# Chad - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 25, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024																																																					April 25, 2024																																																								1:19 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: How is everyone doing? I don’t have any comments at the top. Olivia, would you like to start us off?QUESTION: Sure. It’s lonely up here today.MR PATEL: I know.QUESTION: I’ll start you off with something &#8212;MR PATEL: Your colleagues in the wire services must be – like, there must be a great food truck out there or something, wherever they are. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I wanted to start with – so tomorrow will mark one week since Secretary Blinken said that he had made determinations regarding a review of potential Leahy Law violations by Israeli military units before October 7th. He said at the time that we would see the result in the coming days, and I’m just wondering if you have an update on the timing of such an announcement or unveiling.MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates for you on timing. What I can say – and you’ve heard me say this before – is that we take extensive steps to fully implement the Leahy Law for all countries that receive – that receive applicable U.S. assistance. That, of course, includes Israel, with whom we have a longstanding security relationship. The Leahy Law also has clear legal standards, and the department applies those to all countries.In terms of process, you saw the Secretary address this not just in Capri, but when he was here in the briefing room on Monday, that we will have more to share, I’m sure, in the time ahead, but I don’t have anything for you beyond that.QUESTION: Okay. When the National Security Advisor was asked yesterday about reports in the Israeli media that the U.S. may reverse course and not actually issue any punitive action in association with these determinations, he deferred to this building. So I wanted to present the question to you, and whether you have any response to those reports in Israeli media that the U.S. may not actually take punitive action.MR PATEL: Look, we – in any country in which we have a security relationship, we will apply the tenets of the Leahy Law fully. The law is pretty clear in terms of what those standards are, and those standards are applied across the board to every country in which we have a security relationship with. That will be the case anywhere where we find there to be action or activity that is in violation of the Leahy Law. I’m not going to speak specifically about any particular country, as that would be very much before the process, but we have every intention to fully enforce and implement this law where it is applicable.QUESTION: Okay. I have two questions on the region, and then one on Africa.MR PATEL: Why don’t you start with – stick with the region, and then we’ll work the room and then come back to other parts of the world.QUESTION: Sounds good.MR PATEL: I will get to you Said, just as I have done every day that I’ve been up here. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, which we understand was being reviewed by the FBI yesterday, I’m just wondering if you can say today whether that video was authenticated or any new information derived from that review.MR PATEL: I imagine the FBI is still undertaking their analysis and undertaking whatever steps that they – are involved with them, in close coordination with the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. What I will use this opportunity to do is just echo again that it is high time that every hostage be released. There has been a deal on the table that Hamas continues to move the goalposts for. And so we would stress the dire circumstance and the dire importance for this to be done, and to be done so immediately. The fact – going back to October 7th, we have been clear and clear-eyed about the fact that every hostage needs to be released.But on this specific video, this is deeply troubling, horrific, but I don’t have any other specifics on the circumstances around the video or the individual, beyond saying that Hersh should be home, he should be with his family, and he should be released.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: And the last one is on Rafah. And there’s this swirling commentary and developments, again, overseas as to whether something is imminent or not. I’m wondering whether you’ve gotten any clarity from Israeli officials about the plan, whether an actual plan for humanitarian or military operations has been presented; and if not, is there one on the books in the foreseeable future?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on our engagements, specific engagements with the Israeli Government. You saw last week the Strategic Consultative Group had a meeting with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and others. These conversations will continue to be ongoing. I – my understanding is that subject matter and technical experts will continue to have meetings at their level. But beyond that, we continue to not hesitate about being clear-eyed about any opposition that we have as it relates to a military operation in Rafah that does not address for the very serious humanitarian concerns that we have, that you’ve heard me talk about, you’ve heard Matt talk about, Ambassador Satterfield just the other day as well.QUESTION: Thank you. One more if – when you can.MR PATEL: Yeah. Nadia, go ahead.QUESTION: I want to ask you about a colleague of yours, Hala Rharrit, who was the most senior spokesperson in the region and a diplomat who served the State Department for 18 years in different places – Hong Kong, Yemen, South Africa. She resigned, and basically she said that she’s been calling the administration to restricting in arms to Israel. She’s resigning in protest about your policy towards Israel. And she warned of that this policy will endanger diplomats like herself and U.S. troops in the region; it’s against U.S. interests in the region.So what’s your message to somebody like her, and many in the State Department, that the normal channel that you give them to express their opposition and their views is not going anywhere? It’s basically they’re just allowing them to speak but there is no change of policy.MR PATEL: So let me say a couple of things there, Nadia. First and foremost, we’re talking about a personnel matter, so I’m not going to delve into the specifics.QUESTION: But this person, she’s an official.MR PATEL: We’re talking about a personnel matter, and so this is something that I’m not going to speak about specifically. I have seen the reports. On someone’s decision to remain working for the U.S. Government or not, that is ultimately &#8212;(Video plays in background.)MR PATEL: Do you want to turn that off, whoever’s got this briefing on speaker?QUESTION: Apologies.MR PATEL: Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I lost my train of thought.QUESTION: It’s okay, you can start again.MR PATEL: As it relates to this personnel matter, I’m not going to speak to the specifics. But look, firstly, we have been – there is a process, there are channels that we’ve spent a lot of time in this briefing room talking about for which our workforce can share their points of view when they disagree with a certain policy or a certain action that the U.S. Government is taking. You’ve heard us talk about the dissent channel; that option, that channel continues to be in place. The Secretary reads every single one of those dissent channel cables and dissenting viewpoints from across the administration. We continue to welcome them and we think that it helps lead to stronger, more robust policy making. And the Secretary wants to hear differing points of views. He believes it makes him a better, stronger leader of this department, and a better and stronger policy maker.Ultimately, anybody’s decision on whether they want to continue to be – remain employed somewhere or not, that is ultimately a decision for them to make. That’s not anything for us to speak to. That’s a very personal process.What I can say that when we’re talking about the region: We are very clear-eyed about our goals and what we want. We want to see the hostages released. We want to see a ceasefire that is coupled with the release of hostages and the influx of humanitarian aid to continue to help alleviate the ongoing crisis that is in Gaza. We also want to see Hamas defeated. We want to ensure that Gaza can no longer be a launching pad for terrorism against the Israeli people. All of these things we want to see happen, and we are working tirelessly day in, day out to achieve this goal.And lastly, I’ll just say, Nadia, when it comes to the safety and security of our diplomats, this Secretary has no higher priority than that, and that is factored into our decision making when it comes to any kind of foreign policy that we pursue, whether it be in the Middle East or whether it be in other corners of the world.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday the Israeli prime minister called for a crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters in the United States of America. Do you find this to be a gross, I mean, a galling interference in American affairs, especially from a leader of a country that had just received $26 billion of American taxpayer money? Do you find that to be annoying or in any way interfering in the affairs of the American public and criticizing their right to demonstrate?MR PATEL: Well, Said, I will leave it to the prime minister’s office to offer any clarification on his comments, but I don’t believe he called for a crackdown. Let me just say, though, that &#8212;QUESTION: He literally called for a – he literally called for a crackdown.MR PATEL: Let’s be – let’s be real about the facts, Said &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: &#8212; which is that in the aftermath of October 7th, we are very much seeing a surge in antisemitism across the world.QUESTION: Right. I’m not trying to &#8212;MR PATEL: And its tragedy demands action.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Beyond that, though, we of course support the right of anybody to peacefully protest, to demonstrate, to make their voices heard, to express themselves in a peaceful and nonviolent way.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: However, we also believe that harmful rhetoric – rhetoric whether it be rooted in antisemitism, Islamophobia – is incredibly problematic &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: &#8212; and needs to be condemned and called out against. But beyond that, as it relates to the individual policies that are being pursued in dealing with these demonstrations on individual college campuses, I would defer to the local jurisdictions to speak to that.QUESTION: I understand everything that you said, but I am asking you – there’s a foreign leader who’s saying that American law enforcement, including the National Guard, ought to crack down on Americans exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I’m asking you on this particular issue – not on October 7, not on all this that happened. I’m asking you: Do you find this to be appalling by a foreign leader in direct interference in the way Americans conduct themselves?MR PATEL: A leader can call on whatever they’d like, Said, but it’s – no one is naïve to the fact that utilization of the National Guard is ultimately a decision up to individual governors.QUESTION: I understand, but &#8212;MR PATEL: And so beyond that, the prime minister is welcome to make whatever comments he’d like. When it comes to what is happening in this country, we’re going to remain focused on that.And specifically on some of the spread of antisemitism that we’re seeing, this is something that this President takes incredibly seriously, and that’s why he has implemented the first-ever national strategy to combat antisemitism. Other kinds of harmful, hurtful rhetoric that we have been seeing as well in the aftermath of October 7th, rooted in Islamophobia, rooted in stigmatism around Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans – that is also equally problematic and needs to be condemned as well.QUESTION: Yes. I &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up &#8212;QUESTION: No, no. Hold it. Please, I am not done. I’m not done. I am not done.QUESTION: I wanted a quick follow-up.QUESTION: Hey, I’m not done. Please, I’m not done. I want to ask you – I understand. I understand the need to combat the despicable antisemitism and so on. I understand what the President is doing. I’m asking you: Do you reject the fact that a foreign leader is saying that the demonstrations ought to be put out – ought to be cracked down upon? That’s what I’m asking you. Do you reject that?MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, you reject people – I mean, you reject the U.S. Government cracking down on peaceful demonstrators, correct? Correct? You reject that?MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, this is part of what America is all about. I’m asking you, do you reject the interference of a foreign leader calling for the crackdown on full American citizens exercising their basic rights, their First Amendment right, to demonstrate? That’s what I’m asking you.MR PATEL: Look, the prime minister was commenting on something happening in this country.QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: I will say over the course of this &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not asking what the prime minister said. I’m asking you. You are here, representing the Government of the United States of America. And I’m asking you, you as an officer of this government, of this administration: Do you reject the interference of a foreign leader saying that you must crack down on Americans exercising their right to demonstrate? It’s a very simple question.MR PATEL: I wouldn’t equate that to interfering, Said. It is someone saying something. Ultimately, anybody who has a modicum of basic understanding of how the National Guard and how local law enforcement works, that ultimately – and since we’re talking about the National Guard, that that is a decision up to individual governments. Just like you all ask me about things that are happening in countries around the world &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; you ask the Secretary; you ask the President about events that are happening in countries around the world. We’re seeing leaders from around the world offer their comments on things that are happening in the United States. But when it comes to the actioning on those items, there are procedures in place. Ultimately these individual campuses can speak to what safety protocols that they have in place to ensure that students, faculty, and others are kept safe.What I am saying in a broad sense is that rhetoric that is rooted in antisemitism, rhetoric that is rooted in Islamophobia, rhetoric that is rooted in targeting individuals for – simply for just who they are is unacceptable. And we have seen that in some of these demonstrations. There is no doubting that fact either, Said.QUESTION: Right. Well &#8212;MR PATEL: Now I’ve taken a couple of questions on this. You’ve got a bunch of colleagues &#8212;QUESTION: No, I have a couple more questions. But I have one last comment. Don’t you feel offended by the fact that a foreign leader is trying to fan the flames against Palestinian Americans in this country? That’s exactly what he’s doing. You don’t feel offended by that?MR PATEL: Said, that is not how I would interpret the prime minister’s comments, and I defer you to his office to offer any clarification about what he said.QUESTION: Hold on. What about &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So on Monday, you released – a follow up on this – you released the human rights violations report, listing human rights violations in other countries, including violence against journalists, violations of like freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. But yesterday, in this country, at Texas University – we saw the footage circulated on social media showing violence against a journalist. There were also violence against protestors. Do you think that this undermines your human rights message in other parts of the world, in other countries?MR PATEL: So let’s just be pretty clear about what the Human Rights Report is and what it isn’t. It’s a congressionally mandated, statutorily required report that this department is required to put out on an assessment of human rights conditions set out around the world. It’s an assessment of the human rights conditions in other countries. There are a variety of other entities – please don’t interrupt me – there are a variety of other entities out there within this government whose job is to look at policies and procedures as they relate domestically. That is not the remit of this department.What I can say about the incident in Texas is that the administration is still learning more about these events. Of course, you’ve heard me say that peaceful protests are, of course, acceptable, and we fully appreciate and encourage Americans expressing their First Amendment rights and making their opinions heard in a peaceful, nonviolent way. But hate speech, violent rhetoric, including antisemitic or Islamophobic remarks targeting people for who they are is unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Do you think the U.S. should set an example to other countries when it is preparing Human Rights Reports every year?MR PATEL: We do not hold any country to a standard that we would not hold ourselves to. And that has – we feel that firmly and adamantly. And let me just say that we had this – iteration of this conversation a lot, dating back to October 7th. When it comes to the diplomacy that Secretary Blinken has been undertaking, having gone to the region now seven times, it is no surprise that there are countries and regional partners out there that might have a slightly different opinion on the policy that is being pursued as it relates to Gaza, that might have a different opinion on certain actions that the Government of Israel may or may not be taking. But in every single one of those countries, what they continue to stress to us is the indispensability of American engagement and American leadership. They want us at the table. They want us engaged. They want us part of the conversation when it comes to finding, determining a durable solution that’s going to bring greater peace and security into the region.Willy, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Appreciate it. Back to the protests, is this – you’re just a few blocks away from here of the consequences of what happens in this building, of the – of U.S. foreign policy are being played out on the campus of George Washington University. Is there a sense within this department that there is – some people are – and this might be perhaps too far a reach, but this is a Vietnam moment among this younger generation of Americans directly related to U.S. foreign policy. Is there any kind of influence that’s happening on these streets that’s – are their voices reaching the Secretary? Are they reaching people here inside this building?MR PATEL: Absolutely. When it comes to the voices within this workforce who may have dissenting or differing points of view, the Secretary is interested in that kind of feedback; he’s interested in their points of view. And I will just say that since October 7th, this department has engaged in a number of different ways with the various components of our workforce, with various components of our employee groups, for those who may be in the Foreign Service or Civil Service, including those who might be appointees. We have prioritized not just engaging with these various subsectors of our workforce, but also unlocking and showcasing and prioritizing resources that might be available for these various – for our workforce to help cope with and deal with what we all know and find to be a very deeply troubling and challenging time in the world.As it relates to what is happening on college campuses, of course, we see what’s happening there too. But we’re also not naïve to the fact that when it comes to any of the foreign policy that we pursue, a hundred percent of the population is not going to agree with what we’re trying to accomplish. But we are clear-eyed in the fact that what we’re trying to pursue is in the best interest for the American people, and it is in the best interest of the national security of the American people. The things that we’re talking about – the defeat of Hamas, a two-state solution, increased humanitarian aid, further regional peace and stability when it comes to the Middle East – all of these things are in the interest of the American people, and we are continuing to pursue those lines of efforts. That is why the Secretary has been going back and forth between the region, meeting with partners in other parts of the world to talk about these very challenging issues and how we are going to work collectively to find a solution. That’s what all of this is about.Go ahead, with the glasses.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: The Gaza civil service today held a press conference this morning, which was televised, and they said that evidence showed that many of those pulled out from the three mass graves that they found, including children, were tortured before being killed. Some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity that they accused Israeli forces of. They called for an independent forensic investigation. This administration repeatedly says that it asked Israel – the Israeli Government – to investigate itself.As a mediator for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, how does it ever make sense that the United States asked the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust? What’s wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation? I mean, if there – if the results of such an independent investigation prove the accusations to be baseless, then that would be in Israel’s favor, wouldn’t it?MR PATEL: So as it relates to the continued reporting about – we’re seeing about these mass graves, first, National Security Advisor Sullivan spoke a little bit about this yesterday, but we continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that’s why yesterday you saw the National Security Advisor call for this to be thoroughly investigated. We want to see these facts looked into. And simultaneously, we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. The IDF has spoken to this in some sense already, but we are continuing to press them for additional information.QUESTION: But why not have an independent, forensic scientific – which the Palestinians are calling for?MR PATEL: We think this does need to be thoroughly investigated, but in terms of the modality, we continue to want to see some additional information from the Government of Israel before we make other assessments.QUESTION: But you’re asking the accused to investigate itself.MR PATEL: We believe that through a thorough investigation, we can get some additional answers. We’re also hoping to continue to get more information from the Government of Israel on this.QUESTION: But to his &#8212;MR PATEL: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: On the humanitarian side of this subject, is there a vetted – a list of vetted NGOs that can deliver aid through the – via the Mediterranean route right now? And the reason I’m asking is because apparently the Freedom Flotilla was delayed for a few days over there, although apparently now they do have a date to deliver their aid, and it was said that the delay was due to U.S. and Israeli and also German pressure.MR PATEL: So first, when it comes to humanitarian partners in the region, there are a number of those that have been operating there already and have a full sense of the scope of the situation on the ground, whether it be bodies within the UN, World Food Program, et cetera. As it relates to the Freedom Flotilla, look, we welcome any country or any entity wanting to do more to help alleviate the suffering in Gaza. We just believe that this kind of assistance that is ultimately destined for Gaza, it needs to be transmitted through the legitimate crossings and established channels. That is the best way to ensure the safety and security of not just the aid but also the safety and security of the workers who are involved in the implementation of this delivery and ensuring that the aid gets to the places that it needs to go.Michael, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. First, I want to thank you and your staff for putting together a great Take Your Child to Work Day program this morning. It was really appreciated by a lot of people.MR PATEL: Our pleasure.QUESTION: And with your indulgence and as we discussed, I have a question for you and then we’ll have a second question from over here.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: My question is that yesterday, House Speaker Johnson said on a talk radio show that he had received an emailed written assurance from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan regarding an assurance that U.S. aid that had been passed by Congress in the supplemental would not be restricted from an Israeli battalion that is reportedly being considered for penalty under the Leahy Law. So my question to you is: Has there been any assurance by the White House that would restrict the terms of any Leahy Law finding that the department might reach about that particular unit?MR PATEL: Sure. So, first, I’m just not going to speak to the specifics about our correspondence with members of Congress and congressional leadership. What I can say about the Leahy Law and how it works is that it is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a particular country. What it is – when something is found to be in violation of the Leahy Law, what it is is a restriction of the provision of applicable U.S. assistance on that particular unit or component under the umbrella of that security apparatus. So whatever may or may not happen is not – does not have bearing on the longstanding security relationship we may have with that country. It would be – if we are to find a violation, it would be a restriction on a particular unit or component.I think your junior advisor might have a question.QUESTION: Thank you. Yeah, with the indulgence of my colleagues – Calvin, do you want to ask a question?QUESTION: I know we’re talking about Gaza right now, but what, like, kind of weapons – do they have like – does Ukraine have enough weapons to, like, defend themself for, like, right now?MR PATEL: That’s such a great question. That’s such a great question, and I’m so glad you asked that, Calvin. I think your dad missed the daily press briefing yesterday, but that’s all right – (laughter) – where we announced this, but we were really happy on the heels of &#8212;QUESTION: I was watching online, Vedant. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: I think we’re – we were really happy that on the heels of the national security supplemental that President Biden signed, that we were the same day able to announce $1 billion for Ukraine, additional security assistance that included arms, training, and other kinds of military assistance around – related to these drawdowns. Some examples of what were part of that package included Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and additional rounds, high-mobility artillery rocket systems, 105mm artillery rounds, and 60mm mortar rounds. All of these things, Calvin, are part of our longstanding effort that has been in place since February of 2022 to continue supporting our Ukrainian partners as they defend themselves against Russia’s incursion on their territorial integrity and sovereignty.Go ahead. Next – yeah. Yes, you.QUESTION: Thanks. On Georgia – so today, the European &#8212;MR PATEL: Oh, can we – I think we’ve got a couple requests to stay in the Middle East, and then we’ll come right &#8212;QUESTION: I have four more questions on Israel. