On Monday, State Department Press Secretary Matthew Miller held a press briefing.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 Hello everyone, good to be back after some time on the road.
00:13 I'm going to start with some comments on the announcement from the prosecutor at the
00:18 ICC today.
00:20 As the Secretary said in a statement a short time ago, the United States fundamentally
00:24 rejects the announcement today from the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that he
00:28 is applying for arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials together with warrants for
00:33 Hamas terrorists.
00:35 There should be no equivalence between Israel and Hamas.
00:38 None.
00:39 Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since
00:43 the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans.
00:48 Furthermore, the United States has been clear since well before the current conflict that
00:53 the ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter.
00:56 The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction.
01:01 These limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here
01:07 amid the prosecutor's rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli
01:11 legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.
01:15 In other situations, the prosecutor deferred to national investigations and worked with
01:20 states to allow them time to investigate.
01:23 The prosecutor did not afford the same opportunity to Israel in this case, which has ongoing
01:27 investigations into allegations against its personnel.
01:31 There are also deeply troubling process questions.
01:34 Despite not being a member of the court, Israel was prepared to cooperate with the prosecutor
01:38 and had made that clear.
01:40 In fact, the prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit Israel as early as next week to discuss
01:45 the investigation and hear from the Israeli government.
01:48 The prosecutor's staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit, and
01:52 instead Israel was informed that the prosecutor's staff didn't get on their flight around the
01:56 same time that the prosecutor himself went on television to announce these charges.
02:01 These circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.
02:06 Finally, this decision does nothing to help and could jeopardize ongoing efforts to reach
02:11 a ceasefire agreement that would get hostages out of Gaza and surge humanitarian assistance
02:16 in.
02:17 Those are the goals that the United States is pursuing and will continue to pursue despite
02:21 these actions by the ICC prosecutor.
02:23 And with that, Matt.
02:25 MR PRICE That's it?
02:26 Nothing else?
02:27 MR PRICE That's it.
02:28 MR PRICE Okay.
02:29 All right.
02:30 Well, let's start with that, since you started with that.
02:33 Just very briefly, you said that the actions, the announcement on television and cancellation
02:40 of the flights of the staff call into question the legitimacy and credibility of the investigation.
02:47 Do they call into – do they call those into question for the entire court?
02:53 MR PRICE We are just referring to the actions the prosecutor has taken.
02:56 The entire court hasn't acted.
02:57 The prosecutor has taken this initial action.
02:59 We're going to see what the next step is.
03:01 But certainly it calls into question the investigation that he has conducted and the action he has
03:05 taken when you see him short-circuit a process that was underway to gather facts, which is
03:10 what you expect any prosecutor, any investigator to do when they're considering pursuing
03:15 such a case.
03:16 MR PRICE Okay.
03:17 So are you going to do anything about this?
03:19 Are you going to wait until the judges actually either approve or deny the applications?
03:26 MR PRICE I don't have any announcements to make today.
03:28 Obviously, we've made clear that we reject this action by the prosecutor.
03:31 We're reviewing his initial statement, and I don't have anything further to announce.
03:34 MR PRICE Okay.
03:36 And then – but the – I'll let someone else go.
03:43 I –
03:44 MR PRICE Yeah.
03:45 I don't have anything to say to any of you.
03:46 MR PRICE Okay.
03:47 Said.
03:48 Sure.
03:49 QUESTION: You said that this could jeopardize efforts for a ceasefire.
03:54 Why is that?
03:55 Why should this jeopardize efforts for implementing a ceasefire?
03:59 MR PRICE I don't think there's any doubt that this
04:01 action will embolden Hamas and embolden the leadership of Hamas --
04:03 QUESTION: Right.
04:04 MR PRICE --
04:05 who have been the principal obstacle to achieving a ceasefire agreement.
04:10 So Hamas a couple weeks ago basically agreed to the American points for a ceasefire.
04:16 MR PRICE It's not an accurate site.
04:17 That's not an accurate site.
04:18 QUESTION: Okay.
04:19 So let me ask you just one more question.
04:21 There are many others that would like to ask many other questions.
04:24 Let me ask you about Rafah.
04:27 According to the UN, we have 900,000 people flee Rafah.
04:32 So they just fled.
04:34 So you were saying all along that unless Israel has a plan to relocate 1.4 million people,
04:41 you are not going to agree to it.
04:44 But obviously, this assault is full fled now.
04:47 They are in the center of Rafah, as we understand it.
04:50 900,000 people, which is almost a million people, that is, have already fled.
04:56 So what is the United States going to do about this, and how does it view it?
05:00 Is this, in your view, a worthwhile --
05:01 MR PRICE I thought you had a question there, but then
05:04 you kept going.
05:05 So --
05:06 QUESTION: Okay.
05:07 Sure.
05:08 Yeah, go ahead.
05:09 There's no question?
05:10 MR PRICE With respect to how we view it, so we've made
05:11 clear that we oppose a major military operation in Rafah.
05:12 We don't think that would be productive to Israel's security, either in the short
05:15 term or the long term, and we think it would have a dramatic impact on the lives of the
05:20 Palestinian people there and on the ability to get humanitarian assistance in.
05:23 We have not yet seen Israel launch a major operation.
05:26 It's something that we are not only watching very closely, but we are in close communication
05:30 with them about.
05:31 That said, we do have great concerns about the ability to care for all of the people
05:35 who have been evacuated and some who have chosen to leave themselves, even if they're
05:39 not in the areas that - where Israel has ordered people to leave.
05:43 We have great concerns about the ability to get them food, water, medicine, humanitarian
05:46 assistance, shelter, sanitation.
05:48 And so we are working with the humanitarian community, our international partners, on
05:53 that question.
05:54 But we are also engaged in conversations with the Government of Israel about this.
05:58 The national security advisor to the President was in Israel this week meeting with the Israeli
06:03 Government.
06:04 I will leave it to the White House to speak to that - those meetings largely.
06:07 But it is our goal to try to prevent a major operation that would have such a deleterious
06:15 humanitarian impact.
06:16 Okay.
06:17 And my final one on the issue of the crossing at Rafah.
06:21 I mean, we have not seen any A-trucks go through for a number of days now through Rafah and
06:27 Karim al-Busayanim.
06:29 So how are you getting - you said that you're getting the aid through to those that have
06:35 been forced to flee.
06:36 How are you getting this?
06:37 So first of all, you're right that Rafah is not open.
06:40 Aid has been going in through Karim Shalom.
06:43 There have been some days when the aid has been in the form of commercial trucks, not
06:46 humanitarian assistance, but it's still food and water that's going into Gaza, getting
06:50 to people who need it.
06:52 Of course, we've just opened the maritime route in the last few days, which will allow
06:55 the increased humanitarian assistance, and there has been aid going in through the north.
06:59 That said, we want to see Rafah open as well, and we have been engaged in discussions with
07:04 our Israeli counterparts and with the - our Egyptian counterparts about how to effectuate
07:09 that, and it remains a top priority for us.
07:11 Sorry, Matt.
07:12 Is it likely to open in the next day or so?
07:13 What's that?
07:14 Is it likely to open in the next few days?
07:15 I'm just not - you know, Said, I never make predictions.
07:18 I'm sorry.
07:19 I was kind of momentarily stunned by your original answer, so I forgot my question.
07:23 But these will be brief.
07:24 So are you okay, then, with the application for arrest warrants against Hamas?
07:30 We do not believe that they have jurisdiction over either of the parties of this conflict,
07:33 and that includes Hamas.
07:34 So you don't think that Hamas - you don't think that Hamas leaders should be prosecuted?
07:37 We absolutely believe that Hamas should be held accountable.
07:39 That could be - hold on.
07:40 Let me - let me finish.
07:41 Okay.
07:42 That could be either through the prosecution of the war effort by Israel.
07:44 It could be - hold on.
07:45 In other words, then, being killed?
