate with the new government in Damascus to identify these war criminals and potential war crimes?

MR PATEL: We are – we are engaging on a variety of areas.

Jahanzaib, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: First of all, you have no idea how much I am going to miss you —

MR PATEL: Oh.

QUESTION: — because whenever I ask a question about South and Central Asia – you know that’s my topic – you have always lot of words making headlines in India and Pakistan. So thank you so much for taking my questions.

MR PATEL: Here to help.

MR PATEL: So let’s take a step back. The U.S. is committed to maintaining the global nonproliferation regime, and Pakistan is an important partner in that. However, we have been clear and consistent about our concerns with Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile program. It is longstanding U.S. policy to deny support to Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile program. The Department of State will continue to use sanctions and other tools to protect our national security and ensure that U.S. exporters and U.S. financial systems cannot be abused by proliferators. And it’s our hope to continue to engage constructively with the Pakistani Government on these issues.

QUESTION: Many analysts in Pakistan believe that with these sanctions, the U.S. is trying to target Pakistan’s nuclear program. Is it true? Does the U.S. have concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear program?

MR PATEL: So these designations are based on our concerns regarding Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile program, but they don’t affect other areas of U.S.-Pakistan areas of cooperation, which we have a great deal of.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

MR PATEL: I’ve not seen that latest reporting, but I’m happy to check with the team and see if we can get anything for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Shaun, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, wanted to see if – Paul Watson, the whaling activist – maybe this wasn’t in your bingo card for one of your last questions.

MR PATEL: No.

MR PATEL: We don’t. This is largely a – it seems like a matter for other jurisdictions. I’m happy to check if we have any perspective to offer, but don’t have anything to share as it relates to this.

In the back.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

MR PATEL: So I kind of just answered that question. Look, these sanctions are in place because of our longstanding concern about Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile program. It is not meant to color the other areas of cooperation that we have between the United States and Pakistan. We expect those areas to continue to go forward.

Taka, you had your hand up.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So President Putin had a press conference today.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

MR PATEL: I don’t think anything. I don’t really take anything or have a particular reaction. We have long said that it is up to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Government to decide what chart – what path it wants to take as it relates to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This administration has been proud to be – to unearth the kinds of assistance that we’ve had economically, militarily, and others, to continue to support our Ukrainian partners. And our focus is doing everything we can to continue to put them in the strongest position possible.

Goyal, go ahead.

MR PATEL: Can you be a little bit more specific about what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: The was – Indian ambassador and deputy secretary, they went to Houston as far as this – as a delegation for space mission or space agreements between the two countries.

MR PATEL: Yeah. So we put a readout out about Deputy Secretary Campbell’s travel to Houston. He was accompanied by Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer and Ambassador Kwatra. They had some important engagements with space officials related to India, and I would just point you back to that readout.

MR PATEL: So that is something that we are focused increasingly on, is doing everything we can, in the context of Ukraine, to make sure our Ukrainian partners are in the best position possible, that they are in a – continue to be in a place of strength. We have stressed that no decision about Ukraine can be made without Ukraine as part of that conversation, with that part of the table, and that will continue to guide our strategy going forward.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR PATEL: Go ahead. Yeah, you.

So at this very moment you have a big embassy in Pakistan, and they have observations. And they overlook normal (inaudible) incident in Pakistan. There are actors who are undermining democracy over there. They are attacking – crackdowns on protesters. So categorically you are doing things that are linked with Pakistan strategic defense, but regarding democracy you have some different standards. So is that, like, double standards we can say?

MR PATEL: No, not at all. And I think it’s highly inappropriate to try to compare situations in countries as if they are apples and apples. That is simply not the case. Each country is different; each circumstance is different. These sanctions that we made in Pakistan are rooted in, as I have said now three times, the – our longstanding concerns about their long-range ballistic missile program. It is not a bearing on other areas of cooperation between us and Pakistan.

And our sanctions in Georgia have been in large part because of the crackdown that we have seen and the turn that we have seen the Georgian Dream party take, which in our view is not just a turn away from Georgia’s constitution, it’s a turn away from the will of the Georgian people. And ultimately, though, we of course are going to stress the importance of democracy and governance everywhere in the world.

Go ahead, Alex. I’ll give you the last question.

QUESTION: Azerbaijan and Armenia, please.

MR PATEL: Sorry?

MR PATEL: Alex, we try not to focus on frustrations and just continuing to do the work. Secretary Blinken has long said, in a lot of areas, that it’s the so many days of just hard work until the – something comes to fruition. I probably really butchered that quote, so you’ll forgive me. But this continues to be an area of vital importance to this administration and to the Secretary, and we’ll continue to work at it till our last day in office.

Okay.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Hold on. One more.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: But is it the State Department’s belief that it has a legal obligation to evacuate or rescue American citizens from places where there is a conflict going on?

MR PATEL: So you are absolutely right, Matt; I’m not going to get into commenting on this given that it is pending litigation. I’m also not going to opine on our legal obligations or not, because I am not a lawyer. But what I can say is that —

QUESTION: Well, but you don’t need to be a lawyer to —

MR PATEL: We —

QUESTION: Does the State Department think that it has a legal obligation —

MR PATEL: I am just not in a place to offer a legal assessment —

QUESTION: — to rescue or to evacuate American citizens from —

MR PATEL: If you’ll allow me —

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MR PATEL: What I am happy to offer is that the safety and security of American citizens around the world is our top priority.

QUESTION: Yes.