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: All right – go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: On the Mideast, just two things I’m trying to get an answer for. One of the thing is this country prides itself on the First Amendment right, which is the freedom of expression, and in this – what we see now in this polarization and the protest movement in the universities – how can the State Department send a clear message that people have the right to protest peacefully and criticize Israel legitimately but not being labeled as antisemitic? Because this antisemitic things have been used loosely for anybody who criticize Israel, considering that most of – a large number of the demonstrators are Jewish. The Jewish voices for peace are demonstrating in universities, whether it’s in Columbia, in D.C., or elsewhere. So this is a message that have been used by lawmakers in Congress and also when – other people here, whether you hear it on TV or in American media. So how can you send a message to say that it is legitimate to criticize Israel, but it’s not, obviously, everybody condemn antisemitism or Islamophobia as it stands? This is – it’s not even open for question. This is we know – this is a message that’s been repeated over and over again. But how can you separate the two? That’s what I want to get to the bottom of.MR PATEL: Well, Nadia, we believe that the two issues are incredibly separate. Let me just say, though, that what you’re asking about is not totally or necessarily in the remit of the State Department. I certainly understand your question, and in answering yours and your colleagues’ questions about the demonstrations and protests that we’re seeing, I’m certainly not implying that any kind of criticism or critique of any kind of policy that a particular government is pursuing or not pursuing is equitable to antisemitism or Islamophobia or anything like that.But it is true also, Nadia, that as part of these demonstrations happening on various college campuses, happening in various places, we have seen rhetoric, language, commentary that is incendiary, that is offensive, that is rooted in antisemitism. And we’ve also seen things in the same place that is rooted in Islamophobia or the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans. That’s not hyperbole, that is – I needn’t point you any further than the public reporting of what we’re seeing at – as these demonstrations.It is totally fair and on the level for anybody to use their First Amendment rights to express their point of view peacefully on a particular foreign policy that the United States might be pursuing, that any government on the face of this planet might be pursuing. But it is also a moral imperative to ensure that in the midst of those demonstrations and in part of that process, charged, offensive language does not become part of that discourse.QUESTION: Sure. And finally, how can you avoid being accused of double standard if you condemn the Iranian regime for cracking down on peaceful demonstrators and you refuse to condemn another leader – in this case, a friend, an ally, Israel – who is calling on you to crack down on – the U.S. crack down on peaceful demonstrators?MR PATEL: Look, Nadia, again, as it relates to these calls for use of the National Guard, whether it be from a foreign leader or from others within the U.S. Government &#8212;QUESTION: Or the Speaker of the House.MR PATEL: &#8212; these are ultimate decisions for individual governors to make. It’s not really something that we would have a role in from the Executive Branch. Beyond that, as it relates to the National Guard, also I’m sure my colleagues at the Defense Department can speak to some of this specifically.I will also say that there is not any moral equivalency, Nadia, between what we see the Iranian regime do – they are one of the biggest abusers and perpetrators of violations of human rights going back decades – versus a foreign leader opining on things that may or may not be happening in a country, which is something I do from up here, the Secretary does, the President does, Matt does. All the spokespeople in this administration who speak on topics of foreign policy are asked about topics happening in other parts of the world.QUESTION: Can I follow up &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Sure. Sure.QUESTION: Okay. David Satterfield, Envoy David – in his last appearance warned that there is a strong possibility of famine in the north of Gaza. Yesterday Gian Carlo Cirri, the head of the WFP, he says we are six weeks away from famine. Are you aware of these reports, and what is the position of the United States in terms of having some sort of urgent plan to deal with this?MR PATEL: Well, Said, I’m pretty sure I’m aware of these reports because I was standing right there when David Satterfield said them.QUESTION: Right. Right.MR PATEL: You saw the ambassador speak pretty clearly about the positive steps that we are seeing on the humanitarian ecosystem, things that we believe are moving in the right direction – some gates opening up, some ports opening up, some additional flows of trucks. But I cannot stress this enough – and I’m sure if the ambassador was here with me, he would not – he would say the same thing – more needs to be done. Absolutely more needs to be done to avert this pending crisis in Gaza. We need more deconfliction mechanisms in place; we need aid entering at a higher rate. We need all of these things to happen, and we’ll continue to push our partners in Israel, we’ll continue to push other partners and other humanitarian actors to do so.I will also just use this opportunity that – to note that just this morning we announced Lisa Grande as our new special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues. She has more than three decades of experience on working on these kinds of challenging, large-scale, complex operations. She’s done so for the United Nations. She joins us just coming from the U.S. Institute of Peace. We’re very eager for her to get started immediately. I believe today was her first day, and I know she will continue to build on the foundation that Ambassador Satterfield and his team laid.QUESTION: Will she be contacting WFP on this very issue?MR PATEL: I have no doubt that she will be engaging directly and immediately with the variety of humanitarian partners that we work with on this.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. So a few months ago we were told that the United States is waiting for the internal investigation report by Indian Government on assassination attempt of Gurpatwant Singh Pannum New York. Now when this report is out, India admits the involvement of their agents in that assassination attempt, but we don’t have – we don’t see any trial or punishments. So what is your comment on this report, and how would you make Indian Government accountable of these crimes?MR PATEL: So I’m not aware of the report that you’re referencing. But look, we have – this is ultimately a Department of Justice matter, and I will defer to them and let them speak to this.QUESTION: Sir, Australian journalist says she is being pushed out of India. Avani Dias said that she had been denied a visa renewal for weeks because of her reporting on Sikh separatist movement. Do you have any comment on the free speech in India?MR PATEL: So look, the Government of India can speak to its own visa policy. That’s not something I’m going to opine on from here. Broadly, we have been clear with countries around the world the integral role that a free press plays in the fabric of democracy. That’s why we come up here and take questions regularly. But I will let the officials in India speak to the specific &#8212;QUESTION: So my last question, if you allow me.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Sir, after these sanctions on suppliers to Pakistan ballistic missile program, we can see some kind of tensions in both the countries. We have seen some, like, very harsh statements from Pakistani Government officials. Is there something going on between U.S. and Pakistan right now?MR PATEL: Absolutely not. You’ve heard me say this before: Pakistan continues to be one of our most important partners in the region. There continues to be a lot of cooperation that we have with the Government of Pakistan, especially in the security space, especially in the trade sector. Azi, I think it was you that asked about a week and a half ago about the finance minister who was here holding consultations with members of the State Department. This is a robust relationship and we’ll look to continue strengthening it.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple things for you on Russia and the region, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Before that on housekeeping. The department’s Global Engagement Center, its funding didn’t make it through the supplemental. What is the Secretary’s view on that? Are you guys trying to reauthorize it, or where’s the policy?MR PATEL: So the – first, the Global Engagement Center, my understanding is that it is another congressionally mandated entity of the State Department. They continue to do important work, especially in the face of combatting disinformation and misinformation in other parts of the world. As it relates to additional congressional engagements about funding levels for programs within the State Department, I just don’t – I don’t have that level of technical breakdown for you.QUESTION: Please take it for me if &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: And what level of concern on potential Russian attempts to disrupt European elections? We just recently had the Czech Republic uncovering Russian operation inside Czech Republic and targeting elections across Europe. Now elections are coming up. Any concern on your end?MR PATEL: This is something that we have engaged directly on with our partners in Europe on, particularly our partners in the EU, about being clear-eyed about when it comes to any kind of potential election interference from adversarial actors like the Russian Federation. I don’t have a specific assessment to offer for you, Alex, but this is something that both we and our partners in Europe have been engaged on directly.QUESTION: Thank you. Picking up off on Calvin’s question on supplemental &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure. Let me finish Alex, then I’ll come to you, and then we’ve probably got to wrap shortly after that. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Yeah, on supplemental that Calvin asked about.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Portion of it is about frozen assets, and you already probably have heard about Russian deputy foreign minister today threaten the United States by saying that if you follow through that law, then we’re going to shut down our embassy in Washington, D.C. If they want to leave, is it time for the U.S. to say “be my guest?”MR PATEL: I appreciate you giving that opportunity, Alex, but let me just say that when it comes to sovereign assets, these are things that we’re continuing to pursue through our partners in the G7. And we are assessing what options and avenues are feasibly possible in the various legal and judicial systems that exist in the various countries that make up our coalition, and I just don’t want to get ahead of the process. We’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Israel?MR PATEL: Georgia. Go ahead.QUESTION: Georgia. Thank you. Today the European Parliament voted to reject opening EU accession talks with Georgia while the Russian draft law is in place, and also urged the EU and all its partners to consider sanctions. As I have information, there is a serious discussion in Congress on how to react to the actions of the Georgian Government as well. Can you confirm that, or do you have any close and real serious discussion with the Congress on this matter?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to comment on any consultations on Congress. But look, we’ve spent a number of weeks now talking about this draft law, and I will echo what you’ve heard me say before: We find the contents of this legislation incredibly troubling. It is akin to the kinds of legislation that we see in the Kremlin and in other countries in the world who have a track record of cracking down on media organizations, cracking down on civil society actors, cracking down on nonprofits. We think that this kind of legislation is inconsistent with the EU’s own stated goals, which is something aspirationally Georgia itself has stated it’s interested in.QUESTION: Israel.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, thanks.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: How has the signing of the law yesterday, which included the TikTok measure, changed the Secretary and State Department officials’ conversations in China, or has it?MR PATEL: I would say it’s not. The – it’s not changed, because this has been a longstanding position of not just this President but also Secretary Blinken, the contents – or the specific legislative contours of that provision. We’ve been clear about the substance of our national security concerns, and I just want to reiterate: This is not about the American people using TikTok; it is about ownership of TikTok by the People’s Republic of China. And that is why we agreed with this call for divestment because it’s clear that we have to ensure that the data, the privacy of the American people is not owned by an adversarial actor that could potentially use it against us.But look, behavior and actions like this from the PRC have always been part of our conversations in our ongoing relationship with them, and I have no doubt that these things will continue to come up. But this has been a longstanding position for – you – I’m pretty sure you saw the President came out almost very quickly after this provision was first introduced, basically saying that he would sign this should it pass, which he obviously did.Yeah.QUESTION: And does the U.S. think that the PRC’s position or objections to the potential of banning an app somewhat – somewhat hypocritical?MR PATEL: I’m not going to opine on it or categorize it from here, but our view is that there’s some clear runway here on what TikTok is – should be able to do. It provides for 270 days for a qualified divestment with a potential extension for another 90. And as it relates to the PRC’s claims that they wouldn’t allow something like this to happen, we believe that it should and we believe that this divestment should move forward.Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Follow-up on this. As far as TikTok is concerned, India has banned already two years ago. Why it’s taking so long for the United States when everybody knows that this is a national security threat? And if anybody from the department have spoken with the Chinese Communist Party or Chinese leaders about this, and what’s behind – there’s a lobby or somebody is benefiting from this and that’s why they don’t care about the national security issues in the U.S.?MR PATEL: So I will leave it to our partners in India to speak to their own efforts, but what I can say about the United States is that legislation is not the only sort of safeguard measure that we have when it comes to protecting things like our privacy and cyber security. I will just say when it comes to government devices and government assets, there has been a longstanding policy of the inability to use TikTok on those kinds of devices to ensure safety in the cyber security and tech space. So there’s a number of things like that in place to make sure that we’re protected.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Second question, sir.MR PATEL: I’m going to – I’m going to work the room, right &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL:  &#8212; and then Olivia, and then we probably have to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: So there are reports that U.S. military personnel are expected to leave Chad in the coming days, possibly as soon as this weekend. Can you say whether there are any diplomatic efforts underway to stop that from happening? And then more broadly, is the department working at all on an urgent basis to quell what appears to be this swell of pro-Russian, anti-American sentiment coursing throughout significant counterterrorism partners like Chad?MR PATEL: Yeah, let me – let me address that in two parts. So first, our military deployments anywhere around the world, they operate at the invitation and with the support and partnership of host nations. U.S. forces in Chad have supported regional and international counterterrorism operations against violent extremism in the Sahel and the Lake Chad region for years now. We are in ongoing conversations with Chadian officials about our security partnership. Our understanding is that Chad is focused on preparing for its upcoming presidential elections on May 6th, and so we anticipate these consultations and the parameters and discussions around our security cooperation will continue and grow in the ensuing time after those presidential elections.And as it relates to your broader question, we have been clear that the U.S. has a deep commitment to expand our partnerships with – between the United States and African countries, African institutions, and the people of Africa. This was a key pillar of the African Leaders Summit that was held about a year and a half ago. One of the key things that we continue to remain focused on, especially in the West African and Sahel region, is the security partnership, a focus on counterterrorism, and again, our military deployments there are at the invitation and in the support and partnership of these host countries. And we’re going to remain focused on working with additional partners, seeking out additional partnerships, and doing what we can to focus on these issues of security as well as overcoming economic and other development challenges as well.QUESTION: Is there any redoubling or intensification of efforts just given recent developments?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific engagements to read out. What I can say is that Deputy Secretary Campbell I expect to travel to the region in the coming months, specifically in the context of Niger, to continue to have these kinds of conversations and to continue to strengthen our relationships there.All right. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Chad																								China																								Czech Republic																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 17, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 17, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 17, 2024																																																					April 17, 2024																																																								1:11 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. How’s everyone doing? Such a wonderful Wednesday. I don’t actually have anything off the top, Matt, so if you want to go ahead and kick us off.QUESTION: Sure. In Capri, is the Secretary &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah. Do you wish you were there?QUESTION: I do wish I was there, but I’m not.MR PATEL: Yeah, same all of us. We can all pretend to be in Capri. We’re here at the Daily Press Briefing instead.QUESTION: Does the Secretary, while he is there, plan to have any Mideast – other than the one group meeting with the G7 that’s about the Middle East, does he have any bilateral plans?MR PATEL: I don’t have any additional meetings to preview or get ahead of, Matt. But a veteran like yourself, who I’m sure has been to many G7 meetings, knows that many important diplomatic conversations happen on the margins, and our G7 partners continue to be important allies and partners when it comes to a lot of our goals when it comes to the conflict in Gaza right now – namely, continuing to press for additional humanitarian aid, doing everything we can to continue to secure the release of hostages, and also, in light of the events over this past weekend, continuing to support Israel’s security and self-defense. So I suspect there will be additional conversations on those topics but I don’t have anything to preview or get ahead of.QUESTION: Okay. And can you bring us up to speed on his – did he have any additional calls on the way?MR PATEL: No other – no additional calls to read out, no.QUESTION: There are not? Okay. And then lastly, what’s your latest understanding from the Israelis about what they intend or not intend to do?MR PATEL: So look, Matt, again I don’t have any updates or anything to offer on that. Ultimately, this is a decision for Israel to make. It’s their own decision. But we continue to be engaged with Israeli officials and members of the Israeli Government. To everyone, though, we continue to emphasize the importance of avoiding further escalation, and we’re working with partners in the region and around the world to continue to create a unified diplomatic response to Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay. Then, sorry, I said that the last one was the last one, but this really is the last one. Is – you’ve seen that both David Cameron and Baerbock, the German and British foreign ministers, were in Israel ahead of the Capri meeting.MR PATEL: Right.QUESTION: The Secretary has no plans to follow suit?MR PATEL: I have no travel updates to offer or preview at the moment.Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: David Cameron said it was clear Israel had made a decision to respond to the Iranian attack. Have you gotten a similar message?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the specifics on our diplomatic engagements with Israeli officials. What I can just say is that, again, these decisions are for Israel to make as a sovereign democratic country. We continue to be closely engaged with Israeli officials, but we also continue to stress the importance of further &#8212; escalation. The United States certainly isn’t interested in getting into an all-out conflict with the Iranian regime. But we’ll continue to work closely with partners and allies in the region, as you saw the Secretary do over the course of this past weekend and with the number of counterparts he spoke to about creating a unified diplomatic response to what we believe is Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior.QUESTION: What contingency plans does the U.S. have to contain the aftermath of any attack should Israel choose to attack?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals or speculate. What I can say, though, is that since October 7th, since the events of this past weekend, we have remained closely lashed up with partners and allies when it comes to events that unfold. This past weekend alone you all saw the call or readouts that went out, and Matt spoke to this a little bit on Monday. You saw the Secretary speak to his counterparts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt. He’s spoken to Israeli officials as well, and we’ll continue to have those high-level diplomatic engagements.QUESTION: Okay. And I’m sorry, I’ve just got two more.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The UN Security Council looks set to go on Friday on a Palestinian request for full UN membership. Diplomats tell us the resolution has the support of at least nine members. Does the U.S. plan to veto this?MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our UN vote. Broadly, though, Daphne, you know that the United States remains committed to a two-state solution, and we believe that the only comprehensive and realistic path to that is through lasting peace and through direct negotiations between the parties. But broadly, we’ll continue to remain engaged with colleagues on the Security Council and on any resolution that may or may not come forward.QUESTION: And then UNRWA has said that some of its staff members and other people detained by Israeli forces in Gaza were subjected to ill treatment, including severe beatings and being forced to strip naked. Have you been in touch with the Israeli Government on this? And what’s been their response if you have?MR PATEL: So we are aware of this recent report that the UN put out highlighting some of these allegations of extensive human rights abuses. We’re deeply concerned by these reports and will continue to press and engage directly with our Israeli partners on the need for a full investigation into these allegations, and accountability for any perpetrators. But beyond that, I don’t have any specific conversations to read out. We of course are in touch with our Israeli partners all the time.But broadly, though, we continue to call on all parties in the region, call on Israel, to do more to protect humanitarian aid workers, to improve deconfliction mechanisms, and to pursue full accountability for incidents of harm against aid workers.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Jenny.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on those deconfliction mechanisms, this coordination response? Is that fully stood up (inaudible)?MR PATEL: That is something our partners in the IDF can speak to. I don’t have any updates.QUESTION: And then do you have any updates on any of their other commitments and whether the U.S. has made any assessments on whether that’s sufficient to change U.S. policy?MR PATEL: So look, Jenny. Let me just first state broadly that we are encouraged by reports of increased assistance flowing into northern Gaza, bakeries reopening there, and other steps that we’re seeing of positive collaboration between partners and Israeli authorities that demonstrate the executions of some commitments that our partners in Israel have outlined. But – and I want to stress this – certainly we continue to believe that there is still a need for sustained, significant, multisectoral humanitarian assistance. We think it’s crucial, and more must be done. And as military operations continue, Israel needs to take all feasible steps to minimize civilian harm.So we’ll continue to press these things, but some metrics that you asked for – we have seen openings of northern crossings and seeing the maximization of routes from Jordan. We have also seen Erez reopened on April 14th, which allowed a number of trucks entering daily. We expect some further enhancements there as well. But again, I want to stress that while these are positive steps in the right direction, more absolutely needs to be done. There is – the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and that is why we are continuing to pursue an approach when it comes to humanitarian aid that includes bolstering and supporting and continuing to push for additional land convoy movements.You saw earlier in March us conduct a number of air drop operations. You’ve seen the Jordanians and others do similar things. And in the State of the Union, the President spoke about the maritime corridor as well. These are all things that we think need to be pursued aggressively given the dire situation, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: And any updates on Rafah?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on any conversations or anything.Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, just a follow-up on your statement earlier about the – your efforts to have a unified response – diplomatic response to Iran’s attack between you and your partners and allies.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is this designed to negate the need for Israel to respond militarily, or regardless of that?MR PATEL: So Israel is going to make its own decisions and its own determinations as a sovereign country. Irregardless of what transpires in that department, we continue to believe that it is important to hold the Iranian regime accountable for what we think is reckless, malign, and destabilizing behavior. You saw National Security Advisor Sullivan speak a little bit to this yesterday, and so we’ll continue to work directly through our systems, multilaterally through forums like the G7 that Matt was alluding to, the UN, and others on ways that we will hold the Iranian regime accountable.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On Thursday, April 11th, the State Department Spokesman Mr. Miller said the Biden administration fully supports the rights of the Israeli people. And for our audience, could you explain a disconnect between the Biden administration’s words and behavior, how on one hand that you can say you fully support the rights of the Israeli people, and on the other hand not fully support the rights of the Israeli people to defend themselves as they see fit? And I have a follow-up.MR PATEL: Do you have a specific example of how we are not encouraging them to defend themselves?QUESTION: Also specifically about not allowing them – or the issue of a counterattack against Iran. And not allowing them to easily go into Rafah to take care of Hamas, delaying this. Israel could have been into Rafah a long time ago. So the audience is really concerned about the disconnect about – that they see the Biden administration preventing Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Doc &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; from going into Rafah with these operations and &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; I’m going to interrupt you a little bit. I think you are in a – frankly, in a misleading way conflating two very different issues. One, in the context of Israel defending itself against attacks from Iran, we believe that they have every right to do that, and they should. And you saw the United States echo, underscore that commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense this past weekend. And that is a commitment we believe is unwavering and it is ironclad, and we will continue to feel and believe strongly in Israel’s ability to defend itself, in its ability to feel secure in its region.But separate from that, in this conversation of Rafah, it is important again that we underline when we’re talking about Rafah, we are talking about more than a million people seeking refuge. We are talking about a region that is – continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and it continues to be an access point of safe departure for foreign nationals.So yes, we believe very strongly that any military operation in Rafah or in the Rafah region should require significant serious planning that addresses these three major areas of concern. That continues to be something we feel strongly about.QUESTION: Along that, our audience (inaudible) are concerned about the pressure on Israel to accept the two-state solution that you were talking about. And so what is your response to our audience that really believes that is a way of hurting Israel when many Israeli people do not support a two-state solution, the idea of sharing their land with terrorists – specifically with Gaza, with Hamas – that Hamas blew their opportunity to really have a peaceful area there and so forth?MR PATEL: Well, I hope you’re not – I really sincerely hope you’re not making the claim that all Palestinian people are terrorists &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, no.MR PATEL: &#8212; because that certainly is not the case. And quite respectfully, I’m less interested in what your audience is interested in and more what we think is good policy and what we think is beneficial to peace and security in the region, and that, we have long felt continues to be a two-state solution. That has been our dire belief prior to the events of October 7th, and it will continue to be so. We think that that is the only credible path forward that assures equal measures of peace and security for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Well, along with that, what do you say to those people that feel pressured to accept that?MR PATEL: I’m going to move around. You’ve gotten three questions already. Will, you’ve your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry, (inaudible). Do you have any update on the investigation into what Israel actually hit in Damascus on April 1st?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on the status of that facility or anything like that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So you support a two-state solution. But it seems you’re also oppose Palestine’s membership at the UN? Do you think this is contradictory?MR PATEL: I don’t think these things are contradictory at all. Again, as it relates to the United Nations, I’m not going to preview our vote. And as I said, we’re continuing to engage with our partners on the Security Council. We remain unwaveringly committed to a two-state solution and continue to feel that the only path forward is a comprehensive lasting peace, is going to be through direct negotiations between the parties. And that continues to be what we think is the best path forward.QUESTION: And when you say a two-state solution, is it like a – is it a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital? What is your understanding of the two-state solution?MR PATEL: So I don’t have a change in definition of how we have been talking about a two-state solution. We’ve been talking about this as a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and of course, the state of Israel, with the boundaries bounded by 1967, I believe mutually agreed upon land swaps as well, with the status of Jerusalem being a final-status negotiation issue.QUESTION: Just one more on Türkiye.