07:47 It could be by being killed.
07:48 It could by being - it could be by being brought to justice in an Israeli court.
07:53 We do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction over either of the parties in this case because
07:58 the Palestinian people do not represent a state.
08:00 Okay.
08:01 And that includes the leaders of Hamas.
08:02 But obviously, the Administration is also troubled by actions that Israel has taken
08:05 post-October 7th.
08:07 So where is the accountability for that?
08:10 Where do the Palestinians go?
08:11 This is a question I asked Matt - I mean, Ned, a long time ago, over and over and over
08:17 again.
08:18 Where do the Palestinians go to seek redress?
08:21 So let me answer this a couple of different ways.
08:24 First of all, in the short term, with respect to questions of war crimes, Israel does have
08:29 open investigations, a number of open investigations.
08:32 We made this public when we released our report on National Security Memo 20, including some
08:37 investigations that have become criminal investigations into conduct by members of the IDF.
08:42 That is the first instance for judging whether someone has committed a war crime or a violation
08:48 of IDF code of conduct.
08:51 That's one of the reasons why we have concerns about the ICC.
08:54 The ICC is set up to be a court of last resort.
08:56 If a country isn't properly holding itself and its personnel accountable, that's when
09:01 the ICC comes in, not in the middle of the process as they have done here.
09:06 That said, ultimately - and you know this, Matt, because we've spoken about it a lot
09:10 - we believe that there should be the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
09:14 And an independent Palestinian state would have the ability to join the Rome Statute
09:17 and become a member of the International Criminal Court, as every state in the world has the
09:23 right to do.
09:24 But that's -
09:25 But until then, they're SOL?
09:27 That is not - no.
09:28 So where do they go in the meantime?
09:30 They are not SOL.
09:31 I said, first of all, Israel has its own investigations.
09:33 Second, we have accountability mechanisms here.
09:36 We have processes that are ongoing to look at Israel's compliance with international humanitarian
09:41 law.
09:42 So there are places to look at these questions.
09:44 It's just, in our view, fundamentally not a role of the ICC.
09:49 And I should say - but remember, we have a jurisdictional complaint here, in that we
09:54 don't believe the ICC has jurisdiction.
09:57 But if you looked at the statement the Secretary made that I echoed in my opening remarks,
10:01 that isn't our only problem with the action the prosecutor has taken.
10:04 We also have a problem that he has short-circuited an investigation and brought this action without
10:10 waiting to see where these Israeli investigations end up, without completing the trip that he
10:14 had planned to come to Israel to look into these questions.
10:17 So it's not just a question of jurisdiction.
10:19 It's also a question of the way the investigation has been conducted.
10:21 All right.
10:22 Well, so let's just focus on jurisdiction for a second.
10:23 Who does have jurisdiction here?
10:25 So the Government of Israel has jurisdiction.
10:27 Over the occupied territory?
10:28 We have jurisdiction.
10:29 Over Gaza, which is not entirely occupied?
10:31 We have - they have jurisdiction into looking at the actions by their military personnel.
10:35 Okay.
10:36 So the Palestinians, if they have a complaint, they have to bring it to Israeli courts?
10:39 We have jurisdiction.
10:40 You have jurisdiction?
10:41 With the use of our equipment.
10:43 I'm sorry.
10:44 With the use of our military equipment that we have provided.
10:47 How do you have jurisdiction?
10:48 If you look at the Leahy Law, if you look at -
10:49 That's not jurisdiction in a criminal process.
10:53 Not in a criminal process, but it has to do with the determinations that we make and the
10:56 policies that flow from it.
10:58 But Matt, long term, you were right that we want to see -
11:00 You used to work for DOJ, Matt.
11:01 Come on.
11:02 The U.S. does not have jurisdiction.
11:03 There are different - I wasn't referring to criminal jurisdiction, Matt.
11:07 There are different ways to look at this.
11:09 Long term, we agree with you that the Palestinian people should be a state that has the - and
11:12 have the ability to make these determinations, but that's not where we are today.
11:16 That's where we're trying to get to.
11:17 Do you work on what the ICC's going after -
11:18 Go ahead, Hamera.
11:19 - have to imply?
11:20 Matt, what about the merits of the arrest warrant?
11:21 You talked about - you pushed back on the jurisdiction and the process.
11:22 Does the United States - is it able to challenge the substance of the arrest warrant?
11:23 I mean, some of the things that the prosecutor says - evidence his office collected showed
11:25 Israel has systematically deprived civilians of objects indispensable to human survival.
11:26 Including restricting food, water, medicine, and energy.
11:46 Is the State Department able to challenge the arrest warrant application on those bases?
11:49 I am not going to speak to all the details of the prosecutor's arrest warrant because
11:53 there will be a process for getting into that.
11:56 At the ICC, people will be able to challenge that.
11:59 But I will say we have spoken to the provision of humanitarian assistance.
12:03 For example, recently when we issued the report on NSM-20, where we laid out where we have
12:08 seen Israel not taking all the steps that we thought they ought to take, but we saw
12:13 an improvement and a turnaround and an increase in the ability to get humanitarian assistance
12:17 in.
12:18 But I don't understand why you can't address this right now, because when -
12:21 Because I'm not a lawyer in court going point by point by his arrest warrant.
12:25 When South Africa brought the case to ICJ, the U.S. called it meritless.
12:31 And right now, can you call the substance of the arrest warrant application meritless?
12:37 So we took a - so I will say we believe it is fully unfounded, should not have been brought.
12:43 Now, with respect to the underlying allegations, we'll have time to look at that.
12:46 It's an arrest warrant that was issued today.
12:48 We'll have time to look at it, to digest it, and perhaps issue a more complete response.
12:53 But as I said, we shouldn't be where we are today, because there are processes ongoing
12:59 to look at some of these questions that we think should have been allowed to play out.
13:03 And as I said, when you look at the fact that the prosecutor was scheduled to go to Israel
13:07 and his staff was scheduled to go there today, we are puzzled to understand why he would
13:13 yank those trips and go on television to make an announcement, something that also is very
13:18 strange.
13:19 As Matt pointed out, I used to work at DOJ.
13:20 It's not usually how prosecutors announce their -
13:22 I did not say that it was strange that he went on TV.
13:26 No, no.
13:27 You pointed out that we used to work at DOJ, is what I was referring to.
13:29 It's a strange thing for a prosecutor to make an initial arrest announcement on television,
13:33 not in a formal document.
13:34 So we look at all these circumstances and have real concerns about it.
13:36 Right.
13:37 In terms of accountability, though --
13:38 Sorry to put words in your mouth.
13:39 I was --
13:40 Well --
13:41 It was --
13:42 Fine.
13:43 The part that I meant you - I was attesting to you was what followed, not --
13:44 Are you still saying that Eric Holder never did a TV interview?
13:47 Is that the third time you've spoken?
13:49 Not to announce an arrest warrant before we had issued any actual charging documents,
13:54 no.
13:55 And I think --
13:56 So you're just angry at us.
13:57 No, and I will say --
13:58 You're angry at the process that you used.
13:59 I will say the process itself calls into question the underlying substance.
14:01 Right.
14:02 In terms of accountability, though, you talk about the fact that Israel has open investigations.
14:08 So what kind of timeline did Israel provide you to conclude those investigations?
14:13 So we have made clear to Israel that those investigations ought to proceed expeditiously
14:17 and they ought to reach conclusions as soon as possible.
14:20 And have they provided you a timeline?
14:22 I'm not going to speak to our internal discussions or speak for the Israeli Government, but everyone
14:27 -- it is very difficult always to put a timeline on any kind of investigation, certainly on
14:32 a criminal investigation, and I wouldn't want to do that on behalf of the foreign government
14:35 other than to say our expectation on behalf of the United States is that they should proceed
14:40 and finish as soon as possible, but not at the expense of thoroughness.
14:43 And that is always the balance when you look at an investigation, is expediency versus
14:48 thoroughness.
14:49 You want to be quick, but you want to be thorough.
14:50 That's more important.
14:51 And my final one is, does the ICC arrest warrant -- I understand you challenge it from a jurisdiction
14:57 and process point of view, but I suspect the U.S. still recognizes the ICC, right?
15:02 We do.
15:03 Right.
15:04 And the fact that the prosecutor has applied for an arrest warrant and talking about crimes
15:11 against humanity, does that give the State Department a pause or, like, give you second
15:18 thoughts about the found -- the conclusions of the NSM report?
15:22 I mean, you have raised certain concerns there, but then you did find Israel's assurances
15:27 credible.
15:28 Is that something that would make you rethink that conclusion?
15:31 No.
15:32 I mean, if we saw new evidence, we would always look at that and be willing to -- you know,
15:36 we're always willing to look at our assessments if they are changed by new evidence that comes
15:40 in the door.
15:41 But we had conducted a thorough review in writing that report, and there's nothing that
15:44 we saw in the charges announced today that changes our fundamental conclusions.
15:49 Can I just follow up on Matt's first question -- or second question to you?
15:53 And you saying that you have nothing to announce today in terms of action that the U.S. might
15:57 take.
15:58 Can you just help us understand, is the Administration considering taking action against the ICC
16:03 because of this?
16:04 You should not read into my statement to Matt that we are either considering anything or
16:08 not considering anything.
16:09 It's just to reflect the fact that this is an announcement that was just made this morning.
16:15 We are reviewing the document the prosecutor put forward, and I don't have any announcements
16:19 to make about what our upcoming steps might be.
16:22 Is there any way that the U.S. is able to stand in the way of these arrest warrants
16:27 actually coming to fruition, like, you know, logistically?
16:31 You know, that is a question that is beyond my agreement as someone who's not an international
16:36 lawyer to answer.
16:37 So I'm happy to look at that question and get back, but ultimately I think that's a
16:40 legal question for the ICC more than us.
16:43 And you said that the U.S. still supports the ICC as a legitimate body, but does this
16:49 undermine the ICC as a whole?
16:52 I mean, like, how do you -- how do we think about those two things?
16:55 You guys are still supporting the ICC investigation in Ukraine, yet here you're saying, you know,
17:01 you don't think they have jurisdiction.
17:03 But how does that not make an impact on your view of the ICC?
17:07 So the ICC has done important work over the years to hold people accountable for war crimes
17:14 and crimes against humanity, and we have supported that work.
17:17 And that's not changed by the announcement today, but I will say that we do have great
17:20 concerns about the prosecutor and the steps that he took.
17:24 And like I said, it's not just because of the jurisdictional question.
17:29 It would be one thing if we were just looking at a jurisdictional dispute here where the
17:32 prosecutor believed that he had legitimate jurisdiction and we believe that he fundamentally
17:37 didn't.
17:38 That is a legal question that, you know, lawyers can argue, as they often do.
17:45 But ultimately we look at the way the investigation itself has been conducted, and that gives
17:49 us added concerns about the actions that he took.
17:53 Okay.
17:54 Yeah.
17:55 Thanks, Matt.
17:56 You mentioned that the U.S. thinks this is fully unbounded.
18:02 Did you just mean, like, coming to the conclusion of these arrest warrants being sought, or
18:07 did you mean the whole process?
18:09 So I'm not going to—so I mean the entire process.
18:12 I'm not going to do a factual point-by-point of each of the charges, but the process itself,
18:18 the equation of Israel with Hamas, a brutal terrorist group with a democracy that for
18:24 all its faults does, like any democracy, does have its own existing accountability mechanisms
18:30 that are underway, we find that process and the outcome that it has generated deeply flawed.
18:35 But the ICC coming to this conclusion, presumably they're looking at pretty similar material
18:39 to what the U.S. looks at when you're doing your own process and assessment of the actions
18:45 that the U.S.—that Israel, sorry, has taken.
18:48 So if they are looking at open source evidence and that kind of thing, are you—is the U.S.—can
18:54 you say whether you're confident in the process that the ICC uses to get to its conclusion,
18:59 or—
19:00 So I don't have any confidence in the process that they use to get to conclusion in this
19:03 case.
19:04 In fact, quite the opposite.
19:05 And I don't know where they got their information.
19:08 This goes to the point I made in my opening statement about calling off a visit to Israel,
19:13 where they could have interacted with the Israeli Government.
19:15 They, of course, are not on the ground in Gaza to collect information firsthand.
19:19 Whether they've been able to collect evidence otherwise, I don't know.
19:22 I presume we would see as the case goes forward.
19:26 What do you mean you don't know where they got their information from?
19:30 A lot of it's open source.
19:32 So my point is—
19:33 And do they have to go to Israel to figure out what public comments from Israeli officials
19:41 told them?
19:42 It is not just—so whenever you're conducting a case, it is not just a question of public
19:44 comments.
19:45 I would think if you were going to bring a case of this nature, you might want to go
19:49 to the Israeli Government and say, okay, we have concerns—hold on, let me just—we
19:52 have concerns—
19:53 And they didn't?
19:54 You're sure that they—you're sure that they didn't?
19:55 We have concerns about the following things.
19:57 Why don't you brief us on your ongoing investigations and tell us—
20:00 Okay.
20:01 And you know that they didn't?
20:02 I know they have not conducted a full, complete process to that regard.
20:04 There was a trip that was scheduled to go through some of these questions.
20:07 That trip—hold on, that trip has been in.
20:09 Whether they've conducted some limited review, I will let the Israeli Government speak to
20:12 that.
20:13 But I do believe that the Israeli Government was prepared to cooperate in much more extensive
20:19 detail, and that process was ended by the action of the equivalent prosecutor.
20:22 All right.
20:23 Let's turn it around.
20:24 What about Hamas?
20:25 I don't think Hamas was going to cooperate with an investigation, no.
20:28 Oh, okay.
20:29 If that's the question.
20:30 So they don't need to go to Gaza and talk to Sinwar and—who's the other guy?
20:39 I can't remember.
20:40 I might be.
20:41 They don't need to go to Gaza.
20:42 They don't need to go to Doha.
20:43 But they do need to go to Israel.
20:44 So we don't even get to the question because there's a jurisdictional issue.
20:48 We don't believe they have jurisdiction over the leaders of Hamas who are in Gaza.
20:52 But now you're—
20:53 We have more than one concern about this case.
20:56 I get that.
20:57 But—
20:58 So I would say—
20:59 But if they don't have jurisdiction, then why are you saying that they should have gone
21:04 to Israel?
21:05 Because we have—
21:06 Because Israel is not a member of the court, and you are not a member of the court.
21:08 So why should they go to Israel?
21:10 We have more than one concern.
21:11 As you said in the statement, despite Israel—let me make that clear in the statement—despite
21:14 Israel not being a member of the court, they were willing to cooperate.
21:17 With respect to Hamas, however, I would say it is—you can conclude, looking at what
21:24 happened on October 7th, that Hamas intended to kill civilians.
21:28 That is—
21:29 No doubt.
21:30 That is without doubt.
21:31 Absent the jurisdictional questions, it would absolutely be a war crime and a crime against
21:35 humanity.
21:36 I'm just wondering why it's a problem for you guys—
21:37 Hold on.
21:38 You cannot say the same about the state of Israel.
21:40 Well, okay.
21:41 I'm just wondering why it's a problem for you guys, for the ICC, to go after Israeli
21:45 officials and doesn't seem to be a problem for them to go after Hamas.
21:50 That's not what I said.
21:51 I made clear already.
21:52 We don't think they have jurisdiction to go over Hamas, to go after Hamas.
21:54 But so should Hamas be held accountable for what they did?
21:57 I answered that question a little while ago.
21:58 I said, yes, they should absolutely be held accountable.
22:01 And who installed them?
22:02 And who—
22:03 The Israeli Government should hold them accountable on the battlefield, and if not a battlefield,
22:05 in a court of law.