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any readout of &#8212;MR PATEL: On Türkiye, you just said?QUESTION: On Türkiye, yeah.MR PATEL: Yeah. Okay.QUESTION: Any readout of Under Secretary John Bass’ travel to Türkiye?MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t, but I’m happy to check and see if we’ve got any additional information there. I know, just to say broadly, Türkiye has been an important partner of ours in a number of key lines of efforts acting Under Secretary Bass – as you all know, used to be ambassador to Türkiye. So he has a lot of deep and close relationships there. I have no doubt that he’s engaging on some important issues, whether it relates to peace and stability in the Middle East but also continuing to engage with our partners in Türkiye on issues relating to NATO and Ukraine.Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions. I have one on Haiti and one on &#8212;MR PATEL: Can we stay in the region and I can try to come back to you?QUESTION: Yeah, I have one for – I have one for the West Bank as well.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: I keep asking this question and trying to rephrase it in regards to the Palestinian Authority. Within the jurisdiction of Area A, does the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian law enforcement have the right to arrest settlers that are attacking Palestinian homes or Palestinians?MR PATEL: That’ll be – that’s a question I would better refer you to the PA and officials within COGAT. I don’t want to get into the specifics of jurisdiction and that level of detail from up here.Go ahead, Jacob.QUESTION: Earlier today, Israel’s COGAT published footage of what it said are contents of 700 trucks worth of humanitarian aid that is sitting on the Gaza side of Kerem Shalom crossing waiting to be delivered. COGAT said it has scaled up its capabilities over the past several weeks, but that the UN has failed to deliver its job in delivering aid. Ambassador Satterfield said last week that the biggest obstacle at this point is UN international agencies bringing more trucks into Gaza in order to distribute the aid. So where does this stand? The U.S. regularly does urge Israel to boost its aid efforts, but are you willing to call on the UN also to improve its capabilities to deliver this aid that’s piling up on the Gaza side of the border.MR PATEL: Look, broadly, the distribution of aid within Gaza continues to be something that we’re working closely on with partners in the UN and partners in other additional humanitarian organizations. That’s something we’re going to continue to work with them closely on because it’s a priority. I don’t have any updates to offer on immediate steps that have been taken publicly, but we think that that’s an important thing that needs to be addressed, and we’ll work closely continuing with the UN.Go ahead.QUESTION: So related to that &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Biden has ordered this pier and it’s going to be set up in the next couple of weeks. Is the State Department confident that you’re going to find the aid groups willing to unload that gear and that – those aid supplies and distribute it?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the process here, but look, when it comes to the distribution of aid within Gaza, we have found partners who have been willing to engage, willing to play a role in the disseminating of that aid, particularly – as Jacob was speaking to – making sure that that aid gets from places like warehouses to its end points within Gaza, and have no doubt that we will continue to be able to find partners to cooperate with when it comes to the maritime corridor. But I don’t want to get ahead of this process.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, do you have any comments on the escalation of fighting between Hizballah and Israel? And do you expect this conflict to be broadened?MR PATEL: We would hope and encourage not, Michel. At every corner, we have stressed our strong desire and importance of making sure that this conflict isn’t widened. We’ve made that clear to our partners in Israel and to other regional interlocutors, and we’ll continue to do so.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: On the region or anything &#8212;QUESTION: If we can switch to &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me stay on the region before I move away.Sam, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. Euro-Med Monitor, human rights monitor, reports that Israel is using drones to lure residents and then shoot them. They explain the sounds of women screaming and babies crying were heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday. When some of the residents went out to investigate and tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli – quadcopter drones. The sounds they heard were in fact records played by the Israeli drones with the intent of forcing the camp residents out into the streets where they could be easily targeted by snipers and other weaponry.MR PATEL: I have not – I have not seen that report, Sam, so I’m not going to comment on it. But broadly – not relating to this particular circumstance at all – because, again, I haven’t seen the report and I’m not sure if it’s accurate or verifiable – at every conversation that we have with our partners in Israel, we continue to stress the moral and strategic imperative that they have to work on deconfliction mechanisms and to ensure that civilian harm is minimized in every which-way possible. And we’ll continue to stress that every way we can.Go ahead.QUESTION: Will you look at this report?MR PATEL: I’m sure we’ll look at this report, Sam. I don’t have any comment for it – on it right now.QUESTION: Do you recognize &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; the Geneva Conventions as applying in this instance?MR PATEL: I’ve answered your question, Sam.QUESTION: No, you haven’t.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: You’ve evaded it, and your colleague deceitfully responded to it. Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: It’s a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions as applying to Gaza?MR PATEL: When you interrupt me that’s not – it’s not a matter of &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not interrupting you. I’m asking for a simple &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to take additional questions.QUESTION: &#8212; simple answer to a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead. You got two questions. I’m &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s totally – no, I didn’t get two questions.MR PATEL: You did. You &#8212;QUESTION: No.MR PATEL: You asked a question about your report &#8212;QUESTION: I asked a question and you didn’t (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; and you asked a follow-up. Please go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’re not – you’re refusing to answer it.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Gaza or not?MR PATEL: Go &#8212;QUESTION: Apply to everywhere on the planet except for the Palestinians; isn’t that right?MR PATEL: We continue &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t that U.S. policy?MR PATEL: &#8212; to stress everywhere – at everywhere that international humanitarian law &#8212;QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: &#8212; needs to be abided by and respected.Go ahead.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: You are now interrupting your colleague. Go ahead.QUESTION: No, I’m interrupting you – I’m not interrupting you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: I’m insisting on an answer to a critical question.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the sanctions &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, so you’re deceiving the American public?QUESTION: &#8212; against Iran. I’d like to ask about the sanctions against Iran.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just broadly speaking, what impact do you think they’ll have? And then I’m just curious – given all of Iran’s bad actions in the past, I was almost surprised that there was room left for any new sanctions. Why is there room left for more sanctions?MR PATEL: So it’s important to take a step back and talk about our sanctions and export controls on Iran in a little bit of a wider context going back to the onset of this administration. It’s important to remember that we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran. Rather, we continue to increase pressure, and our extensive sanctions on Iran remain in place, and we continue to enforce them. And over the last three years, we have actually sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities connected to the full range of Iran’s problematic and dangerous behavior, touching the areas of UAV and missile proliferation, terrorism, terrorist financing, and other forms of illicit trade and human rights abuses.But this is something that we are also going to continue to work closely with our allies and partners, including at the G7, on ways that we can continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime. We believe that our sanctions are effective. They are a way to continue to isolate countries and to exert pressure on them as it relates to their behavior.QUESTION: And the impact on the new sanctions?MR PATEL: Look, I’m not going to preview any additional actions from here, but we continue to believe that should there even additionally be new sanctions that, that continues to be a lever at our disposal to continue to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions.QUESTION: So Vedant, it’s just not true that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran. I went through this with Matt the other day. Shortly after this administration came into office, you did lift restrictions on – sanctions on Iranian diplomats travel inside – when they go to the UN.MR PATEL: I think your colleague was speaking about sanctions in the context of designating entities and individuals connected to the Iranian regime, not necessarily parameters that exist around diplomats in the United States.QUESTION: And that &#8212;MR PATEL: I take your point, Matt. But I think &#8212;QUESTION: And then &#8212;MR PATEL: I think that &#8212;QUESTION: Well, so – but it’s not then true to say that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran, because you have.MR PATEL: I &#8212;QUESTION: And then secondly, you have also – you also allowed several UN sanctions to expire. Now, you guys can put as many sanctions as you want in place against Iran, but they don’t have any impact outside of the U.S. jurisdiction; it doesn’t – there’s no requirement for other countries to follow suit, even when they involve secondary sanctions. So the arms embargo and the missile sanctions from the UN were allowed – they were allowed to expire, correct?MR PATEL: That is – that is – are you talking about the ones in – from August 2020?QUESTION: That were in the JCPOA.MR PATEL: Yeah, correct.QUESTION: They – right. So they expired.MR PATEL: That is correct.QUESTION: So those sanctions, the international sanctions, the UN sanctions, the one that the entire world, everyone in the world is supposed to follow, were in fact lifted. They expired. Correct?MR PATEL: Well, I think there’s a difference between lifting and expiring, but sure, Matt. There is; there’s a technical difference.QUESTION: What?MR PATEL: There is a technical difference between sanctions expiring or sunsetting versus actively making the policy decision to lift certain sanctions.QUESTION: The point is that you could have made an active policy decision on snapback, which would have kept those sanctions in place.MR PATEL: And that is a – that’s a mechanism, the snapback mechanism hasn’t expired, Matt. And it remains in place and it’s an available option.QUESTION: But it hasn’t been used. And in fact, those two things &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview actions from here.QUESTION: Those two things expired. In other words, you allowed them to be lifted, to expire. So it’s a bit disingenuous to say expiring isn’t the same as lifting.MR PATEL: I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. I don’t think – as I said, snapback is a mechanism that &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; continues to remain in place. And again, I think your colleague was referring to sanctions and restrictions in the context of – in the economic sense, not travel restrictions we may have on diplomats, which &#8212;QUESTION: That’s fine, but the way you answered his question &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; Matt touched on a little bit yesterday.QUESTION: &#8212; is we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran, and that’s not true.MR PATEL: Well, we can agree to disagree.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant – shift into a different region, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure. Anything else in the region before we totally shift away?QUESTION: Yeah, in the region.MR PATEL: Are you sure on the region?QUESTION: Yes, yes.MR PATEL: You positive?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Yeah, my question is – sorry – so my question is that there was any – was there any conversation between U.S. diplomats and Chinese diplomats or Russian diplomats about the conflicts between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: Well, you saw the Secretary had a phone conversation with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on the tail end of last week in which – Matt spoke a little bit about this last week as well – in which we continued to stress with them through their means of communicating with the Iranian regime that no one was interested in seeing this conflict escalate. And we’ll continue to have those conversations with appropriate interlocutors.QUESTION: How about Russia?MR PATEL: I don’t have any conversations to read out.QUESTION: A follow-up, sorry. So there are reports – Wall Street Journal reported that the Iranian regime has evacuated their bases in Syria. So is there an indication that Israeli Government might attack some targets outside Iran?MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment on what our partners in Israel may or may not do.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So Benjamin Netanyahu testified to the U.S. Congress in 2002 – this is before we invaded Iraq – and he said, quote, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam Hussein is seeking, and is working, and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons.” He then went on to say he was hiding nuclear facilities underground. We now know this was a lie, one that many U.S. servicemembers and innocent Iraqis paid the price for. Netanyahu in that same congressional hearing goes on to say, “Obviously, we would like to see&#8230;regime change – at least, I would&#8230;in Iran&#8230;The question now is&#8230;what is the best  to proceed.  not a question of whether  like to see regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.”So my two questions for you are, one, how can we trust somebody who goaded our country into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? And two, given this weekend’s events, why are we confident he won’t do the same thing with Iran given he’s been calling for us to enact regime change in that country for 20 years?MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but – so let me just say a couple things. First, as it relates to Prime Minister Netanyahu, this is somebody who the President has a close working relationship with. It’s something – someone that the Secretary has a close working relationship with. But broadly, beyond any immediate official or individual in the Israeli Government, our partnership, our relationship with Israel, our commitment to its self-defense and our commitment to its security, transcends any government in Israel. It transcends any government in the United States, and it’s a relationship that has pursued and persisted over the course of the – of various political parties and presidents.Number two, as it relates to the Iranian regime, let me just be clear and unequivocal about this: We condemn in the strongest terms its reckless and irresponsible attacks from over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay, but you – one individual, Netanyahu, is the head of the entire Israeli Government. And when – you might condemn those, but there’s a difference between condemning those actions and the U.S. getting roped into a war with Iran.MR PATEL: The United States is not interested in entering an all-out conflict with Iran. We’ve been incredibly clear about that.Go &#8212;QUESTION: Even if they strike Israel?MR PATEL: We have been very clear about our commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense. We’ve also been clear that we will not be participating in any offensive operation, but our commitment to its security and self-defense has – is ironclad.QUESTION: If I may ask on Georgia?MR PATEL: On Jordan?QUESTION: Georgia?MR PATEL: Georgia? Okay, I’m going to – people are – Michel, do you have anything on the region before we move away?QUESTION: Any role that Russia is playing between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: That’s a question for the Russian Federation. I’m not &#8212;QUESTION: But are you aware of that?MR PATEL: I’m not – none that I can speak of or that I’m aware of.QUESTION: Region?MR PATEL: Go ahead. You already got a bunch of questions. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Ukraine, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Russian missiles hit a hospital in Chernihiv this morning. They killed more than – actually 15, almost, and more than 60 were injured. What does it tell you about the state of play on the ground? And how under stress do you think the Ukrainian military is?MR PATEL: This is, Alex, another example of a horrific Russian missile attack, this time on downtown Chernihiv in northern Ukraine, which is only about a two-hour drive from the capital, Kyiv. Approximately 16 people were killed, more than 600 injured, including children, and missiles destroyed residential buildings, a hospital. The images from these attacks are horrifying, but it also, Alex, beyond – to take a step back from the immediate, it underscores the need of passing the national security supplemental. Our support for our Ukrainian partners we believe can continue to make a difference in this conflict. It can save lives, but the House of Representatives needs to act now.QUESTION: Thank you. Staying to – in Russia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There are reports that Russians are – they have started moving their forces/troublemakers, if you want, out of Azerbaijan and to be deployed in Ukraine. What do you know? And what do you think about its implications in both the South Caucasus and &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Alex, as you know, we were not party to the negotiated trilateral arrangement that ended the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 and established Russian troops in that region. Frankly, we’ve not seen anything to indicate that Russia’s military was contributing to a more peaceful and stable South Caucasus region, and the events in Nagorno-Karabakh over the course of this past fall are pretty indicative of that point, and it’s another highlight or example of how Russia is not a trustworthy ally or partner.But beyond that, we strongly support efforts by Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a durable and dignified peace, and we stand ready to continue to help facilitate this process.Ben, go ahead. I’m going to work the room, Alex.QUESTION: Please come back to me later on.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. If I could follow up on a question that was asked yesterday about China supporting Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: Matt said the U.S. is very concerned, that this would be on the G7 agenda, but I was wondering if you could provide any more detail, particularly what the U.S. is doing in response to Chinese support for Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, Ben. So let me say a couple things on that. We believe that the PRC is supporting Russia’s war effort, and it’s doing so by helping ramp up its defense production. Specifically, the PRC is providing Russia with significant quantities of machine tools, microelectronics, optics, UAVs and cruise missile technology, and nitrocellulose, which Russia uses to make propellants for weapons. Together, we think that these materials are filling critical gaps in Russia’s defense production cycle, helping revitalize Russia’s defense industrial base, which had otherwise suffered significant setbacks due to sanctions and export controls from the United States, from our partners and allies.This kind of support is actively enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine, and it poses a significant threat to European security. We’ve raised these concerns with the PRC through diplomatic channels, including through recent conversations at the leaders level, and we’ve been briefing our allies and partners on our concerns over the past few weeks. And we issued an executive order targeting third-country banks that facilitate support to the Russian defense industrial base, we’ve sanctioned relevant firms in the PRC, and are prepared to take further steps as necessary. Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. A few humanist questions – international, yes.MR PATEL: Let’s keep it to less than a few. We’ve got a couple other people who have their hands up.QUESTION: I will stop – I’ll stop whenever you tell me to.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: My first question is about these two gentlemen. One of them is very dear to America, and he has my last name as well. His name is Dr. Shakil Afridi. I feel like because of lack of diplomatic courage the Pakistani ambassador has in Washington D.C., the guy has spent 15 years over there. Pakistani lady in the U.S., Aafia Siddiqui, has spent 25 years. I had a father who spent nine and a half years on a fake case. I just personally have sympathies with these prisoners who have spent – and internationally – so, like, keep the – U.S. policy aside, just from humanitarian point of view, why can’t these two people be exchanged?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer on this. This seems like an internal judicial matter as it relates to Pakistan’s justice system, so would defer to them to speak to that.QUESTION: But the U.S. justice system – the U.S. justice system can get that Shakil Afridi guy here. He has spent 15 years – life imprisonment is (inaudible) years in Pakistan, so the guy has spent his life in &#8212;MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay. One more question, sir. A girl from Utah, Crystal Bayat, even tweeted this today. I have raised this issue here a gazillion times. You have half of the population of country of Afghanistan, where girls since the U.S. withdrawal are without education. Why did you not just leave them in front of the vultures to be eaten? Today a girl was sold for $3,500 to a 60-year-old man. If the U.S. has taken – at least I know these steps cannot be stopped at the moment, but for future of girls, for the ones that are going to come in future, what has the U.S. done &#8212;MR PATEL: So if &#8212;QUESTION: What has the U.S. done in these last three years since its withdrawal?MR PATEL: Equal rights for Afghan women and girls continues to be a key tenet of our Afghanistan policy, and we continue to reiterate regularly, through relevant channels, with the Taliban that their self-stated goal of legitimacy can only be achieved – and will likely be impossible to achieve if half of their population is being left out of participating in its society, participating in its economy. It continues to be a key factor of our approach to Afghanistan policy, and it’s something that we’ll continue to work towards.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Just last one about journalism.MR PATEL: No, I’m going to work the room. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just journalism. You’ll like this one (inaudible). You’ll like this one.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’ll like this one. Journalists becoming – today &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay. If you ask a question, though, you do this, like, wind-up thing –QUESTION: Yes. Today Time Magazine has – today Time Magazine has a journalist, Palestinian journalist, as 100 more influential people. No country in the world protects and talk about journalists like the U.S. We have a Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif, got killed, and we still don’t know who killed him. It’s been two years now. Can the U.S. – can you personally take some interest in the case, or at least let us finally know who killed the guy?MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly that we believe strongly that journalism is integral to our society and journalists do important work, and especially in active conflict zones they – every step possible needs to be taken for them to be protected. But I don’t have much else on that circumstance that you laid out.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Daphne, you had your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So we’ve seen on social media that the U.S. embassy received a letter from Chad’s government requesting troop withdrawal. Can you confirm this?MR PATEL: The U.S. embassy in Chad? I’m happy to check on that. I’ve not seen that since I came out, but we’re happy to check with the team and see if there’s anything to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And, sorry &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Really quick, yea. Vote counting is set to begin tomorrow in the Solomon Islands for parliamentary election, the first since the prime minister struck a security pact with China in 2022. Do you have any indication yet on how these elections have been conducted?MR PATEL: I don’t have an assessment to offer yet, and I think we will let the process play out before we have any assessment to offer. Goyal, go ahead. I’ll come to you, then I’ll come to you, and then we will wrap. Go ahead, Goyal.QUESTION: Yes, sir. Two questions, please, different two questions. One, as far as the United Nations are concerned, does the U.S. or the Secretary have faith and trust in the UN? Because recently, Mr. Elon Musk said that there is no meaning of having UN without India’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.MR PATEL: So the President has spoken about this before in his remarks to the UN General Assembly. The Secretary has alluded to this as well. We certainly support reforms to the UN institution, including the Security Council, to make it reflective of the 21st century world that we live in. I don’t have any specifics to offer on what those steps are, but certainly we recognize that there is need for reform. But I will leave it at that for now. Go ahead.QUESTION: And second, sir – please, I’m sorry.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: As far as this UN-IMF and World Bank meetings are concerned in Washington, D.C., how does the U.S. diplomacy’s affecting around the globe with the other countries? Because poor people are getting more poorer and also their aids they get from the World Bank and IMF not reaching the needy people around the globe, and because it goes to the corrupt politicians or the military people. How can you – you think it can be worked for those needy around the globe?MR PATEL: There are a number of countries that are engaging directly with the IMF as it relates to the economies within their own systems. In those instances, we believe it’s appropriate to be engaging with the IMF. I don’t have any specifics to offer beyond that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Let me come to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday Haiti’s Government named the members of the transitional council set to take power at some point.MR PATEL: Uh-huh, yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on this? And do you think that they can restore security in Haiti?MR PATEL: Well, we welcome the announcement of the establishment of the transitional presidential council, and we commend stakeholders in Haiti for moving toward democratic governance through free and fair elections. A lot of work lies ahead, specifically, naming an interim prime minister, but we are committed to work with members of this council, CARICOM, as well as other appropriate regional partners to improve the lives of all Haitians.Go ahead.QUESTION: The House has scheduled a vote on foreign aid for Saturday; that includes aid to Ukraine, which has been long delayed. You talk a little about the importance of that aid coming through for Ukraine. But tell us: How much damage has been done by the lengthy delay in Congress to the Ukrainian war effort? Because the Russians have made significant advances over the past several months.MR PATEL: Well, Alex raised this issue and opened up this topic by talking about a missile attack from the Russians. So it certainly would not be hyperbole to say that every day matters, and the House, we believe, needs to act this week to support Ukraine and Israel as they respectively defend against Putin and the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime. And so this is something that we need Congress to provide urgently.There is also, when we’re talking about the national security supplemental, talking about things like humanitarian assistance and efforts to strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific – these are all things that are of vital importance to the – our foreign policy and the national security interests of the American people. You had a question on Georgia. Go ahead.QUESTION: We witnessed a horrific violence in Georgia yesterday by the riot police against peaceful protests, journalists and opposition leaders. Today another protest is taking place against the Russia law, and there is an expectation that police will – and government will use force again. What message do you have for Georgia and Georgian people?MR PATEL: You’re speaking about the protests around the draft law? Yeah. So we remain deeply concerned that this draft legislation, if enacted, could stigmatize civil society organizations working to improve the lives of Georgians citizens and media organizations operating within the – within Georgia to provide information to Georgian citizens. We think that civil society, journalism, media organizations, are cornerstones to any democratic society. And we urge the Georgian Government to heed warnings that this bill is not in line with the European Union’s norms and values, and it certainly would negatively impact Georgia’s progress on its EU path.