22:06 All right.
22:07 I'm just wondering why something you said to Kamala—sorry, Matt—you said that the
22:11 fact that they were combined together, the two indictments, if there were separate indictments,
22:15 if there were separate orders of arrest and so on, would that be acceptable?
22:19 If let's say—
22:20 It doesn't change the jurisdictional objection that we have.
22:23 But you would accept—just so I can understand—
22:25 I just said the opposite.
22:26 We have a jurisdictional objection, so no.
22:28 If there was just an indictment of Hamas by itself and of Israel by itself, you can say
22:33 we take the indictment against Hamas but not against Israel?
22:36 Is that—
22:37 I'm trying to understand.
22:38 No, then I thought I was clear.
22:41 We do not believe they have jurisdiction to either of the parties in this conflict.
22:44 Follow-up?
22:45 Yeah, go ahead.
22:46 Thanks so much.
22:47 So you said Israel does have open investigations.
22:52 Are you satisfied with the way Israel conducts these investigations?
22:58 I'm not ready to offer an assessment on that at this point because the investigations are
23:02 ongoing.
23:03 I think it's appropriate to wait for their conclusion.
23:04 If there is—if there are investigations that conclude that we don't think have been
23:10 conducted appropriately and we don't think there has been justice when there ought to
23:14 be justice and we have the ability to make that assessment ourself, we will absolutely
23:17 stand up and say it.
23:18 But the investigations are ongoing right now.
23:20 We can't offer that kind of conclusion at this point.
23:22 Will there be any consequences if you are not satisfied?
23:25 So I'm—that gets into a hypothetical that's several steps down the road.
23:28 We haven't even gotten to the point of that sort of finding yet, so I'm not going to engage
23:33 with that.
23:34 And I'm not going to comment on this in accusations.
23:36 The ICC accuses Netanyahu and Goland of causing extermination, starvation of civilians as
23:43 a method of war, deliberately targeting civilians.
23:45 Do you think those things are not happening in Gaza?
23:49 We don't.
23:50 We have made clear that there have been steps that we wanted Israel to take to improve the
23:55 delivery of humanitarian assistance that for a time they weren't taking.
23:59 Now, they often will come up and present objections and say they're trying to prevent, for example,
24:04 military items from getting in or dual-use items that can be used for the military to
24:09 get in.
24:10 They will say that they have restricted movements in certain areas because it is an area where
24:14 the military is operating.
24:15 They don't want to put humanitarian actors at harm's way.
24:17 Whatever the case may be, there have been a number of times we've made clear that their
24:21 actions weren't good enough and we needed to see improvements.
24:23 And you've heard the President say that, you've heard the Secretary say that, and more importantly,
24:27 you've seen the President and the Secretary get involved to bring about a change in behavior
24:32 on behalf of the Israeli Government, and we've seen that change.
24:35 So the fundamental bottom-line reality is that we have seen food get in, water get in,
24:43 medicine get in.
24:44 Not enough, but we have seen a trend line where it is improved.
24:47 Are you satisfied with the amount of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza?
24:51 We have seen an improvement, but until people in Gaza are not hungry, until they have enough
24:56 to eat, enough to drink, medicine, shelter, we will not be satisfied and we won't stop
25:01 pushing for more.
25:02 Absolutely.
25:03 Shannon, go ahead.
25:04 It's okay to move on to Iran?
25:05 Sure.
25:06 Can we still end --
25:07 Let me -- yeah, go ahead, and then we'll come back to you for --
25:10 Okay.
25:11 I'll come back to you next, Shannon.
25:12 A couple of questions in addition to everybody else asked is you said that Israel is not
25:17 a member of the ICC, which is true, but also – and I don't know if you're aware of
25:21 this or not, but Israel has supported the candidacy of Mr. Khan when he was elected
25:27 in 2021, and they wanted him to be there.
25:32 So the fact that they actually endorsed him, they know there are some consequences.
25:37 Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.
25:39 So this is just to --
25:40 It doesn't change the underlying jurisdictional question.
25:45 Okay.
25:46 So my question is, lawmakers agreed with you.
25:50 They said the same -- they repeated the same statement they issued in the White House,
25:53 but they went further and they said actually the decision is anti-Semitic.
25:57 Do you agree that this decision is anti-Semitic as well?
26:00 That's not an assessment that we have made or a conclusion we have drawn.
26:04 Okay.
26:05 And one last thing is on the issue itself, many international lawyers, very well-known,
26:11 different background, they said they found a reasonable ground that actually Israel has
26:16 committed crime against humanity and war crimes.
26:21 Does the State Department lawyers have a different conclusion, or you have not reached this conclusion,
26:28 or do you disagree with them?
26:30 What exactly is the difference between the lawyers who work at the State Department and
26:33 international lawyers who found different conclusions?
26:37 So let me try to separate the ICC and answer this in two ways.
26:40 One, when it comes to the ICC, we have a jurisdictional issue and then we have an issue with how this
26:46 investigation was conducted.
26:47 But to answer your underlying question about making that sort of determination, it is a
26:52 question that we are looking at here.
26:54 We have ongoing processes to look at Israel's use of U.S.-provided weapons, and those processes
27:02 are ongoing.
27:03 We have not yet reached final determinations.
27:04 Shannon, go ahead now.
27:05 Thank you.
27:06 I know you've extended official condolences of the U.S. for the death of Iran's president
27:12 and foreign minister over the weekend.
27:14 The U.S. also participated in a moment of silence for President Raisi at the UN Security
27:19 Council, and it sparked some controversy on Twitter.
27:22 Does the State Department view that as appropriate, taking part in that kind of observance?
27:26 Let me say a few things.
27:27 One, we have been quite clear that Abraham Raisi was a brutal participant in the repression
27:32 of the Iranian people for nearly four decades.
27:35 He was involved in numerous horrific human rights abuses, including playing a key role
27:40 in the extrajudicial killing of thousands of political prisoners in 1988.
27:46 Some of the worst human rights abuses occurred during his tenure as president, especially
27:52 the human rights abuses against the women and girls of Iran.
27:55 That said, we regret any loss of life.
27:58 We don't want to see anyone die in a helicopter crash.
28:03 But that doesn't change the reality of his record, both as a judge and as the president
28:07 of Iran, the fact that he has blood on his hands.
28:10 So I think most importantly, our fundamental approach to Iran has not changed and will
28:16 not change.
28:17 We will continue to support the people of Iran to defend their human rights, their aspirations
28:23 to an open, free society and democratic participation, and we will continue to confront the Iranian
28:29 regime's support for terrorism, its proliferation of dangerous weapons, and its advancement
28:34 of nuclear – its nuclear program in ways that have no credible civilian purpose.
28:37 QUESTION: And just as a quick follow, in the aftermath of that crash, did the U.S. help
28:41 in recovery efforts in any way, or was it asked to assist?
28:44 MR.
28:45 RATHKE: We were asked for assistance by the Iranian Government.
28:47 We did make clear to them that we would offer assistance, as we would do in response to
28:53 any request by a foreign government in this sort of situation, and ultimately we were
28:58 not able to provide that assistance.
28:59 (Laughter.)
29:00 We were asked.
29:01 QUESTION: Fair.
29:02 MR.
29:03 RATHKE: I'm not going to get into the details, but we were asked by the Iranian Government
29:06 for assistance.
29:07 We said that we would be willing to assist.
29:09 It's something that we would do with respect to any government in this situation.
29:12 Ultimately, largely for logistical reasons, we weren't able to provide that assistance.
29:15 QUESTION: All right.
29:16 And then can I just ask you about the State – what exactly is "official condolences"?
29:21 MR.
29:22 RATHKE: It's a condolences on behalf of the United States Government.
29:24 QUESTION: Well, then why does it say that?
29:26 This is like – "official condolences" means absolutely nothing, and I'm not even
29:31 sure why you're offering condolences if this guy was as bad as you say he was.