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;QUESTION: Just very quickly. Just very quickly.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) passed the first hearing today with 83 votes. And you’re – just repeated some – same thing that Matt told us previously, that you would hope that it will not go forward.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So I understand there were meetings between the U.S. ambassador and Western ambassadors and the Russian prime minister. Is diplomacy – your efforts diplomatically – is dead here, or is it just another bump on the road?MR PATEL: We never think diplomacy is dead, Alex. So again, we will continue to urge and reiterate the – with the Georgian Government our dire concerns of this kind of legislation, and heed the warnings that this kind of legislative – this kind of legislation, sorry, is not in line with the EU’s norms and values, which would certainly negatively impact Georgia’s stated goal to eventually become party to the European Union.QUESTION: But they also pushed an amendment of tax law today, a separate process, that will allow them to transfer the frozen – their assets from abroad. Clearly, they’re preparing for hedging – they’re trying to avoid sanctions, potential sanctions, here. Aren’t you too late to use the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this other piece of legislation, Alex, but I’m happy to check for you.Matt.QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I just want to go back to something that was raised a little bit earlier. Can you ask – can you find out from L or from whomever if the United States believes that the Geneva Conventions apply universally – in other words, to everywhere on the planet as – and also the same question on the Vienna Conventions? And obviously, the question before was about whether Geneva Conventions apply in Gaza, but then specifically it would be whether the Vienna Convention applies in Syria. Or are there – or do you – does the administration think that there are certain exemptions to these conventions? That’s &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: I don’t expect you to have an answer, but maybe you could &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Matt, let me just – let me close out by saying that I will echo again what I – when I – when responding to your colleague that it is our sincere belief that international humanitarian law needs to be abided by everywhere. And that continues to be the policy we’ll pursue.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Alright, thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)# # #60 ↑						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Chad																								China																								Georgia																								Haiti																								Iran																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Solomon Islands																								Ukraine
- Chad HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Chad				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Chad																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																											i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were two positive human rights developments in Chad during the year. In June, the transitional parliament adopted a preliminary draft constitution that voters approved in a December 17 referendum. Although the process was widely criticized as not fully inclusive, approximately 86 percent of voters reportedly supported the referendum, with participation rates of nearly 63 percent. Interim president Mahamat Idriss Deby issued numerous pardons during the year, including significant numbers of political prisoners. He pardoned hundreds of those detained following the October 2022 demonstrations in three waves of releases in March, May, and July.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government or on behalf of the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; unlawful recruitment or use of child soldiers by nonstate armed groups including Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence, sexual violence, child, early, and forced marriage, and female genital mutilation/cutting; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of some ethnic groups in the south, including violent conflict between herding and farming communities; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults that authorities enforced; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and the existence of the worst forms of child labor.The government did not take credible steps to identify or punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa were reported to have killed numerous civilians and military personnel. Authorities investigated some incidents but initiated no prosecutions as of year’s end.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary and unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year. Human rights groups credibly accused security forces of killing with impunity. The Ministry of Justice and the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) inconsistently investigated allegations of security force killings.A local nongovernmental organization (NGO), the Chadian League for Human Rights, reported that in January, members of the Chadian National Army (ANT) operating in the Lake Province tortured and lynched 11 citizens, including four members of the self-defense committee of the village of Barkorom, in the Ngouboua sub-prefecture, in Kaya Department. A two-year ceasefire between a Libya-based rebel group, Front for Change and Concord in Chad (FACT), and the government collapsed in August after the military bombed a FACT position in northern Tibesti, following reports that FACT was facilitating the movement of armed elements from Libya into Chad. The United Nations also confirmed 53 civilian fatalities in Boko Haram-related security incidents between June 1 and November 15. Other armed groups in the region recruited from former soldiers of the ANT and came into conflict with pastoralists who had been armed by serving army officers who also owned the herds, following disputes concerning grazing rights and livestock corridors.																																				b. Disappearance										There were reports of disappearances by government authorities. Authorities, including those reportedly from the National Security Agency (ANS), arrested at least 72 persons, all reportedly members of the Transformateurs, an opposition political party headed by Succes Masra, in October 2023 and held them incommunicado, without charge, at the General Directorate of Security and Intelligence until their release on November 5.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The constitution and subsequent transitional charter prohibited torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishments, but human rights groups, civil society activists, opposition political parties, and prominent lawyers credibly accused security forces of engaging in these practices.Impunity was a significant problem in the security forces, including the ANT and police, due to corruption, poor discipline, and general impunity for wrongdoers able to leverage political connections. According to numerous human rights reports, the forces implicated in impunity included the ANT, ANS, police, and gendarmerie.Impunity in cases of intercommunal violence was widespread, predominantly in the country’s central and southern regions.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Conditions in the country’s 41 prisons were harsh and potentially life threatening due to food shortages, gross overcrowding, physical abuse, and inadequate sanitary conditions and medical care. In addition to official prisons, there were reports that the ANS held prisoners in unofficial detention centers.Abusive Physical Conditions: Regional prisons were in states of disrepair, overcrowded, and without adequate protection for women and juveniles. These conditions disproportionately impacted persons with disabilities. While the government constructed some new facilities in the past decade, major increases in the prison population meant that overcrowding continued to be a problem. Reporters Without Borders alleged that television journalist Service Ngardjelaï was arrested, beaten, and held from October 2022 to May 12 after charges against him had been dropped. He recounted receiving food with razor blades and battery chemicals while in detention.Local NGOs and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported potable water, food, sanitation, and health care were inadequate. Provisions for heating/cooling, ventilation, and lighting were inadequate or nonexistent. Inmates were vulnerable to diseases such as tuberculosis, COVID-19, and malaria. The law stipulated a doctor had to visit each prison three times a week, but authorities did not always permit this level of access. In some cases, authorities denied detainees visits from doctors. The few prisons that had doctors lacked adequate medical supplies. Detainees frequently relied upon family members for food, soap, medicine, and other supplies.The government engaged in forced prison labor and could legally compel political prisoners to engage in forced labor. Prison officials subjected prisoners to forced labor on private projects, separate from the penalties provided for by the legal sentence imposed on the prisoners. Human rights NGOs reported that the use of forced prison labor was common.In its Freedom in the World 2022 report, Freedom House stated, “Opposition activists risk arrest and severe mistreatment while in detention,” which remained the case during most of the year, although relations with the opposition improved following the November Kinshasa Accords, which facilitated the return of Tranformateurs leader Succes Masra to the country.Administration: Authorities did not investigate credible allegations of mistreatment. There was no mechanism for prisoners to submit complaints.Independent Monitoring: The government permitted the ICRC to visit prisons, and the ICRC conducted such visits. The ICRC in 2020 reported that at least four detention facilities lacked budgetary and human resources and experienced “systemic issues” in prison administration. The CNDH also conducted visits to detention facilities.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution, subsequent transitional charter, and law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention, but the government did not always observe these prohibitions. The law did not provide for the right of persons to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Although the law required a judge to sign and issue arrest warrants before arrests, this did not always occur. By law, detainees were required to be charged within 48 hours or released, unless the procureur (investigating magistrate) authorized an extension of detention for investigative purposes. Nevertheless, authorities often did not make judicial determinations promptly. The law allowed for bail and access to counsel, but there were cases in which authorities provided neither. While the law provided for legal counsel for indigent defendants and prompt access to family members, this rarely occurred, according to legal observers. Authorities occasionally held detainees incommunicado.Arbitrary Arrest: According to local media, security forces, including the ANT, ANS, police, and gendarme, arbitrarily arrested journalists, demonstrators, critics of the government, and other individuals. Freedom House reported, “Security forces routinely ignore constitutional protections regarding search, seizure, and detention. Detained persons may be denied access to lawyers, notably those detained in connection with their involvement in antigovernment protests or activities. Many persons suspected of committing crimes were held for lengthy periods without charge.” Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigations conducted during the year concluded some individuals detained following the October 2022 demonstrations were targeted merely based on where they resided.Pretrial Detention: Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. According to a Ministry of Justice official, judicial authorities sometimes held detainees without charge for years, particularly for felonies allegedly committed in the provinces because the court system only had the capacity to try criminal cases in the capital. The length of detention sometimes equaled or exceeded the possible sentence for the alleged crime. Lengthy pretrial detention was exacerbated by an overworked judiciary susceptible to corruption. There were reports officials held detainees in police cells or in secret detention facilities. After five months in detention, 10 military officers and a prominent human rights defender, Baradine Berdei Targuio, were charged with undermining the constitutional order and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Several weeks later, they were pardoned and released. Targuio had been previously held for more than seven months before being charged with breach of national security, illegal possession of weapons, assault, and battery. Two days before his arrest, Targuio had written an open letter to the president, expressing concern for the human rights situation in Tibesti.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The transitional charter and law provided for an independent judiciary. The judiciary, however, was overburdened and subject to corruption and executive interference. According to representatives of the bar association, members of the judiciary were not always impartial in civil matters, sometimes received death threats, or were demoted for not acquiescing to pressure from officials or otherwise coerced into manipulating decisions. Government personnel, particularly members of the military, often were able to avoid prosecution. Authorities did not always respect court orders. According to local media and civil society organizations, members of the Judicial Police, an office within the Ministry of Justice with arrest authority, did not always enforce domestic court orders against military personnel or members of their own ethnic groups.																Trial Procedures						The constitution and law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, but the judiciary did not always enforce this right.The law provided for a presumption of innocence, and for fair, timely, and public trials. The law provided defendants the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the charges against them and to be provided free interpretation. According to local media, however, these rights were seldom respected. The law provided defendants the right to consult an attorney in a timely manner, but this did not always occur. By law, indigent persons had the right to legal counsel at public expense in all cases, although according to legal experts, this seldom occurred. Human rights groups sometimes provided free counsel to indigent clients. Defendants sometimes had the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense and to be present at their trial, but there were exceptions. In February, more than 400 rebel group members were tried in Klessoum prison in a closed-door trial. According to defense lawyers, the trial was announced only days before it started. The law provided defendants and their attorneys the right to question witnesses and present witnesses and evidence and the right not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt, but the government did not respect this. The law provided defendants the right to appeal court decisions, but the absence of legal counsel and frequent long delays in judicial processing undermined the right to appeal decisions. NGOs reported cases in which individuals were not allowed to leave detention to attend their trial, including the December 2022 mass trial of those detained following the October 2022 demonstrations, which were described by the Chadian Bar Association as a “parody of justice” and were boycotted by lawyers, according to media reports.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						In March, President Deby pardoned 259 prisoners arrested during the October 2022 demonstrations, followed by a second wave of 67 individuals in May, and 110 more in July. Many of these prisoners were never charged. Those charged were accused of crimes including unauthorized gathering, destroying property, and disturbing public order. Prisoners were kept in a high-security prison with terrorism suspects despite the nonviolent nature of their alleged crimes. The government permitted human rights organizations some access to prisoners. According to the HRW, authorities detained at least 72 Transformateurs political party members in October, in what the HRW alleged was an attempt by the government to limit political dissent ahead of the December constitutional referendum and 2024 elections.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not Applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not Applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										Although the constitution provided for the right to privacy and inviolability of the home, the government did not always respect these rights. It was common practice for authorities to enter homes without judicial authorization and seize private property without due process.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										Child Soldiers: Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province recruited or used child soldiers in the country.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but the government restricted this right by intimidating journalists.Freedom of Expression: The law prohibited “inciting racial, ethnic, or religious hatred,” which was punishable by up to two years in prison and fines. Space for open and free private discussion existed but was subject to self-censorship due to fear of reprisal from the state.Violence and Harassment: Local media reported that journalists reported being the victims of threats, harassment, and intimidation by anonymous individuals. Additionally, in September the HRW reported the country’s High Media and Audiovisual Authority regulator (HAMA) suspended local outlet Alwihda Info, an online new website, for eight days in August following the publication of articles on internal reshuffling in the army and a speech given by the transitional president regarding conflict on the country’s northern border. HAMA accused the outlet of publishing “insulting remarks” regarding the president and of “undermining the cohesion and discipline within the army” and warned of more severe sanctions for any repeat offenses. Immediately after the accusation, the outlet’s publishing director said he was followed by two cars he suspected belonged to intelligence agents, forcing him to spend the night in another location.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: Independent media were active and attempted to express a variety of views, but authorities placed some restrictions on them. The government subsidized Le Progres, the only daily newspaper, and owned the biweekly newspaper L’Info. Government and opposition newspapers had limited readership outside the capital due to low literacy rates and lack of distribution in rural areas. Some journalists and publishers practiced self-censorship due to concerns regarding intimidation and arrest. The government also penalized those who published reports on politically sensitive issues, sometimes by closing media outlets.According to Freedom House, private radio stations faced threat of closure for coverage critical of the government. Radio, however, remained a critical source of information throughout the country. The government owned the Chadian National Radio station. The number of community radio stations that operated outside of government control continued to grow, and radio call-in programs broadcast views of callers that included criticism of the government.Libel/Slander Laws: Libel and slander were misdemeanors punishable by fines. There were fewer reports than in previous years of authorities having arrested or detained persons on charges of defamation. During the year there were no reports of government or individual public figures using libel or slander laws to restrict public discussion or retaliate against journalists or political opponents.																Internet Freedom						The government restricted and disrupted access to the internet. The government directly censored online content, such as Facebook; occasionally blocked sites and popular messaging applications, such as WhatsApp; and arrested activists for postings on social media.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The government limited freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						Although the constitution and transitional charter provided for freedom of peaceful assembly “under conditions fixed by the law,” the government did not always respect this right.The government regularly dictated the locations of opposition protests and civil society gatherings to limit their base of popular support. Authorities routinely banned gatherings and arrested organizers, and security forces used excessive force against demonstrators. The law required organizers to notify the Ministry of Public Security and Immigration five days in advance of demonstrations, although groups that provided advance notice did not always receive permission to assemble. The law also required opposition political parties to meet complicated registration requirements for party gatherings. On July 12, the government prohibited a demonstration by an opposition political party, citing the nonauthorization of the party. On August 1, Transitional President Deby signed three decrees further detailing the conditions, responsibilities, and sanctions to public gatherings and demonstrations.						Freedom of Association						The constitution and law provided for freedom of association, but the government on occasion did not respect this right. While the law required the Ministry of Public Security and Immigration to provide prior authorization before an association, including a labor union, could be formed, there were no reports of the state enforcing the law. The law also allowed for the immediate administrative dissolution of an association and permitted authorities to monitor association funds.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										Although the constitution and law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, the government occasionally limited these rights.In-country Movement: Lack of security in the east, primarily due to armed banditry, occasionally hindered the ability of humanitarian organizations to provide services to refugees. In the western Lake Chad Province, government military operations and attacks by Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa constrained the ability of humanitarian organizations to aid internally displaced persons (IDPs).																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum: The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status. Implementation of the country’s first asylum law adopted in 2020 continued, and refugees were reportedly able to access identification documents and work permits. The country remained a host to more than 470,000 refugees and asylum seekers who had fled the violence in neighboring Sudan since April 2022, adding to the more than 400,000 Sudanese refugees remaining in the country following the Darfur Crisis in 2003.Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Within refugee camps, like much of the country, authorities rarely prosecuted perpetrators of sexual violence. Survivors often chose not to report sexual crimes. The judicial system did not provide consistent and predictable recourse or legal protection; access to formal justice was limited for most populations outside of the capital.Sudanese refugees often continued to face risks after crossing the border, with a June 20 UN Security Council meeting noting an increase in intercommunal tensions and attacks on refugee and host community civilians alike by armed groups in the region.Durable Solutions: UNHCR supported refugee integration, and where appropriate, refugee repatriation, and worked toward securing resettlement for limited numbers of refugees to third countries.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										According to UNHCR, approximately 380,000 persons were internally displaced in Lake Chad Province in the west. Attacks by nonstate armed groups, including Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa, were responsible for most internal displacement in the province. As of December, in the south there were also approximately 50,000 displaced citizens who returned from the Central African Republic due to intercommunal violence by nonstate actors and the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group. In November, the International Organization of Migration estimated that at least 92,000 Chadians had returned to eastern Chad fleeing the conflict in Sudan.For further information concerning IDPs, please see the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center:  https://internal-displacement.org .																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						In 2021, the Transitional Military Council suspended the 2018 constitution that provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.In July, the National Commission Charged with the Organization of the Constitutional Referendum (CONOREC) announced the timetable for a referendum on an updated constitution. On September 16, CONOREC also announced the creation of an updated election registration roll, based on the 2021 presidential election rolls, and noted there were 8.24 million voters. Some opposition political parties, citing lack of inclusiveness and partiality, demanded a cancellation of the updated registration roll and the dissolution of CONOREC. Media reported concerns regarding the compressed timeframe and enrollment period, from August to November, which was expected to reduce political space for those opposing the new constitution. Local media and civil society groups expressed concerns regarding the short information campaign period prior to the referendum, from November to December. In December, the country voted to approve a new constitution, which restored these rights.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: Some opposition groups and media reported irregularities related to the December referendum vote for a new constitution, supported by the government. These irregularities included vote stuffing in favor of the oui (yes) vote, insufficient non (no) ballots, pressure on the military to vote yes, and lack of secrecy in the vote. Turnout in the capital was low, and the government announced the referendum passed on December 24 with final results certified on December 28.The day after Idriss Deby was confirmed the president-elect in 2021, he died in a military operation; besides the December constitutional referendum vote, no elections have taken place since then. The Transitional Military Council originally announced an 18-month transition to general elections, which was later extended for 24 months until October 2024.Mahamat Deby remained the transitional president with increased executive control to nominate and revoke members of the government and retained the right to nominate and revoke members of the transitional parliament under the de facto constitution.Political Parties and Political Participation: There were more than 200 registered political parties, of which more than 100 were associated with the dominant Mouvement Patriotique du Salut (MPS) party. Changes to the law in 2018 complicated and increased the cost of party registration, outreach, and participation procedures. Opposition leaders attributed the changes to the government’s attempt to limit dissent. Most unarmed opposition members came from the south, while ruling transitional government members came from the north and east. As a result, opposition members often faced greater consequences for political activity, such as protesting, than groups from other areas of the country.In late 2022, via separate decrees, the government suspended seven political opposition groups, including the Transformateurs, and civil society organizations united in a coalition known as Wakit Tama (the Time has Come). The suspension of the parties expired in January, while Wakit Tama remained suspended from operating.In June, the government issued an “international” arrest warrant for the leader of the Transformateurs, Succes Masra, who had taken refuge abroad. In November, Succes Masra returned to the country at the invitation of the government following an agreement brokered by the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Human rights groups such as HRW and political think tanks expressed concerns regarding reduced political space in the run-up to the referendum citing arrests and continued detention of opposition members, but the government did authorize the Transformateurs to organize a series of political rallies throughout the south in December.Numerous laws discouraged political participation by citizens holding political views out of alignment with the dominant MPS party. For example, opposition parties were legally barred from ownership of media outlets. The government enacted age limits on leadership of political parties, which many viewed as an effort to disqualify certain key opposition leaders. The MPS controlled state-owned television and radio stations, which many saw as granting it an unfair political advantage in a country where television and radio comprised the most effective public outreach tools. Candidates affiliated with the MPS often used official vehicles for political campaigning, and there were reports that government employees were pressured to close their offices during campaign season to support MPS campaigning. Active membership in the MPS often conferred advantages for those wishing to hold high-level government positions. In addition, the MPS-led central government faced accusations of having appointed local and traditional chiefs in a way that rewarded allegiance to the MPS rather than respecting the traditional transmission of power via birth.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: Political disenfranchisement in the country was typically de facto, rather than de jure.The law mandated that leadership of all political parties be at least 30 percent women. Many factors, however, limited women’s political participation, including lack of access to economic resources and cultural norms that discouraged their participation in public and professional life. The government supported nongovernmental initiatives designed to prepare women to participate meaningfully in the National Dialogue.Widespread social discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons resulted in most choosing to live closeted for personal safety and fuller social and political rights. Those choosing to live openly, at great personal risk, were often denied the opportunity to register to vote by local authorities, which observers noted appeared to contravene the constitution, which affirmed that suffrage was universal.Persons with disabilities, while generally able to vote, faced major hurdles in achieving full political participation. Likewise, some laws prohibited persons with disabilities from serving in elected office. Observers noted these laws appeared in contravention of the constitutional right of all persons to work. In addition, the constitution mandated “good physical and mental health” for presidential candidacy, a provision many observers believed disallowed persons with disabilities from serving as president.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but authorities did not implement the law effectively. There were numerous reports of government corruption.Corruption: According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2023 report, corruption, bribery, and nepotism were “endemic,” and journalists, labor leaders, and religious figures faced harsh reprisals for speaking out concerning corruption, including arrest, prosecution, and exile.Freedom House reported that “charges against high-level officials that did go forward were widely viewed as selective prosecutions meant to discredit those who pose a threat to the government or its allies.” Judicial corruption hindered effective law enforcement and rule of law.Corruption and lack of transparency were pervasive in government actions, such as procurement, the awarding of licenses or concessions, dispute settlement, regulation enforcement, customs, and taxation. Freedom House reported that “since seizing power, Mahamat Deby, has largely ruled by decree, offering no meaningful opportunity for civil society to comment on government policies or obtain basic information about government operations.” In March, the Ministry of Hydrocarbon and Energy, pursuant to a presidential decree, nationalized the assets and permits of Exxon Mobil Corporation, despite Exxon Mobil having announced the completed sale of its assets to Savannah PLC in December 2022. In October, a Presidential Decree announced the dismissal of the minister of hydrocarbons and energy.For additional information concerning corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						Several domestic and international human rights groups operated in the country, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases. Government officials were sometimes cooperative and responsive to their views.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: Human rights defenders and attorneys reported instances of intimidation and obstruction in the course of their work.Government Human Rights Bodies: To show solidarity with the human rights community, officials of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights publicly attended local and international events and met with organizations associated with advancing human rights. Local NGOs reported the ministry functioned independently yet was of limited effectiveness, due partially to conflicts of interest with state security forces and influential government officials.The CNDH provided numerous written opinions criticizing government abuses of human rights but remained limited in its capacity beyond reporting government abuses. In February, the CNDH issued a report criticizing the government’s role in the deaths of 128 citizens and injuries to 512 others during the October 2022 protests. The Ministry of Communications stated the government would respond to the CNDH’s report, but the response was still pending as of December.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law provided that rape, including rape of women refugees, was punishable by up to 30 years in prison. The law did not specifically address spousal rape, corrective rape of LGBTQI+ persons, the gender of survivors, or domestic violence. Nevertheless, rape was a problem. Police often detained alleged perpetrators, but rape cases were rarely tried. Authorities fined and released most rape suspects, according to local media. Communities sometimes compelled rape survivors to marry their attackers.Although the law prohibited violence against women, gender-based violence was widespread. Police rarely intervened, and women had limited legal recourse.Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): The law prohibited FGM/C for girls and women, but the practice remained widespread, particularly in rural areas. By law, FGM/C could be prosecuted as a form of assault, but a lack of specific penalties hindered prosecution. According to a Freedom House report during the year, approximately a third of women aged 15 to 49 experienced FGM/C.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Sexual harassment, both verbal and physical, was widespread at all levels of society and typically targeted women. Even though the law provided penalties for sexual harassment, the government did not effectively enforce the law.Discrimination: Although many property and inheritance laws provided the same legal status and rights for women as for men, the government did not enforce the laws against gender discrimination effectively. Inheritance, property, and housing practices frequently discriminated against women due to cultural and religious norms and practices in many communities. There were legal restrictions on women’s employment in occupations deemed hazardous, arduous, or “morally inappropriate” and in industries such as mining, construction, and factories. Women generally were not permitted to work at night, more than 12 hours a day, or in jobs that could present “moral or physical danger,” which was not defined.Women often could not inherit property from their father or husband. Additionally, local leaders settled most inheritance disputes in favor of men, according to traditional practice. Women seeking to rent a house often had to prove they were married, while men were able often to rent without a similar burden. Women requesting divorce from men often faced a process that took three times as long as men. While access to financial resources typically benefited men in child custody cases, some courts granted child custody to economically disadvantaged women who demonstrated a better ability to care for children over better-resourced men.Women, who did not enjoy access to the same resources as men, often struggled to qualify for credit based on one’s resources. Women entrepreneurs reported perceptions of slowness of administrative paperwork approval relative to male peers. Women entrepreneurs also pointed to a lack of understanding of their needs because longstanding gender norms had filled the ranks of local administrators with a male-heavy decision chain.Among some ethnic groups, when a woman menstruated, she was not permitted to prepare food for men to eat because she was considered “unclean.” Some religious groups prohibited a woman from praying during her menstrual period.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Many persons lacked access to reproductive information or care, particularly in rural areas. Obstacles to contraception use included the lack of education, the limited supply of contraceptive products, and cultural paradigms. The government provided some contraception products for free to the public through NGOs. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) estimated only 24 percent of live births were attended by skilled health personnel between 2014 and 2019. The country had a severe shortage of health-care providers, including nurses, midwives, hospital staff, and specialists, such as obstetricians. Prenatal care remained limited, particularly in rural areas. Although children enjoyed equal access to medical care before the law, stigmatization of young pregnancies often dissuaded young women from seeking prenatal and other related care. The government provided limited access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence due to capacity constraints. Emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis was officially unavailable, including as part of the clinical management of rape.The UNFPA estimated that in 2017, the latest data available, the maternal mortality rate was 1,140 deaths per 100,000 live births. Factors contributing to maternal mortality included adolescent pregnancies, multiple closely spaced births, and lack of access to medical care.UNICEF reported in 2013, the latest data available, the adolescent birth rate was 179 per 1,000 adolescent women and girls ages 15 to 19. The country’s high adolescent birth rate was partially attributed to conservative cultural practices, traditional gender norms in both urban and rural areas, lack of birth control, and lack of access to family planning services.Adolescent women reported barriers to access education due to menstruation or childbirth. Peers and community members often shamed girl students who became pregnant while studying, and some schools did not permit their attendance.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										Both the constitution and transitional charter provided for the protection of “fundamental rights and freedoms” for all citizens and for legal equality regardless of race, origin, or religion. Members of the Zaghawa, the transitional president’s ethnic group, occupied a disproportionate share of civilian and military posts, suggesting imbalances in access to opportunity and enforcement of laws guaranteeing equal protection for all.Government authorities often awarded political positions and formed alliances based largely on tribal and ethnic affiliations. Political parties and groups generally had readily identifiable regional or ethnic bases. Northerners, particularly members of the Zaghawa, were overrepresented in key institutions, including the military officer corps, elite military units, and presidential staff.Allegations of ethnically driven recruitment by the police force raised concern over discriminatory access to security service jobs. Media reports in February reported that three-quarters of new police recruits were from small northern ethnic groups, which fueled retaliation against these groups.																																				Indigenous Peoples										The Mbororo, a subgroup of the pastoral Fulani (Peul) people, who inhabited the central and southern part of the country, lacked official government recognition as an Indigenous ethnic group. They were further marginalized by a 2014 pastoral law that limited access to transhumance (seasonal livestock grazing movements) and water resources on which Mbororo pastoralists depended. Mbororo women also reported lack of access to health care, impacting child mortality and women’s maternity care in Indigenous communities.																																				Children										Education: According to a UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2019 report, approximately 65 percent of girls enrolled in primary school, compared with 82 percent of boys. Similar gender disparities persisted through secondary school, where approximately 13 percent of girls enrolled, compared with 23 percent of boys. According to the World Food Program, primary school enrollment and retention of girls in regions experiencing humanitarian crises fell at higher rates than seen in previous years, and a report released by Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security in March calculated the mean number of years in school for girls at less than two. NGOs estimated that close to 40 percent of the refugees from Sudan were school-age children and many reported challenges in accessing education.Human rights organizations cited the mouhadjirin, migrant children who attended certain Islamic schools and whose teachers forced them to beg for food and money, as an obstacle to education. There was no reliable estimate of the number of mouhadjirin.Individuals with family and kinship ties to ruling elites from the Zaghawa ethnic group enjoyed disproportionate access to educational opportunities, meanwhile language barriers deterred many children from continuing their education in rural areas.Child Abuse: There were local laws against child abuse, but the government did not consistently enforce these laws. Despite inconsistent enforcement, the government coordinated with UNICEF to facilitate child friendly spaces for Sudanese refugees.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The law established the minimum age for marriage at 18 for men and women. According to UNICEF’s 2019 data, approximately 24 percent of women ages 20 to 24 were married or in a union before age 15 and nearly 61 percent were married or in a union before age 18. The law precluded invoking the consent of the minor spouse to justify child marriage and prescribed sentences of five to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines for persons convicted of perpetrating child marriage. The practice, however, was widespread, especially in northern areas where there were minimal government efforts to enforce the law and resistance from local religious leaders who condoned the practice. According to the Chadian Women Lawyers’ Association, girls sold or forced into child marriages were often forced by their husbands or their husbands’ families into domestic servitude and agricultural labor.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited the commercial sexual exploitation of children. The law specifically addressed the sale, offering, or use of children for commercial sexual exploitation, including child sex trafficking. The law prohibited sexual relations with children younger than 14, even if married, but authorities rarely enforced the ban. The law criminalized the use or offering of a child to produce pornography, and authorities enforced this law. Refugee children from the Central African Republic were particularly vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation. A UNICEF report published during the year estimated that more than 360,000 displaced children remained vulnerable to physical and sexual violence and exploitation by nonstate armed groups.																																				Antisemitism										There was no known Jewish community in the country, and there were no known reports of antisemitic incidents.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: The law criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, with punishments ranging from three months to two years’ imprisonment and fines. Local civil society members reported several dozen individuals were imprisoned for being LGBTQI+ but held under the pretext of other charges.Violence and Harassment: Few LGBTQI+ persons lived openly, since those who did faced verbal and physical aggression and abuse. LGBTQI+ persons reported police harassment, arbitrary detention, threats, and solicitation of bribery when engaging with authorities. Government authorities refused to investigate or prosecute crimes committed against LGBTQI+ persons, citing the legal prohibition on same-sex conduct as a pretext for not protecting persons based on perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.Discrimination: The law did not prohibit discrimination by state or nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. LGBTQI+ persons faced difficulty in obtaining housing, employment, and access to government services. LGBTQI+ persons faced steep cultural, social, and legal barriers to equal treatment and public acceptance; many LGBTQI+ persons hid their identity for self-protection. The law did not recognize LGBTQI+ couples and their families and did not grant them rights equal to rights of other persons.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: Legal gender recognition was not available.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: Activists described coercive social and family pressure to change the sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, of LGBTQI+ persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: The law did not formally prohibit freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly for LGBTQI+ persons, but discrimination and marginalization created de facto restrictions on these rights. Anti-LGBTQI+ attitudes were so pervasive that many persons only spoke on LGBTQI+ matters after departing the country.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities could not access education, health services, public buildings, or transportation on an equal basis with others. Government inaction, compounded by severe resource constraints, limited the rights of persons with disabilities to participate in civic life. There were no specific laws that provided for equal access to public buildings, education, health services, the judicial system, or other state services. Schools, transportation, and other public buildings were overwhelmingly inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The government did not provide government information and communication in accessible formats.The law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities, although it did not define disability. The government did not effectively enforce the law, according to the Chadian Disability Organization. Disability rights activists reported facing discrimination in access to transportation and participation in economic activity. Specifically, the lack of public transportation accommodating persons with disabilities and predominantly informal economy created barriers for individuals with disabilities from participating in the country’s economy. These challenges also hindered individuals’ ability to secure jobs across sectors.Despite legal protections against discrimination in employment for persons with disabilities, laws were not enforced, and employers discriminated against applicants. Additionally, some government schools or positions required certificates of physical aptitude, often refusing employment to anyone whose certificate noted any physical disability.Children with physical disabilities could attend primary, secondary, and higher education institutions, but most schools lacked accommodations for students with physical disabilities. As a result, children with disabilities often dropped out after primary school, leading to much lower attendance at secondary and higher education institutions compared with other children. The government supported schools specifically for children with vision or mental disabilities, but disability advocates reported such schools were inadequate.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										The encroachment of government-affiliated herders into agricultural areas stoked tensions and those responsible for triggering clashes were not held to account. Conflict between herders and farmers resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries, such as the August 20 clashes in Abkhura village, in the Mangalmé Department of Guéra, which resulted in six fatalities. NGOs stated this conflict persisted due to growing human and cattle populations, competition for scarce resources, and judicial impunity for perpetrators of violence with political or economic connections to authorities. Climate change altered the routes and periods of livestock transhumance, since previously dry areas were fertile for fishing and agriculture, increasing the likelihood and incidence of conflict between communities with competing models of land use. In the southern region, the movement of large-scale livestock holdings by well-connected Zaghawa tribesmen into new areas increased the incidence of armed conflict. Media reported clashes between Arab miners and Sudanese militias in the country’s northern Tibesti gold mining region, and observers noted that the true number of casualties often far exceeded what news outlets reported. Although the government did not consistently hold politically influential herders accountable for abuses against farmers, authorities worked to promote dialogue between communities to promote reconciliation.The law provided individuals with HIV and AIDS the same rights as other persons and required the government to provide information, education, and access to tests and treatment for HIV and AIDS, but authorities rarely complied with the law. According to the Chadian Women Lawyers’ Association, women sometimes were accused of passing HIV to their husbands and were threatened by family members with judicial action or banishment. HIV-positive persons also faced social and employment discrimination. There were no reports of specific instances of HIV and AIDS-related employment discrimination during the year. Data from the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS, however, suggested stigma against persons with HIV and AIDS was prevalent within the population, with 47 percent of adults saying they would not buy fresh vegetables from a vendor known to have HIV and AIDS.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of all workers, except members of the armed forces, to form and join independent unions of their choice. Authorities required all unions to be authorized by the Ministry of Public Security and Immigration, which could order the dissolution of a union that did not comply with the law as determined by the ministry. The law provided for the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. While there were no restrictions on collective bargaining, the law authorized the government to intervene under certain circumstances.The law recognized the right to strike but restricted the right of civil servants and employees of state enterprises to do so. The law required a 72-hour notification before a strike. By law civil servants and employees of state enterprises were required to have completed a mediation process before initiating a strike, but there was no specified timeline for this process. Authorities required employees of several public entities classified as essential services, including postal workers, slaughterhouse employees, and nine other categories, to continue to provide a certain level of services during a strike, and stated that they could be “requisitioned” at the government’s discretion during a strike. The law authorized imprisonment with hard labor as punishment for participation in an illegal strike.There were no reports of restrictions on collective bargaining or punishment of workers for participating in illegal strikes. More than 90 percent of employees in the formal sector belonged to unions. In the informal sector, which employed the vast majority of workers, most workers were self-employed and nonunionized, predominately working as farmers or herders. State-owned enterprises dominated many sectors of the formal economy, and the government remained the largest employer. Unions were officially independent of both the government and political parties, although some unions were unofficially linked through members’ affiliation with political parties.The government did not effectively enforce laws protecting freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the rights to strike for workers, primarily due to administrative difficulties in convening key officials for negotiations.The law prohibited antiunion discrimination and explicitly covered all workers, including foreign and irregular workers. The law required reinstatement of workers fired for union activity. Union members reported these protections were not always respected. Penalties for violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights were commensurate with those for comparable offenses. Penalties were sometimes applied against violators.The Chadian Teachers Union conducted three-day nationwide strikes regarding unpaid wages in April, May, October. They went on strike again in December concerning allowances and bonuses. Magistrates and judicial administrative officials went on strike in June to protest the constitutional referendum’s insufficient protection for the independence of the judiciary as well as for improved working conditions.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings /.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The law provided for a national minimum wage for all sectors of the economy, and the minimum wage was greater than the World Bank poverty rate. The law limited most employment to 39 hours per week, with overtime paid for additional hours. Agricultural work was limited to 2,400 hours per year, an average of 46 hours per week. All workers were entitled to uninterrupted rest periods of between 24 and 48 hours per week and paid annual holidays.Salary arrears remained a problem for some employees, most often in the education and health-care sectors that saw multiple strikes throughout the year. Workers did not always avail themselves of their rights concerning workhour limits, largely because they preferred the additional pay.Occupational Safety and Health: The law mandated occupational safety and health (OSH) standards that were up to date and appropriate for main industries. Workers had the right to remove themselves from dangerous working conditions without jeopardy to their employment, but they generally did not do so. The law provided inspectors the authority to enforce the law and explicitly covered all workers, including foreign and informal workers. The government did not consistently or proactively identify unsafe conditions or respond to workers’ OSH complaints.Multinational companies generally met the government’s OSH standards. The civil service and local private companies occasionally disregarded OSH standards, while artisanal mining in the north remained a sector with scant enforcement of labor protections for juveniles and other vulnerable workers drawn to the region by the prospect of financial gain. Incidents involving worker deaths and injuries occurred several times per year. Governors and relevant ministries sent delegations in the wake of such incidents to encourage compliance with OSH regulations but failed to spur meaningful institutional reform. Local private companies and public offices often had substandard conditions, including a lack of ventilation, fire protection, and OSH protection.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The government did not effectively enforce minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws. Penalties for wage, hour, and OSH violations were not commensurate with those for violations of similar laws. The government did not apply penalties against violators. The Directorate of Labor Inspection of the Ministry of Labor had responsibility for the enforcement of the wage, hour, and OSH regulations. Labor inspectors could refer cases to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights for prosecution and had the authority to make unannounced inspections but lacked authority to assess penalties. The government did not provide adequate staffing or training, which, together with corruption, impeded effective enforcement. The number of labor inspectors was insufficient to enforce labor laws.Authorities did not always respect legal protections for foreign and irregular workers. Many persons were paid less than the minimum wage, especially in the informal sector. The Ministry of Public Works employed an insufficient number of labor inspectors to enforce the law, especially in the large artisanal gold mining sector in the north. Despite penalties existing for violation of OSH laws, enforcement often depended on the personal connections and financial resources of parties involved.The World Bank reported that almost 96 percent of workers were in the informal sector. Informal workers who obtained work contracts from their employers were protected by the government’s labor code, minimum wage law, and social security. The vast majority, however, who were self-employed and thus worked without a contract, did not benefit from wage, hour, and OSH laws and inspections. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Labor, through its Directorate of Labor Inspection, investigated claims of possible legal violations in both the formal and informal sectors. While the Ministry of Labor could not prosecute, it could refer cases for prosecution to the labor division of the Ministry of Justice.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																						i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Chad
- FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in Cameroon and Chad Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBasic InformationFunding Opportunity Number: DFOP0009913Assistance Listings (CFDA) number: 19.517 &#8211; Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for AfricaAnnouncement issuance date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024Announcement type: Cooperative AgreementProposal application submission deadline: Monday, April 29, 2024 at 11:59:59 p.m. EDT (23:59:59). Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.Anticipated timeframe to award for selected proposals: Pending the availability of funds, PRM anticipates, but makes no guarantee, that awards will be made less than five months from the proposal submission deadline.