29:36 MR.
29:37 RATHKE: Look --
29:38 QUESTION: Why – I mean --
29:39 MR.
29:40 RATHKE: Because we regret any loss of life.
29:41 We don't want to see people die in helicopter crashes.
29:42 It doesn't change our view of him, our view of the regime, but I --
29:44 QUESTION: Really?
29:45 There is not one person that you can think of --
29:46 MR.
29:47 RATHKE: There are --
29:48 QUESTION: -- that the United States didn't want to see in an air accident ever?
29:51 Really?
29:52 None?
29:53 MR.
29:54 RATHKE: There are people on board that aircraft who have families.
29:56 We thought that's an appropriate step to take.
29:57 It's a step the United States Government has taken when any number of foreign leaders
30:01 with whom we had vehement disagreements have died.
30:06 But we also made clear in that statement that we continue to support the Iranian people
30:11 in their fundamental struggle for freedom.
30:12 QUESTION: Really?
30:13 Well, I would just point out to you that when the former – one of the former presidents
30:18 of Cuba died – this would be Fidel Castro – your – one of your predecessors did
30:24 not offer any condolences --
30:26 MR.
30:27 RATHKE: We --
30:28 QUESTION: -- and basically said, "Good riddance."
30:29 MR.
30:30 RATHKE: So I will --
30:31 QUESTION: But I'm not sure that we think that Raisi was as bad as what you have laid
30:35 out at the beginning.
30:36 I'm just a little bit curious as to why you would put a statement out, how – no
30:40 matter how short it is, but with the line "official condolences" in it.
30:45 I don't get it.
30:46 MR.
30:47 RATHKE: So as long as we're addressing the historical record, the United States offered
30:50 condolences when Hugo Chavez died, when Joseph Stalin died, people with whom we had great
30:54 disagreements.
30:55 So that is --
30:56 QUESTION: Yeah.
30:57 Joseph Stalin was also an ally of the United States all through – and we talked about
31:00 this earlier – all through World War II.
31:02 MR.
31:03 RATHKE: He did not die during World War II.
31:04 He died afterwards --
31:05 QUESTION: No, he did not.
31:06 MR.
31:07 RATHKE: -- when our disagreements with him were quite clear and quite plain and quite
31:08 well articulated by the United States Government.
31:09 It is a step that the United States takes, recognizing that people have families, and
31:13 in no way – in no way at all – undermining our fundamental view of the Iranian regime
31:20 and its crimes against its own people and our support for the Iranian people.
31:23 QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
31:24 QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
31:25 MR.
31:26 RATHKE: Go ahead.
31:27 Yeah, Gita, go ahead.
31:28 Yes, please.
31:29 QUESTION: You mentioned – well, he did make it clear that his point is on the word "official."
31:33 You mentioned a few condolences that you sent to other countries, but you did not use this
31:38 word "official."
31:40 That aside, I'm sure you've seen – you've probably seen the – that the people inside
31:46 Iran are – some of them are celebrating this incident.
31:50 I was wondering what you make of that.
31:52 MR.
31:53 RATHKE: So I can certainly understand why people inside Iran would feel that way when
31:59 you look at the brutal repression that happened under President Raisi's tenure.
32:05 As I said in my – in a comment a moment ago, especially when you look at his abuse
32:08 of women and girls, I can see why people in Iran would feel that way in response to his
32:15 death.
32:16 But I obviously can't speak for them.
32:17 QUESTION: Well, with the condolences and then support for Iranian people, aren't you sending
32:22 contradictory messages?
32:23 MR.
32:24 RATHKE: Absolutely not.
32:25 If you just – if you listen to the statement I just made a moment ago, I think we have
32:28 been quite clear about how we viewed his tenure.
32:32 And you don't just have to look at what I said today.
32:33 I don't think there's any country in the world that has been more clear-eyed about
32:37 the Iranian regime and more clear-eyed about this President's repression of the Iranian
32:42 people than the United States of America.
32:44 We have made that quite clear.
32:45 QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
32:46 MR.
32:47 RATHKE: Okay.
32:48 So it would be close one and two, I think.
32:51 We have been quite clear, and that has not just been with the words that you have heard
32:55 from the senior-most leaders in our government, but it has been the actions that we have taken,
32:59 including imposing more than 500 sanctions on the Iranian Government and Iranian entities
33:03 for their destabilizing actions in the region and for the repression of their own people.
33:08 QUESTION: Can I follow up on this?
33:09 MR.
33:10 RATHKE: Yeah.
33:11 QUESTION: What is the U.S.
33:12 Government's official message to those Iranians who have been killed, murdered, attacked,
33:15 wounded by this guy?
33:16 MR.
33:17 RATHKE: The official message is that we stand with them as we have stood by them, and our
33:21 policy of holding the Iranian regime responsible for those abuses has not changed and will
33:26 not change, period.
33:27 QUESTION: And more broadly, can you tell us anything about the origin of the crash, its
33:31 outcome, and also potential implications for a wider region, please?
33:34 MR.
33:35 RATHKE: So I have seen the statements made on Iranian state television that it was the
33:39 result of a technical failure.
33:40 I don't have any independent assessment to offer, and I wouldn't want – hold on, hold
33:43 on, just – and I wouldn't want to offer any assessments about what the impact might
33:47 be.
33:48 QUESTION: Can we come back to the Ukraine?
33:49 On Iran?
33:50 MR.
33:51 RATHKE: Iran?
33:52 No.
33:53 QUESTION: Yeah.
33:54 MR.
33:55 RATHKE: Iran.
33:56 QUESTION: Yes, Iran.
33:57 MR.
33:58 RATHKE: Go ahead.
33:59 Yeah.
34:00 QUESTION: I know you were quite clear, but it still is very difficult for me to understand
34:01 or even report on the statement that you just put out, the official condolences.
34:05 Everything you're talking about is about supporting Iranian people, human rights --
34:09 MR.
34:10 RATHKE: As was the statement that we issued.
34:11 QUESTION: Exactly.
34:12 And then there was another statement following your statement of why there was a second statement,
34:17 so I think you felt that you have to do more explanation, and why was the second --
34:23 MR.
34:24 RATHKE: I think you're referring to all this was in about a half-hour period before
34:26 I came to the podium, so it's not like there was a long lag in time here.
34:29 QUESTION: Yes.
34:30 So how should we as Iranian journalists – how can I report on your officials' condolences
34:35 when you are all the time talking about supporting Iranian people?
34:39 How can we tell Iranian people who – exactly how Gita was talking about?
34:44 They were very happy on social media, if you check it.
34:47 How are we going to report on the official – you don't have any diplomatic tie with
34:52 Iranian Government.
34:53 MR.
34:54 RATHKE: So first of all, I would never presume to tell anyone how to report anything, but
34:59 I would say that you can look at not just the statements I have made today, but the
35:03 repeated statements over nearly three and a half years by the President of the United
35:06 States and by the Secretary of State and other members of the Administration about our views
35:11 of the Iranian regime, and more importantly, our actions to hold them accountable and our
35:15 support for the Iranian people in their struggle against that brutal regime.
35:20 Those have not changed; those will not change.
35:21 QUESTION: Does this have to do anything with the indirect talks you have in Oman?
35:25 MR.
35:26 RATHKE: So I'm not going to speak to any talks, real or imagined, but I will say that
35:30 the actions – but I would not draw any such conclusions.
35:34 QUESTION: And Matt, about Ali Bagheri-Kani, how do you feel about him?
35:37 MR.
35:38 RATHKE: About – I'm sorry?
35:39 QUESTION: Mr. Bagheri-Kani, who is going to be the acting foreign minister, is going to
35:42 be – he was deputy of Mr. Amir Abdullahi on.
35:46 How do you feel about him?
35:47 Do you have any comment?
35:48 MR.
35:49 RATHKE: I just don't have any comment to offer today.