- Digital Press Briefing with Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Assistant Secretary of State, Julieta Valls Noyes Julieta Valls Noyes, Assistant SecretaryBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationMODERATOR:  Good afternoon to everyone from the U.S. Department of State’s Africa Regional Media Hub.  I welcome our participants logging in from across the continent and thank all of you for joining this discussion on the topic: U.S. Official Travel to Ethiopia and Chad/The Growing Humanitarian and Migration Challenges in Central and Eastern Africa.Today, we are very pleased to be joined by the U.S. Department of State’s Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Julieta Valls Noyes.  Assistant Secretary Noyes will discuss her meetings with senior government officials, humanitarian leaders, and refugees in Ethiopia and Chad on the growing humanitarian and migration challenges in both Central and Eastern Africa.We will begin today’s briefing with opening remarks from Assistant Secretary Noyes and then we will turn to your questions.  We will try to get to as many of them as we can during the briefing.With that, I would like to turn it over to Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Julieta Valls Noyes, for her opening remarks.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOYES:  Thank you, Johann, and thanks to all the journalists joining us today.  I’m pleased to be with you to speak about my visit last week to Ethiopia and Chad.  As Johann mentioned, during my trip, I met with senior government officials, humanitarian leaders and partners, and refugees in both countries.  I focused on the growing humanitarian and migration challenges in both Central and Eastern Africa.So to that end, I was proud to announce in my meeting with Chad’s Prime Minister Masra more than 47 million in humanitarian assistance for the emergency response in Sudan and neighboring countries, including Chad and South Sudan.  That amount of money brings the total U.S. humanitarian assistance for people in Sudan and neighboring countries to more than $968 million since last fiscal year.  The United States is the leading humanitarian donor to the Sudan emergency response.  Now, we are committed to working with other members of the international community to help alleviate the suffering of over 1 million refugees forced to flee their homes due to violence, with more arriving daily, as I saw during my visit.Both Ethiopia and Chad are regional leaders, playing essential roles in the Sudan response and broader humanitarian efforts.  Since early 2023, Ethiopia has welcomed nearly 50,000 refugees from Sudan.  At a time of great instability in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia’s support for displaced populations remains absolutely critical.While I was in Ethiopia, I met with senior government officials to discuss the humanitarian response to the crisis in Sudan.  The Government of Ethiopia has worked closely with humanitarian actors to establish new refugee sites and provide essential, life-saving aid to the tens of thousands of new refugee arrivals.  Their support for the Sudanese people escaping violence in their country is invaluable.During my visit, I also visited an urban refugee center in Addis Ababa, operated by PRM partner Jesuit Refugee Services, where I spoke with refugees in the center’s classrooms and recreational facilities.  Sites like that one provide opportunities, particularly for young refugees, to learn English, gain vocational skills, and express themselves through art and music.  This support, made possible through U.S. and other international donor contributions, advances refugee resilience and helps new arrivals integrate into their new communities.From there I went to Chad.  Now, I want to stress the U.S. – the United States’ deep appreciation for the generosity of the people and the Government of Chad throughout their long history as a refugee host country.  Most recently, Chad has embraced the immense challenge of welcoming over half a million refugees – and over 100,000 returnees – in less than a year.We remain steadfastly committed to supporting vulnerable people in Chad, in particular the over 1.1 million refugees and asylum seekers.  U.S.-supported programs, made possible by the more than $47 million that I announced – $18 million of which will go to programs in Chad – those programs will support – those funds will support protection, shelter, water and sanitation, education, and more, for refugees, host communities, and others affected by the crisis in Sudan.Now, one unique feature of the Sudan emergency is that women and children represent some 90 percent of the more than 550,000 refugees who have arrived in Chad since the beginning of the Sudan conflict in April of last year.  To address the long-lasting impact of mental health distress experienced by gender-based violence survivors, our partners in Chad are working to integrate mental health support throughout their programs, but resources are very limited, and the needs are overwhelming.  I was personally devastated to hear from so many survivors of gender-based violence who remain profoundly traumatized by their experiences.As the conflict in Sudan shows little sign of abating, the United States will continue to prioritize the needs of Sudanese refugees across the region, particularly in Chad, where the burden is especially acute and the host government is struggling to meet the basic needs of its own citizens.  Now, no one country or organization can meet these historic needs alone.  In Chad, I called on other donors to help alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people and over 1 million refugees forced to leave their homes due to violence and the communities that host them.The United States also calls on all parties to the Sudan conflict to end hostilities immediately.  We urge all parties to find a peaceful resolution that promotes the safety and resilience of impacted communities and allows for the return of forcibly displaced individuals and families.  Meanwhile, we also call for unhindered humanitarian access, including both cross-line and cross-border access from multiple points of entry to the most devastated areas in Sudan.So just in closing before we get to your questions, I want to reiterate our gratitude to the governments and people of Chad and Ethiopia for their leadership as they continue to welcome refugees fleeing violence in Sudan and beyond.  Specific to the Sudan emergency, preventing famine and long-term catastrophe will require both a ceasefire and unhindered humanitarian access.  We in the United States are committed to work with the governments of Ethiopia and Chad, and with international and local partners, to provide life-saving support to the millions of people affected by the devastating conflict in Sudan.And with that, Johann, thank you very much.  That concludes my opening statement, and I’m happy to turn to questions.MODERATOR:  Well, thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Noyes.  We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  We do ask that you limit yourself to one question only and that it be related to the topic of today’s briefing, which is:  The Growing Humanitarian and Migration Challenges in Central and Eastern Africa.So we do have a first question today submitted by a freelance journalist in South Sudan named Mr. Richard Sultan, and Mr. Sultan asks:  “What is the difference in the immediate needs of the refugees in Chad to those in Ethiopia?”  Interesting question.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOYES:  Thanks.  Thank you, Mr. Sultan, for that question.  Well, both countries have been enormously generous and the people of both countries have been enormously generous for a long time in receiving and supporting refugees.  But the responses are different and the situation in both countries are different.Ethiopia has hosted for years refugees from a broad range of countries – Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria.  I met refugees from all of those countries while I was in Ethiopia.  Ethiopia currently hosts about 1 million refugees and 4 million internally displaced persons.  The Government of Ethiopia has received – or Ethiopia has received about 50,000 Sudanese refugees over the past year who have been added to those who are already in the country.  Ethiopia is a country with greater resources of its own that it can devote to these efforts.Meanwhile, Chad is a country that – where one in three people require support for their own survival, and that’s Chadian nationals.  And they have received, as I mentioned earlier, about 560,000 refugees over the past year, plus over 100,000 returnees, and that’s to a country that is dealing with a great deal of internal poverty.  In fact, in my meeting with the prime minister, Prime Minister Masra, he told me something that I’m going to carry with me a long time.  He said that in the country of Chad they are dealing with shared poverty and shared – let me – I wrote it down, and now I’m blanking out as I’m speaking to you.  But it was shared poverty – let me come back to that, because I’m blanking out on the phrase now, even though I mentioned that I will – that it is staying with me.Anyway, sorry.  Chad is incredibly generous and is – but a country of great poverty and great needs, and there the response is primarily focused on what’s been happening in Sudan over the past year.  And the issue with the Sudan situation is that as the crisis and the conflict continue, everyone expects more refugees to arrive in Chad.  So the needs – there are real needs in both countries.  There are welcoming governments and peoples in both countries.  But the populations of refugees in both countries are different, and the ways that they are responding are different.So I’m going to check my notes here to go back to what the prime minister said.  Oh, I’ve got it.  It was shared poverty and shared humanity.  And I thought that that was an excellent way of describing how both Chad and, for that matter, Ethiopia are responding to their respective refugee situations.  So thanks, Mr. Sultan.  And sorry for that mental lapse as I was trying to recall the prime minister’s statement.  I’m still a little jet lagged.MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary.  So I see that we do have a hand up from Pearl Matibe of Premium Times in Nigeria.  Pearl, would you like to – you’ve put your question into the Q&amp;A box, and I appreciate that, but would you like to ask your question live if we open your mic?QUESTION:  Thank you so much.  I really do appreciate the opportunity and, Assistant Secretary Noyes, your availability.  It’s really concerning what’s happening in Chad.  In fact, I met the prime minister when he was here in Washington just recently.So my question to you is this:  Considering Chad&#8217;s recent efforts to enhance its development and stability, including prime minister&#8217;s recent visit to the U.S.A., how do you see Chad&#8217;s potential for leapfrogging in terms of – I know he was concerned.  He wants economic growth, regional security, as well as this humanitarian response, so doing these things in parallel to the refugee crisis in Sudan.  Given the interplay between migration flows from Sudan and the security challenges posed by terrorism in Chad – because how do we know how the people have been filtered with – so to avoid any terrorism flows into Chad?  What role can the international community play in supporting Chad’s aspirations for progress and stability?  I know those were key concerns of the prime minister, Dr. Succès.  If you could address that, I’d really appreciate it.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOYES:  Thanks, Ms. Matibe.  That’s a really interesting question and one that I can respond to in part.  In terms of the specific issues related to Chad’s development and stability, I would defer to my colleagues in the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the Department of Commerce and Treasury and the DFC.  However, it is also clear that as Chad works to meet the needs – and works with partners to meet the needs – of refugees and its own people in this terrible conflict and at this very, very difficult moment, it is clear that international sources of humanitarian assistance are not sufficient to meet all of the needs.  We’re seeing this situation all over the world, where humanitarian resources are simply not keeping pace with humanitarian needs.And so we are taking a long, hard look at the international infrastructure for dealing with humanitarian needs and coming up with innovative new solutions that involve bringing together humanitarian assistance funding and development funding, working with partners like the World Bank – indeed, I met with the World Bank director in Chad when I was there – and looking for more work in the space of the peace-development nexus and in the space of sort of relief and development coherence.  We’re putting together the humanitarian dollars, but planning for what is likely to be not a quick emergency response but a prolonged response, where many of those people are likely to be in Chad for years.  Indeed, I met when I was there with some refugees who had arrived from Darfur in 2004 and who are still there.So it’s clear that the international community and the international humanitarian infrastructure need to pivot and find new ways of working and finding ways to combine humanitarian and development initiatives and funding in ways that can deal with issues, to meet the emergency needs, but also to provide prolonged support for communities that are likely to be there for a long time, as well as for the host communities where they are living.And so this is a space where we see a lot of potential.  It is an area of growing focus for the World Bank, the multilateral development banks, frankly, the private sector.  We’re looking at some issues like innovative financing for things like energy projects.  We’re doing a lot of work on this in this space in Kenya.  So I think that the potential for these new partnerships in the humanitarian space can also create opportunities for development along the lines of what you were talking about.  And all of this, of course, would also contribute to stability.  So I thank you for the question.MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you very much for that answer.  We have another hand raised from Emmanuel Igunza, a freelance journalist for NPR Radio.  Emmanuel, would you like to ask your question live?QUESTION:  Yeah.  Thank you very much.  I just want to ask, in your engagement with the Ethiopian Government, did you raise the issue about their own thousand – tens of thousands of people who have been displaced within the country due to the conflicts in Oromia and in Amhara regions?  Because the criticism of particularly the U.S. has been that it is not quite strong in trying to deal with the government in addressing these issues.  Thank you very much.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOYES:  I had wide-ranging discussions with Ethiopian officials about a variety of humanitarian issues.  It was – because my trip was broadly focused on the Sudan response, that was the primary focus of our discussions.  But we also talked about how the United States remains the largest donor of humanitarian assistance in Ethiopia for a variety of populations, including internally displaced persons.  And in fact, we provided over a billion dollars last fiscal year and nearly $89 million to date this fiscal year to provide life-saving support for refugees, asylum seekers, the internally displaced people that you’re asking about, stateless persons, and others who are affected by conflict, drought, food instability.So I hope that answers your question.  Thank you, Mr. Igunza.MODERATOR:  All right, thank you.  So switching gears a little bit, we have a question from Mr. Aggrey Mutambo of The EastAfrican in Kenya.  And his question is:  “Could you speak generally about how the U.S. Government is helping countries in the East African region address the problem of labor migration, especially to Gulf countries?”ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOYES:  Sure, that’s a – it’s a great question.  It was something we had a lot of conversations about, so thanks, Mr. Mutambo, for that question.Look, the U.S. policy is to support safe, orderly, and humane migration and the opportunities that it provides globally.  That is our global position.  In Africa in particular, PRM, the bureau that I lead, funds the Africa Regional Migration Program, and we also fund the International Organization for Migration and its regional migration response plan.  Beyond that funding that is supportive of the labor migration – lawful, safe, humane labor migration – we facilitate dialogue between countries related to migration and to facilitate discussions about migrants who wish to return home from countries where they have been living.  And in particular, we have been doing that for migrants wishing to return home from Yemen or Djibouti.So it is an area where we are engaging, and it is an area of growing interest in this region, but as I’m sure all of you are following all over the world, these are issues of interest all over the world.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  All right.  I think we might have time for just one more question.  And so there was a question submitted by Ms. Lucia Blanco of the EFE Spanish News Agency based in Kenya.  And her question is:  “One year after the war started in Sudan, what is the situation of the refugees that arrive in Chad?  What is the displacement situation in the country related to the conflict in Oromo and Amhara?  And what did authorities tell you about those conflicts?”ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOYES:  Okay, so let me start with Chad.  The situation of refugees arriving to Chad is devastating.  They are arriving with almost nothing but the clothes that they are wearing.  They are arriving after having been victimized on the route.  They are arriving with immense needs and profound trauma; many, many of them survivors of gender-based violence, sexual violence.  As I mentioned earlier, 90 percent of them women and children with profound needs and very few resources of their own.  Moreover, I met with refugees while I was there who had arrived in 2004 fleeing from the situation in Darfur, and they unanimously said that as terrible as the situation that they had lived was, the situation of refugees arriving today is much worse.So it is a profound challenge.  It is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world right now, and it is a crisis that requires a response by many countries, many organizations to help support the people and the Government of Chad as they try to deal with this immense challenge with a great deal of humanity.Ethiopia, as I mentioned earlier, has a different set of issues.  It has refugees from I believe 27 other countries currently living in Ethiopia, and as I mentioned earlier, Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and many others.  They have also received Sudanese refugees, but nowhere near the scale or the number of those who have been arriving to Chad.But in Ethiopia, the issue remains – the larger humanitarian issues – remains the issue of internally displaced persons, including those from Amhara and Oromo.  And we did talk about those situations while I was there, and I was proud to reinforce U.S. support for all vulnerable people, including with the funding that we are providing across the humanitarian needs in Ethiopia, which are different from those in Chad but which the United States is proud to support and which, like the situation in Chad, also requires support and contributions from other governments, other organizations, and new and innovative solutions like working in this peace development nexus space, getting the participation of the World Bank or the private sector.So there is more than enough work to do to meet all of the needs in both countries, and it was – I was grateful to have the opportunity to visit both countries and to see the response, and to thank the governments of both countries.  But I have to say I’ve returned a bit traumatized myself by the suffering that I witnessed while I was there, and hopeful of being able to do more and to persuade my partners in other countries to do more to respond more forcefully or at greater scale to meet the scale of the needs.  Thanks.MODERATOR:  All right, thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Noyes.  Do you have any final thoughts or words to share with the group?ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOYES:  I just want to thank everyone for their attention.  I want to thank you for all that you (inaudible) you do to publicize these (inaudible) and the more that we can all do to bring the attention of the world (inaudible) that we’ll be able to find the support needed to meet them.  So I thank you for your work and for your attention and humanity.  And my apologies, again, for my jetlag and my memory lapse earlier in thinking about the statement.  But I think I’d like to close with the statement from the Chadian prime minister that this is a situation that truly is one of shared poverty and shared humanity.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Well, thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Noyes.  You’ve been very generous with your time, and we do understand that you just returned from that very important trip.So that concludes today’s briefing.  I’d like to thank the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Assistant Secretary of State Julieta Valls Noyes for joining us.  Thank you to all the journalists for participating.  A recording and transcript of today’s briefing will be distributed to participating journalists as soon as we can produce them.  If you have any questions about today’s briefing, you may contact the Africa Regional Media Hub at AFmediahub@state.gov.  I would also like to invite everyone to follow us on Twitter at our handle @AfricaMediaHub.  Thank you very much.# # #
- United States to Provide Additional Humanitarian Assistance to Sudanese People and Host Communities Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonToday, the United States, represented by Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration Julieta Valls Noyes, met with Chadian Prime Minister Succès Masra and announced more than $47 million in humanitarian assistance for the emergency response in Sudan and neighboring countries, including Chad and South Sudan.Sudan is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with more than eight million people newly displaced since the conflict began last April, and nearly 25 million people – half of Sudan’s population – needing aid, according to the United Nations. This includes more than one million Sudanese refugees who have fled to neighboring countries, including Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic.Through the generosity of the American people, this U.S. humanitarian assistance provides critical life-saving assistance including food, water and sanitation facilities, shelter, medical services including mental health support, and protection to Sudanese fleeing the conflict.  This announcement brings total U.S. humanitarian assistance for people in Sudan and neighboring countries to more than $968 million since FY 2023.  The United States will continue to work with international and local partners to provide life-saving support to the millions of people affected by the devastating conflict in Sudan.The United States is the leading humanitarian donor to the Sudan emergency response and calls on the international community to help alleviate the suffering of over one million refugees forced to flee their homes due to violence.  The United States urges the parties to the Sudan conflict to allow unhindered humanitarian access including both cross-line and cross-border, engage in direct talks, agree to a ceasefire, and end hostilities immediately.  Preventing a famine and long-term catastrophe will require both a ceasefire and unhindered humanitarian access.
- Assistant Secretary Noyes Travels to Ethiopia and Chad Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Julieta Valls Noyes will travel to Ethiopia and Chad March 18-23. In both countries, Assistant Secretary Noyes will meet with senior government, international organization, and non-governmental organization partners to discuss refugee resettlement; humanitarian assistance across the continent, including protection of humanitarian workers; and implementation of pledges made at the December 2023 Global Refugee Forum. In Chad, additional engagements will focus on response to both the Sudan crisis and the broader humanitarian situation in Chad in coordination with the Government of Chad and international organization partners.
- Department Press Briefing – February 29, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – February 29, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – February 29, 2024																																																					February 29, 2024																																																								1:37 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Let me start by addressing the tragic incident in northern Gaza today, where more than 100 Palestinians are reported to have been killed and many more injured.I, first of all, want to express the United States’ deepest condolences to the families of those who died. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed over the course of this conflict, not just today, but over the past nearly five months. And when you think about today’s tragedy, it is especially heartbreaking to consider how many of those families affected will be burying loved ones not for the first time. In fact, I’m sure that many of those affected have buried multiple loved ones over – since this conflict began.When it comes to establishing facts on the ground, we are urgently seeking additional information on exactly what took place. We have been in touch with the Israeli Government since early this morning and understand that an investigation is underway. We will be monitoring that investigation closely and pressing for answers.This tragic event also underscores the importance of expanding and sustaining the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza in response to the dire humanitarian situation, including through the – a potential temporary ceasefire as part of a hostage deal.If there’s anything that the aerial footage of today’s incident makes clear, it is just how desperate the situation on the ground is. People need more food; they need more water; they need medicine and other humanitarian goods, and they need it now.We continue to make clear in all of our discussions with the Government of Israel that all possible measures must be taken to allow the entry of more assistance into Gaza through as many points of access as possible and to enable safe and secure distribution of that aid throughout Gaza.But as we have said before, the best way to alleviate the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people is to reach an agreement for a temporary ceasefire that would get hostages out, enable more aid to come in, and allow that aid to move everywhere inside Gaza.We continue to work, day and night, to achieve that outcome, including through calls the President held this morning with President El-Sisi of Egypt and the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim, as well as ones Secretary Blinken held earlier today with Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani.Every leader on those calls agreed that this terrible event underscores the urgency in bringing the hostage talks to a close. We continue to believe a deal is possible and that a deal is in the interest of Israel, the Palestinian people, and the broader region, and we will continue to push for it to be concluded as soon as possible.With that, Matt.QUESTION: Yes. Thanks. So on that, what is your understanding of what happened?MR MILLER: So our understanding is that it – the – there was a commercial convoy delivering humanitarian assistance, that there were no UN agencies involved. They were delivering assistance, and then beyond that, we have seen, obviously, conflicting reports. We’ve seen the reports from the Government of Israel; we’ve seen accounts from local Palestinians who were on the scene. We don’t have ground truth on what happened. We know what we’ve seen people say publicly, and we’re seeking more information and looking for the results of the investigation, as I said in my opening comments.QUESTION: Understanding that you don’t have anyone on the ground, and you don’t know – all you have to go on right now, I presume, are what you’ve heard from the Israelis, what you’ve heard from witnesses, and the footage that you’ve seen. Based on all of that, what can you say about what it appears happened?MR MILLER: I don&#8217;t want to say – I don&#8217;t want to draw any conclusions about what appears happened, because I think it’s too early to say. Oftentimes, the early accounts in these situations have turned out to be incorrect.But two things are clear. One, just from the aerial footage, you can look at that and right away conclude the situation is incredibly desperate, that people are swarming these trucks because they’re hungry, because they need food, because they need medicine and other assistance. And that tells you that we need to do more to get humanitarian assistance in. And then the second thing is that too many Palestinians died today, as has been true far too many days since October 7th.And so that’s why we continue to push for a temporary ceasefire agreement that would alleviate the suffering of the hostages that continue to be held by Hamas and get them home to their families, and that would alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Well, when you say too many Palestinians died today, does that mean that there’s some kind of acceptable number of Palestinian deaths?MR MILLER: The acceptable number is zero. The acceptable number is zero of innocent Palestinians – I’m differentiating that from Hamas fighters, obviously. But the acceptable number of innocent Palestinians dying is zero.QUESTION: All right. And then last one. So you talked about how it’s important to expand aid deliveries but also to increase the access points. You’ve been speaking publicly and privately for weeks now about your push for the Israelis to open Erez crossing for aid deliveries. How is that going?MR MILLER: I don&#8217;t have any updates on it, other than it continues to be a high priority for us. And if you look at the situation today, the reason we have been pushing for an opening of a crossing in northern Gaza is because we know that the situation there is incredibly dire. Even when you’ve had assistance flowing – not enough assistance flowing ever, but certainly over the past few weeks, not enough assistance flowing in the south at least there has been assistance getting in. The situation in the north has been much more difficult because of the difficulty of trucks traveling all the way from the south to the north and the difficulty of guarding those trucks, which I think is one of the things that we saw today. So we continue to push for a northern crossing to be open. It continues to be a high priority for us, but I don’t have an update on it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shaun.QUESTION: Could I just pursue, I mean, some elements of that? You talk about the safe delivery of aid. The Israeli military being there – I mean, do you have an idea what the situation was and is this – are there risks in this in itself on having the military so closely near aid delivery?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates, other than what I’ve seen the Israeli military say publicly, which is that they were military stationed there not as part of the aid, but I think it was either as a checkpoint or a normal military staging facility.So I think the – obviously, whenever you have a military operating in any area, you have a risk of misunderstanding, you have a risk miscalculation, you have a risk of civilian casualties. That is an ongoing risk as long as there is an ongoing military operation.But you also see that risk increase now because of – as I said earlier – how desperate people are, right. Just look at the footage, and you can tell. You can see the people swarming those trucks. They’re desperate. They need food. And so whenever you have that kind of situation you have the risk not just of harm from military action that goes wrong and unfolds in a way that no one anticipates or no one wants, but you also have a heightened risk of accident. You have a heightened risk of criminal activity. You have all of those heightened risks to innocent people who are just trying to get food and water and medicine and things that they need to feed their families and make their families comfortable and try to keep their families safe.And so that’s why you keep – hear me keep saying we are trying so hard to get this temporary ceasefire agreement to release the hostages, because it would do so much to alleviate every problem that the Palestinian people are facing now. It would allow us to get more aid in. It would allow aid to be delivered safely throughout Gaza. And it would allow people in Gaza more freedom of movement to move around and get to aid and get to their homes and get to their neighborhoods. So it is urgent that this agreement be reached, and that is why you see the President and the Secretary and others in the United States Government pushing so hard to get it over the finish line.QUESTION: And just when you say that you – I mean that the United States is pressing for answers, in what form does that take? I mean, have there been calls initially? And to what extent will the U.S. follow up on that? Is there – are there – is there talk about accountability already for this?MR MILLER: Again, I think it’s appropriate to let the investigation unfold and see what it produces, but we – I can tell you we were in touch at senior levels with the Government of Israel early this morning U.S. time. Obviously, Israel is seven hours ahead of us, so by the time we woke up here, people in Israel – in the embassy were already in touch. And those contacts were followed up by people here in the State Department, pushing for answers and pushing – and we’re told that there’s an investigation. We’ll look to see what the results of that investigation yield and what further measures, if any, are appropriate.Jenny, go ahead.QUESTION: President Biden said that he believes that this will complicate the negotiations to secure that ceasefire and free the hostages. Can you give us any details about what’s underlying his assessment there?MR MILLER: I won’t other than to say it very well could, but the reason you saw the President on the phone with the president of Egypt and the emir of Qatar, and the reason you saw the Secretary on the phone with the prime minister of Qatar is to try and push past this situation and to try to make clear that, in fact, this incident today – this tragedy today – just underscores why we need to get a hostage deal and why we need to get a temporary ceasefire as soon as possible. So it may very well complicate it, but our hope is that it will not. And we are going to push very hard to try to get a deal over the line.QUESTION: And can you give us any more details on what other measures the U.S. is considering to try to get aid into Gaza? We’ve seen reports of potentially air drops. Is there any contemplation &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; serious contemplation there?MR MILLER: There are a few – so we continue to try to improve the distribution system and work through that with the Government of Israel and the United Nations and try to find a way to unstick this problem that we have right now with providing security to convoys of assistance. We also continue to explore other measures – I’m not going to get into what those are from this podium – but we continue to consider another – a number of other possible measures to get assistance in, as well as working with our countries to get assistance in. You saw the Government of Jordan facilitate an air drop earlier this week, something that we very much support.But, again, our – it’s not to say that we are not focused on those, because we are and those would help immediately, but the real solution here to this is to try to get – or to get, I should say – an agreement that would dramatically increase the flow of assistance in and help with the distribution problems and help with the problem that civilians face of being able to move safely to get to aid when it actually does make it in.QUESTION: I mean, is there any discussion about any other crossings in the north of Gaza beyond Erez being opened or instead of Erez?MR MILLER: All I can say about that is that we continue to push for a crossing in the north to be open, and I’ll leave it at that.Simon.QUESTION: Come back to the crossings specifically, could you – I mean, a lot of people will be looking at this and saying you’re the main supporter of Israel. Israel is completely in charge of this crossing – the Erez crossing – and other border crossings and potentially – that could potentially open up aid to northern Gaza. We see these images, as you say, that demonstrates the desperation that people are feeling. Why is Israel unable to open that border?MR MILLER: So there are a number of security and technical challenges that they have been willing to work through. They can, of course, speak to those directly. I won’t try to speak for them, but I will speak on behalf of the United States and say that the Secretary has made clear directly in conversations with Israeli Government partners and as have others in the United States Government that we want to see a crossing opened in the north as soon as possible.You may recall that it was our intervention and our push that got Rafah first open for humanitarian assistance and then our push that got Kerem Shalom open for humanitarian assistance. In both those cases, it’s not something that happened over night. It’s something that we pushed for repeatedly and were eventually able to achieve, and we are hopeful to eventually be able to achieve a crossing – the opening of a crossing in the north because we think it’s incredibly important.QUESTION: So are you telling the Israelis that you don’t think that their security, whatever concerns they have, are enough to justify keeping that border closed?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into our private conversations, but I will say that we do continue to press with them the urgent importance of opening a crossing in the north.QUESTION: And there’s been this question of the Israelis targeting Palestinian police who have – in other instances are guarding aid. As Shaun was getting at, we seem to have an instance here where the Israelis have ended up involved in securing aid that’s being delivered. What does – does the U.S. have, like, a vision or a plan for how aid delivery should be secured, given the kind of chaos that we’ve seen today?MR MILLER: I’m not at a point where I can discuss those details publicly. It’s something that, as I said earlier, we are engaged with the Government of Israel as well as the United Nations, who provides most of the convoys coming in; they provide most of the humanitarian assistance coming in. But then there are, as we saw today, some commercial convoys that are coming in as well delivering goods that are available for sale.So we’re continuing to work through that situation and trying to get it solved as quickly as possible. Our special envoy, David Satterfield, has been engaged with it, but I just don’t have – I just can’t get into the details publicly, unfortunately.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. You don’t have any doubt that only one side did the shooting, and the killing, and the shelling, and so on of these people, correct?MR MILLER: Said, I have seen reports of – I have seen different reports with respect to that very question.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: We don’t know, as I said earlier, the ground truth of what happened, which is why we think it’s appropriate that an investigation be conducted.QUESTION: So you think that there were other people shooting Palestinians who were then &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, I said I have seen reports that other people were shooting. I don’t know the veracity of any of those reports &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; which is why we’re seeking more information.QUESTION: And you expect to get any results from these investigations &#8212;MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: &#8212; these reports?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: Will you come back to us next week and tell us this is what happened?MR MILLER: I can’t promise you next week because I don’t know how long an investigation will take, but certainly &#8212;QUESTION: So what &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; but – hold on – certainly, when an investigation is completed and we’re briefed on that investigation, I’m happy to come brief you on that.QUESTION: On the principle of it, why is it so difficult for this government to say we condemn the killing of children, Palestinian women and children? Why can’t you say the word “condemn”?MR MILLER: We do – Said, if you listened to what I said a moment ago, I &#8212;QUESTION: No, I listened very carefully.MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on. Said, please don’t interrupt me.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: I said far too many &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; Palestinians have died, thousands of Palestinian children have died, and it is a tragedy when one of them dies. Of course we don’t want to see a single child die.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: We don’t want to see anyone die &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; as a result of this conflict, which is why we have been working to bring this conflict to a close as soon as possible. But whenever you ask me these questions, I do think you continue to kind of just elide over the fact that Hamas bears a great deal of responsibility for putting those children in harm’s way. Remember it was Hamas that launched this war in the first place with an attack on Israel that killed men, women, and children, and that Hamas – that hid and continues to hide behind children as human shields.So yes &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. We &#8212;MR MILLER: Yes, we do not want to see &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; any child die. We don’t want to see any innocent civilian die, which is why we are working so hard to try to achieve a temporary ceasefire that would alleviate their suffering.QUESTION: Yet I have not heard the word “condemn.” I mean, this war began way before October 7. I mean, in fact, the reason that this administration was so strong on pursuing a Middle East peace and so on because the war has been going on for decades before and so on. We heard this administration when they came into office talking about the opening of the consulate, talking about the opening of the PLO office here, talking about restarting and reigniting the peace talks and so on, re-aiding UNRWA and so on, simply because that war has been going on for a very long time, because Gaza was under siege for a very, very long time.MR MILLER: Said, that being – hold on. Nothing that happened before October 7th justifies what Hamas did on that day. And it is – and it is what Hamas did on that day that led to the outbreak of this war and led to the suffering of so many innocent Palestinians.QUESTION: Right. So you are &#8212;MR MILLER: And I just feel it’s important to correct that fact.QUESTION: Okay, that’s fine. I mean, you guys said this many times before. But in fact, Israel has been waging war on Gaza for a very, very long time.Let me ask you on the aid issue, on the trucks and the trailers and so on: Is there anyone other than Israel that is holding the aid from going in?MR MILLER: It is not a question of aid going in. That’s not the problem right now, Said. The problem is that when aid gets in there is a distribution problem &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; inside Gaza right now because there are police officers, some of whom are members of Hamas &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; who have been providing the security for those – for that distribution inside Gaza. And what Israel says is that they have a legitimate right to go after members of Hamas. So we would obviously prefer to see members of a security force inside Gaza who are not Hamas members, but that’s not where we are today. So it is &#8212;QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: It is the situation that we continue to try to work through.QUESTION: So this is really the classic catch-22 kind of situation, because Hamas governed Gaza for a very long time – all of the police, all the – many &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m well aware.QUESTION: Many of security forces and so on. Unless you supply Gaza with police and other staff people, whatever, who are from Egypt, from anywhere, to distribute these things, it’s going to be the same people to distribute it, correct?MR MILLER: As I said, it is an &#8212;QUESTION: So this is really you’re saying okay, you can’t – it’s a catch-22 situation, you can’t do it?MR MILLER: I don’t think you’re listening to what I said. What I said is we believe the way to ultimately solve this problem is to try to get a temporary ceasefire that would get hostages out and alleviate this problem and make it possible for aid to move around, and get food in people’s mouths so they’re not so hungry and they’re not so desperate that they’re swarming the convoys that do come in.QUESTION: Last question. A last &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, just let me go to &#8212;QUESTION: I have one last question.MR MILLER: One last question then. Yes.QUESTION: Allow me one last question. Do you suspect that Mr. Netanyahu perhaps authorized this raid to scuttle the negotiations?MR MILLER: There is no &#8212;QUESTION: Do you have any suspicions?MR MILLER: There is no evidence of that that I have seen, Said.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. You keep saying that you don’t want to see any Palestinian civilians dead, and the number of civilians should – killed should be zero. But you saw the numbers – I’m sure you did – today; they are staggering. There are 30,000 dead, 70,000 wounded, and 7,000 are missing. With due respect, Matt, many people in the Arab and Muslim world do not believe that this administration is sincere when they keep saying the same message that we don’t want to see Palestinian dead, for many reasons. Number one, you supply Israel with lethal weapon with no conditions and no reviews, as much as we ask about it. And second is you shelter them in the Security Council and you are still siding with Israel that no ceasefire till now. You want a short pause, and it didn’t work out.So how can you respond to people who criticize this administration that actually you are the one who’s supporting the Israelis when they’re killing &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would – I would turn it around with a question – not to you, because I know that’s not the way this exchange is supposed to work. But to anyone that wants Israel to stop, just to stop the war unilaterally, what is their solution to the Hamas leadership that launched the attacks of October 7th and continue to be at large? What is their solution to the thousands of Hamas fighters who continue to be operating inside Gaza and continue to say that they are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, to say that they continue to be committed to the intentional murder of Israeli civilians?So anyone that is asking the question about Israel and Israel’s conduct in this campaign – which are fair questions, and it’s why we stand up here and answer them – also needs to ask questions about Hamas’s culpability and Hamas’s side in it. Because this is a difficult problem, and we continue to believe that Israel has a legitimate right to go after terrorists that are right across its borders, right in Gaza, that are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and are committed to killing Israeli civilians. But we want them to do it in accordance with international humanitarian law, and it is important that they do that.Again, as I’ve said before, if Hamas came out and laid down arms, all of this could be over today – all of it, every bit of it.QUESTION: The only difference is we are journalists covering the State Department, so it’s our right to ask you.MR MILLER: It’s why I made clear – it’s why I made clear I’m not asking the question of you. I’m very aware.QUESTION: We’re holding the administration accountable.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Other journalists will hold Hamas. But one – another question. Senator Coon said today that if Israel does not present a secure and credible plan to evacuate civilians – 1.5 million from Rafah – then he’s willing to consider restriction on arms sales to Israel. And this is an advanced position from – the senator is very close to the Biden administration. So do you believe now you start losing the argument even among – in Congress? And do you support that at one stage, that even this administration will impose arms restriction?MR MILLER: I think it’s important that we take things one step at a time, and where we are today is that we have said we cannot support an operation in Rafah unless there is a credible and executable plan to deal with the more than 1 million civilians who are sheltering there. And we have not yet seen such a plan. We haven’t been briefed on such a plan. And we can’t support it until we see that plan.And so to speculate about what may happen down the road, I, of course, can’t do. I can’t tell you what’s going to happen tomorrow, but I’ll take it one step at a time and say right now there’s not a plan on – there’s not a plan in place that we have seen that we can endorse.