35:50 Maybe in the coming days, but not today.
35:51 Josh, did you have --
35:52 QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.
35:53 I just wanted to follow up on what – the condolences question.
35:59 Seems like you're taking kind of a "ask not for whom the bell tolls" approach to
36:02 this --
36:03 MR.
36:04 RATHKE: A what approach?
36:05 QUESTION: The John Donne poem, never mind.
36:06 MR.
36:07 RATHKE: No, no, no.
36:08 I just didn't hear it.
36:09 I didn't --
36:10 QUESTION: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
36:11 MR.
36:12 RATHKE: I don't know.
36:13 I don't know.
36:14 It's not my favorite author, so I would – had I heard the reference, I would have liked
36:15 to think I would have caught it.
36:16 QUESTION: I have a way it's your favorite author.
36:17 Really.
36:18 Well, then, perhaps let's shorten the sentence.
36:19 (Laughter.)
36:20 MR.
36:21 RATHKE: Well done, Matt.
36:22 I will do my best.
36:23 I have a lot to get through up here.
36:24 Maybe if my questions weren't interrupted so often.
36:25 Go ahead.
36:26 I have to get it all out, or I know I – if I pause for one breath, you jump in.
36:27 Go ahead.
36:28 Sorry.
36:29 QUESTION: Sorry.
36:30 It's actually John Donne, not Hemingway.
36:31 But anyway.
36:32 So – but in all seriousness, Masi Al-Insajad says that these condolences are a slap in
36:46 the face to Iranian women and salt in the wound of people who the Iranian – who the
36:52 regime has oppressed.
36:53 Listening to what you say today, and I'm wondering, like, who's the target audience
36:59 for this statement?
37:01 What effect are you hoping it will have?
37:02 I mean, I can't believe you expect that the Raisi family will take some – find some
37:08 consolation in the U.S.
37:09 Government statement here.
37:11 Is it a courtesy to the Iranian Government?
37:13 I mean, you – we didn't hear this kind of statement when Yevgeny Prigozhin famously
37:18 went – died in a plane crash.
37:19 MR.
37:20 RATHKE: Not a head of state.
37:21 QUESTION: Neither is Raisi, but --
37:22 MR.
37:23 RATHKE: Yeah, yeah.
37:24 Not a head of – not a – not a official government.
37:25 QUESTION: I mean, just what are you trying to accomplish here, and how do you balance
37:27 it against those other – these other costs?
37:29 MR.
37:30 RATHKE: Well, I mean, this is a kind of a statement the United States Government typically
37:32 makes in these situations, as I went through, including with some quite objectionable people,
37:35 as we have done throughout our history.
37:38 But it doesn't change at all our view of him, our view of the regime, or the policy
37:42 that we will carry out with respect to that regime.
37:44 QUESTION: On Putin, what you didn't acknowledge is the reelection, and you didn't say anything
37:50 about that.
37:51 But now you're expressing official --
37:54 MR.
37:55 RATHKE: Different circumstances.
37:56 QUESTION: Can I just get you to be a little more detailed on the thing?
37:57 MR.
37:58 RATHKE: Yeah.
37:59 QUESTION: I mean, I'm not trying to even try to jam you up here.
38:00 I'm just wondering, like, what are you trying to accomplish by saying this gesture?
38:04 MR.
38:05 RATHKE: We thought it was --
38:06 QUESTION: Is it supposed to have a – is it supposed to have some sort of humanitarian
38:08 effect on the families of the people who died?
38:10 Is it a diplomatic thing that you hope will be reciprocated?
38:13 Like, just talk us through --
38:14 MR.
38:15 RATHKE: It has nothing to do with hopes of anything that will transpire.
38:16 It is the appropriate step, we think, for the United States Government to take in this
38:20 instance while also being very clear about what our policy is and what our view is of
38:24 the Iranian regime.
38:25 Humera.
38:26 QUESTION: Mark, just on this help that you said Iran has sought from U.S., this was – just
38:33 to confirm, it's pretty incredible – this was in the aftermath of the crash, and they
38:38 needed help with the rescue efforts?
38:41 MR.
38:42 RATHKE: It was in the aftermath of the crash.
38:43 They did offer – or ask for assistance.
38:46 I'm not going to get into what the details of that --
38:48 QUESTION: To find the president.
38:49 MR.
38:50 RATHKE: I'm just not going to get into the details.
38:51 That is essentially right.
38:52 I'm not going to get into details from here.
38:56 Ultimately, we weren't able to offer that assistance.
38:58 QUESTION: Can you say, like, through the usual indirect channels, this help was --
39:02 MR.
39:03 RATHKE: I'm not going to get into the channels at all.
39:04 QUESTION: And did you suggest Turkey instead?
39:05 MR.
39:06 RATHKE: I'm just not going to get into this conversation.
39:07 Go ahead.
39:08 QUESTION: So regarding those reports that there were celebrations in Iran from opposition
39:13 groups following the death, there are also, according to the BBC, been reports of supporters
39:19 of the regime threatening those celebrators, telling them that there would be consequences
39:23 if they came forward.
39:24 Does the United States have any opinion on that or words to Iran on that?
39:28 MR.
39:29 RATHKE: So one of the points we made in the statement that we put out, the short two-sentence
39:31 statement, was Iran will be selecting a new president right now.
39:35 And as they go through that process, we will be supporting the Iranian people's ability
39:40 to express their fundamental freedoms.
39:42 Now, we have seen those freedoms cracked down on again and again.
39:46 And it's not just the freedom to exercise their vote; it's their freedom of speech.
39:51 It's other fundamental freedoms.
39:52 And so I'm not surprised that you've seen an initial reaction in that light.
39:57 We will look at this the same way we have looked at past instances of crackdowns by
40:02 the regime or by allies of the regime to the Iranian people exercising their fundamental
40:06 rights.
40:07 And if there are steps that are appropriate for us to take to hold people accountable
40:10 for those actions, we will not hesitate to do so.
40:12 QUESTION: Is there any concern on the part of the U.S. that this could affect regional
40:14 stability in a region that already is hanging on a knife's edge?
40:18 MR.
40:19 RATHKE: Look, we – I'm not going to offer any assessment about something that just happened
40:20 24 hours ago, but we – in this region, we are always concerned about anything that could
40:26 cause instability.
40:27 It's why you've seen the Secretary and other members of the administration so engaged
40:30 since October 7th to try to keep the conflict in Gaza from escalating further and spiraling
40:37 out of control.
40:38 And that will continue to be our overriding policy goal, not just – not connected necessarily
40:42 to this death, but for its own sake.
40:46 All right.
40:47 Any more on this topic?
40:48 Go ahead.
40:49 QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.
40:51 Do you have any reactions and comments on the former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad
40:55 Javadzadeh, as he said that – claims that the U.S. is the one of the main responsible
40:59 for the Iranian President's helicopter crash due to the sanctions?
41:02 MR.
41:03 RATHKE: So first of all, we are not going to apologize for our sanctions regime at all.
41:09 The Iranian Government has used its aircraft to transport equipment to support terrorism.
41:16 So we will continue to fully enforce our sanctions regime, including our sanctions regimes on
41:22 aircraft for use by the Iranian Government.
41:26 Ultimately, it's the Iranian Government that is responsible for the decision to fly
41:29 a 45-year-old helicopter in what was described as poor weather conditions, not any other
41:35 actor.
41:36 QUESTION: And then do you confirm or reject the indirect talks with Iran in Oman?
41:40 MR.
41:41 RATHKE: I'm just not going to speak to those at all.
41:42 We have long made clear that we have the ability to send Iran messages when it's in our interest
41:47 to do so, but I'm not going to comment on those in any way.
41:49 Janne, go ahead.
41:50 QUESTION: Thank you.
41:51 Thank you, Matt.
41:52 Two questions.
41:53 North Korea launched several ballistic missiles into the East Coast last weekend.
41:54 This was done right after Putin and Xi Jinping announced their support for North Korea at
41:55 the summit.
41:56 Do you assess that North Korea, China, and Iran are cooperating to make sure that the
41:57 North Korean people are not being targeted by the Chinese?
41:58 And if so, what is the best way to deal with this?
41:59 And if so, what is the best way to deal with this?
42:00 And if so, what is the best way to deal with this?
42:01 And if so, what is the best way to deal with this?
42:02 And if so, what is the best way to deal with this?
42:03 And if so, what is the best way to deal with this?
42:17 So with respect to that missile launch, the Pentagon put out a statement on that this
42:22 weekend, and I would refer to you that.
42:26 But when it comes to the cooperation between Russia and North Korea, we have made clear
42:32 that's a trend that should be a great concern of anyone who is interested in maintaining
42:37 peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
42:39 That should include the PRC.
42:40 It's one of the points the Secretary made clear in our last trip to Beijing, as he has
42:45 in his other interactions with his Chinese counterparts, that we think that's something
42:49 that should concern China as well, and China should use its influence to push back on that
42:57 increasing – that increasing cooperation between the two regimes.
43:01 It's not a decision they've made to do so as of yet.
43:04 But the role of the UN Security Council is weakening, so how can we sanction North Korea's
43:13 continued violations?
43:15 So we have been concerned that the Security Council has not spoken with one voice since
43:20 2017 on the DPRK's repeated violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
43:26 Because there's not been unity, the DPRK has escalated its ballistic missile launches.
43:30 Each one of which violates multiple UN Security Council resolutions, and we urge Beijing and
43:35 Moscow to use their influence to encourage DPRK to refrain from that behavior and return
43:41 to the negotiating table.
43:42 QUESTION: Thank you.
43:43 MR PRICE: Ryan.
43:44 QUESTION: So on the – back on the question of jurisdiction with the international community,
43:49 you said that because the Palestinians are not a state actor, they don't have jurisdiction
43:53 over their side.
43:54 But back in 2014 – I just Googled this one up – Jen Psaki was up here, your colleague.
44:00 The statement was, "Today, the ICC convicted Jermaine Katanga, the commander of the FRPI
44:05 militia, for his responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
44:09 The ICC's DRC cases represent a significant step toward delivering justice for victims
44:14 in the DRC."
44:15 She then went on to say, "The United States reiterates its call for the apprehension of
44:20 Sylvester Muta-Kumara, another leader of an abusive rebel militia in the DRC who is subject
44:25 to an arrest warrant by the ICC.
44:28 The Department of State continues to offer a reward of up to $5 million for information
44:32 leading to his arrest."
44:33 So at least in 2014, it was the position of the Administration that you could even put
44:38 out a reward for the arrest of somebody that would then go to the ICC and would have jurisdiction.
44:44 So why does it not – that apply to the current conflict?
44:48 MR PRICE: So we have supported the work of the ICC in previous cases.
44:52 I can't speak to this case because I don't know the fundamentals of it, I don't know
44:55 the jurisdictional questions.
44:57 Obviously, the main way that the ICC has jurisdiction is if one of the two state parties to a case
45:03 is a signatory to the Rome Statute and comes in under the ICC's jurisdiction.
45:09 That is not the case here.
45:10 You have Israel, who of course is not a signatory to the ICC, the Palestinians, who do not represent
45:16 a state at this time and so in our view cannot sign the Rome Statute and become – come
45:21 under the ICC's jurisdiction.
45:22 I can't speak to other cases.
45:23 I'd have to look into it in more detail.
45:24 QUESTION: And one quick follow-up to what Said had asked about whether or not the U.S.
45:28 had approved the deal that Hamas said it agreed to.
45:31 There's a lot of reporting in the region that CIA Director Burns was involved in that,
45:35 had approved – are you saying that – is that not the case?
45:38 What was Burns' involvement there?
45:39 MR PRICE: So I'm not going to speak to any of the reporting because I know there's
45:41 been – I will just say because there has been reporting all over the map on this question,
45:45 some of it right, some of it partially right, some of it completely wrong.
45:48 I will say that the reporting that Hamas had accepted a proposal that we put on the table
45:54 was not accurate.
45:55 They had sent back a response that accepted some of it but offered amendments, some of
45:58 those amendments significant in nature.
46:01 And they claimed at the time they had accepted the response.
46:03 That's not what – or they accepted the proposal.
46:05 That's not what had actually happened.
46:07 QUESTION: Just extremely briefly, it's not just the DRC that you guys have supported
46:14 the ICC investigations into or offered rewards.
46:18 It was Uganda, the Lord's Resistance Army, there was a big push made and rewards offered
46:24 for that.
46:26 So I'm glad that you said that it's not just the DRC.
46:30 But secondly, when you said that the ICC in this case, at least with Israel, didn't
46:35 go to Israel to interview people, they also didn't go to Gaza or to Doha, correct?
46:44 MR PRICE: They will have to speak to that.
46:46 I just don't know.
46:47 I don't know.
46:48 I mean, in another case --
46:49 MR PRICE: I know they didn't – no, I should say I know they didn't go to Gaza, whether
46:50 they went to Doha or not.
46:51 No, I don't.
46:52 QUESTION: Okay.
46:53 And in another case – another ICC case that you have supported or an actual arrest warrant
46:56 that was issued, not just applied for but was issued in terms of Russia and Ukraine,
47:03 did the ICC prosecutors go to Russia to interview the people who were ultimately given – subjected
47:12 to these arrest warrants?
47:13 MR PRICE: So the difference between Russia and Israel is that Israel is a democracy with
47:18 accountability mechanisms and investigations that are underway.
47:22 That is not the case in Russia.
47:23 We are not aware of any Russian investigation into war crimes that is underway.
47:27 So --
47:28 QUESTION: But the similarity between the two is that neither of them are parties to the
47:31 Rome Statute, neither of them are members, just like you are not.
47:35 MR PRICE: So Ukraine is, however, in that case, and that's why they have jurisdiction
47:39 in that matter.
47:40 It's one of the parties to that conflict is a member.
47:42 It's a signatory.
47:43 QUESTION: So in other words, then it's okay if they go to one side but not to the other?
47:48 MR PRICE: That is the fundamental – that is how jurisdiction is fundamentally applied
47:52 under the Rome Statute, is if one of the parties to the conflict is a signatory to the conflict,
47:56 and that's not a case --
47:57 QUESTION: Yes.
47:58 So if you're not a signatory to a conflict, then it should be – then apparently it's
48:03 okay if they don't – the prosecution doesn't go to that country, in this case, Russia.
48:09 MR PRICE: So it is not --
48:10 QUESTION: And then this current case, Israel, which is not a signatory to a conflict, but
48:16 you don't have a problem with it where they didn't go to Russia, but you do have a problem
48:19 with it when --
48:20 MR PRICE: There's a fundamental – there is a fundamental difference here in that Israel
48:22 said they were going to cooperate with the investigation.
48:24 Russia did not.
48:25 That's why the trip was so – to Israel was so important.
48:28 Israel said they were going to cooperate with the investigation, talked to them about the
48:30 charges that they were preparing to bring, and the ICC short-circuited that cooperation
48:36 about bringing these charges.
48:37 Russia was never going to cooperate.
48:38 QUESTION: For the last month, Israeli officials have been going off about how horrible it
48:43 would be and how awful it will be if the ICC comes forward with these arrest warrants,
48:48 to the point where people in this government were like, what are they so – what are they
48:53 getting so concerned about?
48:55 Nothing is yet happening.
48:56 Well, now it has happened, okay?
48:58 But they have made clear from day one that they don't think this is a legitimate investigation.
49:03 What makes you think they were prepared to cooperate?
49:04 MR PRICE: So I can only say that they had a trip scheduled for the prosecutor himself
49:10 where they planned to cooperate.
49:12 Now, look, if he had made that trip and been stiff-armed, that'd be a different circumstance
49:16 perhaps.
49:18 I have a fundamental hard time arguing why it was he had to bring these warrants today
49:25 before he completed that trip.
49:27 Why not go and see if they're cooperating and make the assessment afterwards?
49:30 That's not what happened.
49:31 Go ahead.
49:32 QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.
49:33 Three very quick questions.
49:34 In a recent media interview, Indian Prime Minister Modi revealed how he made an effort
49:41 to stop Israel's attack in Gaza during the holy month of Ramadan by sending an envoy
49:49 to Tel Aviv.
49:50 Is the State Department aware of this?
49:52 MR PRICE: So I am aware of those comments.
49:55 I don't have any comment on them.
49:57 QUESTION: May I draw your attention to a New York Times investigative story titled "Strangers
50:03 in Their Own Land Being Muslim in Modi's India," which described – describes how the world's
50:10 largest Muslim community in India raising their families and children with fear and
50:15 uncertainty.
50:16 Have you engaged with the Indian officials in this issue?
50:18 MR PRICE: So I won't speak to private diplomatic conversations, but we are deeply committed
50:23 to promoting and protecting universal respect for the right to freedom of religion or belief
50:27 of all.
50:29 Around the world, we have engaged many countries, including India, on the importance of equal
50:32 treatment for members of all religious communities.
50:34 QUESTION: Is the U.S. considering reinstating the GSP facilities for Bangladeshi product,
50:39 as Bangladeshi foreign minister told the – on Saturday, Assistant Secretary Donald
50:44 Lew assured Washington would consider reinstating the GSP facilities for Bangladeshi --
50:49 MR PRICE: I just don't have any announcements to make on that regard.
50:52 Alex, go ahead, and then we'll wrap for today.
50:54 QUESTION: Ukraine.
50:55 Two questions.
50:56 MR PRICE: Yeah.
50:57 QUESTION: Do you have a chance to respond to this latest notion that the U.S. doesn't
51:00 want – is afraid of seeing Russia lose?
51:03 MR PRICE: That the U.S. what?
51:04 QUESTION: Doesn't want to see Russia lose, and that – the statement came from the Ukrainian
51:09 president.
51:10 Why wouldn't you want --
51:11 MR PRICE: The statement came from the Ukrainian president?
51:12 I don't believe I saw a statement that – the United States fundamentally wants Ukraine
51:16 --
51:17 QUESTION: Doesn't want to see Russia lose.
51:18 MR PRICE: The – so there are two parties in this conflict.
51:21 One is Russia, the other is Ukraine.
51:23 We fundamentally want to see Ukraine win this war and have made that clear, including, I
51:27 think, by providing them with billions of dollars in security assistance.
51:32 You have also seen the Secretary make an entire speech about the strategic failure that Russia
51:38 has brought on itself by launching this conflict, so I'm not sure what that means to you.
51:42 QUESTION: Just to be clear, you want to see Russia lose the war?
51:44 MR PRICE: We want to see Ukraine win, which by its very nature means Russia --
51:47 QUESTION: But I can just say that we don't want to see --
51:48 MR PRICE: We want to see – look, so we would rather see Russia just end the war.
51:51 So I think we're – I'm not sure how we got into this semantic argument about this,
51:54 but I think our position on who we want to see win this war and who we want to see lose
51:57 it has been pretty clear for more than two years now.
51:59 QUESTION: Thank you.
52:00 I want to get your comments on former Deputy Secretary Nuland's interview last night
52:04 in which she urged the Administration to lift all the restrictions, including the use of
52:08 weapons, inside Russia, in which she says, actually, Russia is a beneficiary of our hesitation.
52:13 MR PRICE: So I don't have any comment on that other than that our policy hasn't changed.
52:16 With that, we'll end for --
52:17 QUESTION: I have two more completely different things.
52:18 MR PRICE: Yeah, go ahead.
52:19 Go ahead, and then we'll finish the round.
52:20 Go ahead.
52:21 Go ahead.
52:22 QUESTION: One on Congo.
52:23 Do you know anything about these Americans, these three Americans, one dead and two arrested,
52:27 who were allegedly involved in this apparent coup attempt?
52:30 MR PRICE: So a few things about that.
52:31 First of all, just as a policy statement, we condemn the armed attacks on the residence
52:35 of National Assembly deputy and the National Palace and denounce political violence in
52:41 all forms, and we are extremely concerned by the reports of involvement by U.S. citizens.
52:46 We are closely monitoring the situation and we will cooperate with DRC authorities to
52:50 the fullest extent possible to investigate with respect to involvement of U.S. citizens.
52:54 So first of all, with respect to the individual who is deceased, we do not have any record
53:00 of him being a United States citizen.
53:03 With respect to the other two who have been reported to be United States citizens who
53:07 are reported to be in custody because of privacy restrictions that you all are well familiar
53:13 with, I can't comment on those cases in detail other than to say that whenever a United States
53:18 citizen is arrested overseas, we seek consular access and we would do that in any circumstance.
53:24 QUESTION: But you have sought consular access for these people who are reported to be —
53:29 MR PRICE: So I don't know if I can say that without violating the privacy rules in every
53:34 —
53:35 QUESTION: Well, either you have or you haven't.
53:36 But there —
53:37 MR PRICE: But you know the rule, which we —
53:38 QUESTION: You've been told – I get it.
53:39 MR PRICE: We have to go get a privacy waiver before we can say that.
53:40 I know it's —
53:41 QUESTION: You have to go get a privacy act waiver —
53:42 MR PRICE: It's apparently the law, so I'm going to follow it.
53:43 QUESTION: But even before – even before – had the Congolese notified you that there
53:48 are two American citizens who have been arrested?
53:51 MR PRICE: So due to these privacy restrictions, there's not much more I can say today.
53:55 But hold on —
53:56 QUESTION: They have to do it under the Vienna Convention, for that to be —
53:57 MR PRICE: But I hope to be able to say more, as we often are able to do in these cases
54:00 as we work through these issues.
54:02 QUESTION: And then on the guy who apparently died, what do you mean you don't have any
54:07 record of him being a U.S. citizen?
54:08 MR PRICE: We don't have a record of him being a U.S. citizen.
54:10 QUESTION: How about an LPR?
54:11 How about —
54:12 MR PRICE: I mean, often that – oftentimes that's harder to establish, if someone's
54:16 an LPR or not, the different ways to look at the question.
54:19 We don't – but I – so – but I can say with respect to citizenship, we do not
54:22 believe – do not believe, do not have any record of him being a citizen.
54:25 QUESTION: Okay.
54:26 And then on the other question, which is about Syria, do you have anything to say about the
54:30 death of an American citizen in Syrian – in Syria over – apparently, or it was just
54:35 announced over the weekend?
54:36 MR PRICE: So first of all, we saw the statement the Khamenei family put out over the weekend,
54:41 and our hearts go out to them at this difficult time.
54:44 I will just say that we have engaged extensively to try to bring Majd Kamal Maaz home, and
54:49 we remain committed to seeking a full accounting of his fate.
54:54 Would that wrap it up?
54:55 QUESTION: Can I follow up?
54:56 MR PRICE: One more, yeah, and then we'll go.
54:57 QUESTION: On the tariff, was he – he was never determined wrongfully detained?
55:01 Can you say what status he was given, if anything?
55:04 MR PRICE: So he wasn't determined to be wrongfully detained.
55:07 I don't have a full understanding of it.
55:09 I know that some of it has to do with not being acknowledged by the Syrian Government,
55:16 and some of it has to do with a status that he had already been assigned before the Levinson
55:20 Act passed.
55:21 Some of this gets into bureaucratic questions, but it did not change our work to try to seek
55:27 a full accounting for his status, and that work continues.
55:31 So with that, we'll wrap for today.
55:32 Thanks, everyone.
55:33 QUESTION: Thank you.
55:33 MR PRICE: Thank you.
55:38 [BLANK_AUDIO]