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions. May I get the department’s reaction to Putin’s speech, his accusations against the West, and obviously a renewed nuclear war threat? Anything in particular stood out?MR MILLER: So it is not the first time we have seen irresponsible rhetoric from Vladimir Putin. It is no way for the leader of a nuclear-armed state to speak. We have communicated in the past privately and directly with Russia about the consequences of the use of a nuclear weapon. That said, we do not have any sign that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon, and we will continue to monitor this carefully.QUESTION: Thank you. Yale University just came out with a report this morning. They highlighted 323 incidents of targeting Ukraine energy infrastructure, damaging it, mostly outside of the front line. This is something the Secretary flagged last fall. Now that you have a report backing it, is there any action you’re going to take to hold Russia accountable?MR MILLER: Any action we’re going to take to hold Russia accountable?QUESTION: If it’s verified.MR MILLER: I think you have seen us take a number of actions to hold Russia accountable over the two years since this war began, the more than two years now since this war began, when it comes to imposing sanctions on Russia, imposing exports on Russia to try and dry up the fuel for the Russian economy and the Russian military machine, and you have most significantly seen us hold Russia accountable by providing security assistance to Ukraine to defend itself and repel the Russian aggression from its borders. And it’s why we continue to say that the most effective step that can be taken to hold Russia accountable would be for Congress to pass the present supplemental request to make sure that Ukraine continues to get what it needs to hold Russia accountable.QUESTION: In Vienna at OSCE, you guys invoked today Moscow Mechanism, along with other countries. Criticism is that the Moscow Mechanism has been invoked multiple times last year, but there is no impact – real impact if Russia stays a member of the OSCE. So what are you guys trying to achieve with the next round of Moscow Mechanism?MR MILLER: So we continue to hold Russia accountable at all levels, in multiple fora, and I don’t think you should look at actions in just one as the totality of our engagement.Janne – let me &#8212;QUESTION: Can I – let me have one more.MR MILLER: Let me go ahead. We’re already half an hour in.QUESTION: Please come back to me.MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Strengthening cooperation in responding to North Korea was discussed at the U.S. and South Korea foreign ministers’ meeting yesterday. However, China is violating sanctions against North Korea and continues to provide used ships, including fuel, to North Korea. Why are there no additional sanctions against China?MR MILLER: So the Secretary and the foreign minister of the Republic of Korea did discuss yesterday their concerns about the DPRK’s increasingly aggressive behavior, their repeated violations of UN Security Council resolutions. And I can tell you that in every conversation the Secretary’s had with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, he has raised North Korea’s activities, and he will continue to do so. And I don’t want to preview any further actions.QUESTION: Second question. President Biden signed executive order banning the sale of information about U.S. individual and U.S. Government to adversaries. As you know, China is carrying out information activities through Confucius Institute around the world, including United States. What measures is the United States currently taking on this?MR MILLER: Let me take that one and get back to you.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah. Matt, CNN reported that American – the American administration is concerned that Israel is planning to – is planning a ground incursion into Lebanon that could be launched in the spring or next summer. Can you elaborate on that, and to what extent are you concerned?MR MILLER: I am not going to comment on leaked reports, even ostensibly to your esteemed colleagues at CNN in the room here. But as you have heard me say before and as you’ve heard the Secretary say before, we believe that the best way to achieve Israel’s legitimate security concerns in the north of Israel is to pursue a diplomatic path and achieve a diplomatic resolution. The Government of Israel has said it believes that the diplomatic path is the best way to seek a resolution, and that’s what we’ll continue to engage in.QUESTION: And do you expect an incursion in the spring or in the summer?MR MILLER: I do not want to comment, again – I talked a minute ago about taking things step by step. Let’s take this step by step. Right now, we take the Government of Israel at their word that they want to pursue a – or pursue a diplomatic resolution, and that’s what we’re engaged on.QUESTION: And can you tell us about the efforts that the U.S. is taking to achieve a diplomatic solution?MR MILLER: I can tell you that they’re private, and in the best – in the – the best prospect of them being successful is to keep them private, but that we are engaged intensively on them.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Go ahead in the back, all the way.QUESTION: Matt, thank you. Mark &#8212;MR MILLER: Because I know I skipped you a couple of briefings ago, so &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you. Mark Stone from Sky News. The Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said today that – he was asked how many women and children had been killed by Israel since October the 7th. He said it was 25,000. If the total number is 30,000, that leaves 5,000 men killed. If you assume that all those men are combatants, which is an absurd assumption but some have made that assumption, that means that more than 80 percent of the people killed since October the 7th are civilians. How is that anything other than a complete disaster and a total failure of American leadership?MR MILLER: So I have seen the comments by the Secretary of Defense. I haven’t seen them in full, so I will refer you to the Department of Defense to discuss exactly what he meant. But I will say whatever the exact number is of civilians that have been killed, it is far too high, which is what you heard me addressing a moment ago, and which is why we continue to try to perceive a temporary ceasefire that would alleviate that suffering.QUESTION: So what is – but if I can follow up.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: First of all, are you suggesting that maybe the Defense Secretary got it wrong?MR MILLER: No, I’m suggesting that for comments about the things the Defense Secretary said, you should take that up with the spokesperson for the Defense Department, who does have a daily briefing and I’m sure will be happy to talk about &#8212;QUESTION: So how many civilians do you think – how many women and children &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t – I don’t have a further estimate to offer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions on Iran. So what does the department think about the parliamentary elections to be held in Iran tomorrow? What is the expectation and assessment, and does it think that it’s fair and free? And then I have another Iran question.MR MILLER: So I have no expectation that Iran’s elections will be free and fair, and I suspect that a great number of Iranians have no expectation that those elections will be free and fair. As you probably already know, thousands of candidates were already disqualified in an opaque process, and the world has long known that Iran’s political system features undemocratic and nontransparent administrative, judicial, and electoral systems.QUESTION: And my second question is: What is, again, department’s assessment of Russia putting an Iranian satellite into orbit? Does it believe that it – the satellite is, as the Iranians say, to be used for civilian purposes?MR MILLER: So we’ve seen the reports of this satellite launch. It’s yet another indication of the deepening military partnership between Iran and Russia. As we have warned publicly on a number of occasions, this partnership is harmful to Ukraine, to Iran’s neighbors, and to the international community. We have demonstrated our ability to take action in response to the military partnership between Russia and Iran in close coordination with our partners and allies. And if Iran goes further and sells ballistic missiles to Russia, I can assure you the response from the international community will be swift and severe.Go ahead. And I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Today is the fourth anniversary of controversial Doha Agreement which paved the way for Taliban to return to power. Many U.S. experts and politician believe it as the worst agreement in the history of United States in diplomatic way. And you and Taliban also accusing each other to violating the terms of this agreement. Don’t you think this moment is the time for you to abrogation this agreement and announce it as null and void?MR MILLER: So in our view, the agreement empowered the Taliban, weakened our partners in the Afghan Government, and committed the United States to withdrawing our troops with no clear plan for what should come next. The Taliban have not fulfilled their commitments in the Doha Agreement. While they have taken some steps regarding certain terrorist groups in Afghanistan, it is well known that the Taliban also sheltered al-Qaida leader Zawahiri in downtown Kabul, which flies directly in the face of the agreement. They have not fulfilled their Doha commitment to engage in a meaningful dialogue with their fellow Afghans leading to a negotiated settlement and an inclusive political system. So we will continue to make clear to them what we believe their obligations are.Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thank you, Matt.QUESTION: Well, so why didn’t you – why didn’t you pull out of it?MR MILLER: Because we are continuing to make clear what we believe their obligations are under the agreement. And &#8212;QUESTION: Well, yeah, but if they’re – but if they’re not doing it, then – hey, look, you guys took what you say now is a flawed and bad agreement from the previous administration but forged ahead with it, even while knowing that – or knowing – even while thinking that it was a bad agreement. Why?MR MILLER: I think has been litigated from this podium many times, mostly before I got here, is that we were playing the hand that we were dealt and thought it was important to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. And the &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, but the hand that you were dealt on other things, such as the Paris Climate Accord – you rejoined that after it had been pulled out of. You – there are other examples.MR MILLER: And the – and the idea of leaving U.S. troops in Afghanistan was not one that the President supported.QUESTION: All right, and then related to this &#8212;MR MILLER: I told her I was going to go next, but go ahead.QUESTION: Well, yeah, I know, but this is &#8212;MR MILLER: (Laughter.) Yeah.QUESTION: But this is directly related to Afghanistan.MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: So I asked you yesterday to follow up on Nick’s question &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on the HFAC. So Chairman McCaul has just announced a March 7th markup for a bill that would hold the Secretary in contempt of Congress for refusing, allegedly, to turn over these after-action report interview notes. What’s your response to that, and do you have any response to the questions that I asked you yesterday on that?MR MILLER: Let me – let me first – let me take the second question first, because I hadn’t really looked at that statement, which came out right before the briefing. So what I said two days ago was accurate; I stand by it. We did not tell the committee that the interview notes were the property of other agencies, as the committee said in its letter from a couple of days ago. We also did not tell the committee that the interview notes implicated other agency equities and needed to be cleared for release by other agencies, as the committee said in its statement yesterday.So what I said was accurate and I stand by it, but as it relates to the overall question, this is a matter we have been trying to resolve amicably for some time. We recognize the committee’s legitimate oversight function, and we – that’s why we have – we have supplied them with thousands of pages of documents. It’s why we have made people available for transcribed interviews. As you know, we have gotten – we have come to kind of loggerheads at certain points in the past and been able to reach a resolution, and that’s what we’ll try to do here.QUESTION: Yeah, okay, so – but you’re still not prepared to turn over what they’re asking for. Whether their interest is in your view legitimate or illegitimate, they do have a legitimate interest in the subject, but you’re still not going to hand them over. Is that correct?MR MILLER: Two things. One, they have a legitimate interest in the subject, but that does not mean that there aren’t also longstanding Executive Branch equities that we need to be mindful of. So that’s the first thing. The second thing is I’m not going to negotiate over this in public, but we are and will be in contact with the committee about this to try to reach some kind of resolution.QUESTION: Well, are you at all concerned that there’s going to be this markup in the committee that would hold the Secretary in contempt of Congress?MR MILLER: We are going to try to achieve a resolution. We’ve seen these markups announced &#8212;QUESTION: Before then?MR MILLER: Yes, before then.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Now go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Going back to humanitarian aid into Gaza, the ICJ ordered last month immediate and effective measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza from a risk of genocide. That includes ensuring humanitarian assistance. So do you think that Israel is complying with this ICJ ruling? And do you believe – do you agree that today’s attack near Gaza on starving people waiting for humanitarian assistance violates this ICJ’s ruling?MR MILLER: So again, let me just say I don’t believe we have established the facts of what actually happened today. But it is important that those facts be established, which is why we have called for an investigation and will look forward to the results of that investigation. As I have seen, there are conflicting accounts and we don’t know the ground truth of what happened. When it comes to the overall question, we certainly have seen Israel take some steps to facilitate the assistance of humanitarian aid into Gaza, but we think that there’s more that they can do and more that they should do. And it’s why we continue to press them on it.QUESTION: And I have a follow-up on that.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Because UNRWA’s head Lazzarini today said during an interview with CNN that there has been a 50 percent reduction of humanitarian aid entering Gaza compared to last month, despite the ICJ’s ruling. So it seems that Israel is not taking maybe those steps to allow more humanitarian aid. Do you think that Israel maybe should face some consequences for not complying with this ruling?MR MILLER: So we think they should allow more humanitarian assistance in, but ultimately, this goes to this problem I was referring to a minute ago, where you have the problem not just of it getting in but then getting properly distributed to those who need it because of the very severe security situation on the ground. That’s what we want to see resolved and that’s what we’re working with the Government of Israel as well as the appropriate UN agencies on trying to accomplish.Go ahead, Jen.QUESTION: The Palestinian factions are meeting in Moscow today. I’m wondering what the U.S. assessment is of Moscow taking this role to try to play I guess a diplomatic role here.MR MILLER: So we have not seen Moscow play much of any role in trying to resolve this conflict since October 7th. We have always said that we would welcome countries that were willing to play a constructive role in trying to achieve a diplomatic resolution, but I will say it has never been our assessment that that is the role that Moscow wants or is willing to play.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I take you to Africa for a few questions?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Ghana. I know there’s a statement that you issued last night on the anti-LGBTQ bill. Just to follow up on that, if my understanding is that the President Akufo-Addo hasn’t signed it yet, are there talks with Ghana trying to stop this from becoming law? And if it comes to fruition, are – is there a sense of what the repercussions, if any, could be from the U.S.?MR MILLER: So we have made very clear what our opinion is on that law – you can look at my statement yesterday – and we have made that clear in private conversations with the Government of Ghana as well. I don’t think I should get any more specific than that, but if this bill becomes law, it would certainly have a chilling effect on foreign investment and tourism in Ghana. You’ve seen that same chilling effect bear fruit in Uganda, which passed a very similar law in the past, and I can say that should the bill pass, it would potentially have ramifications on U.S. assistance in the country.QUESTION: Sure. Just a couple more on Africa.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: In Chad, the opposition leader was killed, Mr. Dillo Djérou. I wonder if the U.S. has any comment on that in terms of what this – how this complicates, if at all, the situation in Chad.MR MILLER: No – so we are aware of the targeted violence that transpired yesterday in a neighborhood in the capital. That violence has abated, but we continue to monitor the situation closely, and we’ve seen reports of his death – widespread reports of his death – but have not confirmed them and don’t have any other assessment at this point.QUESTION: Sure. And just one more. I know I’ve asked about this before, but in Senegal, the date for the election – the opposition is calling for it to be held before April 2nd, when President Sall has said he’ll step down. I know you’ve said before you want – that the U.S. wants the election as soon as possible. Does the U.S. want to weigh in on that timeline, whether it should be before he leaves office?MR MILLER: I don’t want to weigh in other than to reiterate what we have said before, which is, as the supreme court ordered, we want to see the constitutional process followed and we want to see the election as soon as possible.I’ll take a couple more and then wrap. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Thank you very much. A gentleman named Jiao Diego, a Portuguese American from Texas, did $200,000 business with China, got cheated, got robbed. To date there is no clue about who did it. Three months before him, a gentleman from Reston did the business with the same company for about 120,000, went to the Beijing office of the state – of the U.S. embassy, complained, filed the name of the person, phone number, picture. That same person basically cheated this other gentleman three, four months later. Any protection for U.S. businessmen regarding State Department officials sitting in Beijing about solving their business-related issues?MR MILLER: I do not know the underlying specifics of the cases that you’ve raised so can’t possibly comment on it.QUESTION: Just one more – one, please.MR MILLER: No, go – go – let me just – we’re – it’s been a busy day.QUESTION: Please, one more.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Just fine – yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: So as you know, the Polish foreign minister was in town recently, and in many comment before his meeting with Secretary Blinken, he repeatedly warned that if America fails to honor the President’s pledge of supporting Ukraine as long as it takes, it will badly damage America’s credibility as an ally and then the – some allies will look for security elsewhere and others will look to pursue their own nuclear weapons. Is that – what’s your response to that? And do you share this worry?MR MILLER: So we think that America’s credibility when it comes to upholding our commitments to our allies is well established, and it’s something that has been well established over decades. That said, I am quite sure that our allies are watching closely what the United States Congress does when it comes to supporting Ukraine. And even more than that, I know our adversaries are watching closely what the United States Congress does when it comes to Ukraine – most importantly President Putin, who I am sure is watching and waiting to see if the United States Congress is going to stand with democracy and stand with those who support freedom or if it is going to allow President Putin to continue his aggressive – aggression against Ukraine without ongoing military support from the United States.QUESTION: Sorry. You’re &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Upholding our commitment to allies is well established?MR MILLER: Believe so.QUESTION: Yeah?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. Well, you’re going to tell that to the Montagnards, to the Hmong, to the Cambodians, the South Vietnamese, to the Kurds, to the Afghans – all of whom were abandoned by the United States after having gotten firm commitments of support.MR MILLER: So we could do a long tour through United States foreign policy, I’m sure most of which &#8212;QUESTION: Well, we don’t have to do the long tour.MR MILLER: Well, hold on. Hold on. Most of which we don’t &#8212;QUESTION: I just want to know who comes up with the language that your commitment to allies is well established, when, in fact, what’s well established is a long history of you abandoning allies.MR MILLER: I think when it comes to our allies – and specifically I was speaking about our NATO Allies in response to that question – I think our track record of support them is clear. And the – more importantly, the commitment from the President is clear.QUESTION: All right. My last thing is just &#8212;MR MILLER: And then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: &#8212; I have asked you before &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; about Chinese – complaints from the Chinese embassy about the treatment of Chinese students will valid U.S. visas being harassed and/or deported on their arrival in the United States.MR MILLER: Right.QUESTION: Do you guys have anything more to say about that and how widespread an issue this is? I realize it’s not mainly a State Department concern once people arrive at a port of entry, but you do give the visas out. And if someone has a valid visa &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; they should have an expectation of not – at least not being harassed.MR MILLER: Let me say generally that people-to-people ties are one area where we can work cooperatively and constructively with China, and it’s something that we have sought to increase. You may have seen the announcement just recently that we agreed with China to allow 100 weekly flights, direct flights, between the United States and China – 50/50 between – split between the PRC and the United States.When it comes to people from China coming to the United States, students make up a significant portion of those who come. And my understanding – you’re right that it is not primarily a State matter when it comes to this question of people being detained or denied admission, but my understanding is that the percentage of Chinese students who have been detained is less than one-tenth of 1 percent and that overall the percentage has been stable over the past few years. So I’ll just say that we believe that people‐to‐people ties are important, and we’ll continue to push to expand them.QUESTION: Do you have any idea what that actual – one-tenth of 1 percent, what the number – what that number is, either what the &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; total number of visa holders are?MR MILLER: I was going to say I don’t, because I don’t know what the numerator is – or maybe it’s the denominator. I don’t know what the total number of students that come in is, which is what we need to figure that out.QUESTION: Okay. Well, do you know what one-tenth of 1 percent of – even without &#8212;MR MILLER: Of students? It’s &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; even without knowing what the total number of visa-holding Chinese students is? Do you know what the number &#8212;MR MILLER: No.QUESTION: &#8212; of one-tenth of 1 percent is?MR MILLER: No, I don’t. I don’t know either the numerator or the denominator. I know the ratio. That’s the extent &#8212;QUESTION: Ah-hah. Okay.MR MILLER: That is the extent of it. That is the extent of the math I’m going to do from this podium &#8212;QUESTION: How extremely – (laughter) – okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; as a government and English major.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: So with that, we’ll wrap for today and the week. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:22 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Chad																								China																								Ghana																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Korea																								Ukraine
- Online Briefing with Molly Phee, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; Michael Hammer, Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa; and John Godfrey, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Sudan Johannesburg HubDownload or listen to the audio file here .MODERATOR:  Good afternoon to everyone from the U.S. Department of State’s Africa Regional Media Hub.  I welcome our participants logging in from across the continent and thank all of you for joining this discussion on the topic of U.S. efforts with African partners to advance peace and security.  Today, we are very pleased to be joined by the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee; Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Michael Hammer; and U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Sudan John Godfrey.  Our three speakers will discuss the recent African Union Summit in Addis Ababa and U.S. efforts in partnership with African institutions to promote peace and stability in eastern DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan.We will begin today’s briefing with opening remarks from our speakers and we will then turn to your questions.  We will try to get to as many of your questions as we can during the briefing.With that, I will turn it over to Assistant Secretary Molly Phee, Ambassador Godfrey, and Ambassador Hammer for their opening remarks.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Hello, everyone.  Thanks to our hub team for pulling this together and to those journalists who can join us for this call.  We have a lot to cover today given that we did a lot during our travel last week to the African Union Summit in Addis as well as to Somalia.  I was joined by the U.S. Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Mike Hammer and my USAID counterpart, Assistant Administrator Dr. Monde Muyangwa.  And of course I was able to see and work with our great team on the ground in Addis, which includes Ambassador Erv Massinga, our ambassador to the – to Ethiopia; Ambassador John Godfrey, who is our ambassador to Sudan; and our chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Mission to the African Union, Mika Cleverly.If you follow me on X, or formerly Twitter, you will have seen we had a very active week of diplomacy with our African partners, and so today we thought it would be useful to share more details with you as well as answer any questions.  You know we value your work as journalists, even when you’re critical, and we firmly stand for freedom of the press on the continent and around the globe.Let me begin with our visit to Addis, which reflects our strong partnership with African institutions and countries.  You have heard Secretary Blinken frequently emphasize in his speech announcing the U.S. strategy towards Africa and highlighted at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit that President Biden hosted in December 2022 that the United States is deeply committed to strengthening genuine partnerships on the continent to work to solve shared challenges and to deliver on the promises and the fundamental aspirations of the people of Africa and the people of the United States.This past week, the primary focus of our efforts were the ongoing crises in eastern DRC and Sudan as well as tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia resulting from the January 1st Ethiopia-Somaliland MOU.  We also held important discussions about the nature and scope of a follow-on mission to the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia, known as ATMIS, and bilaterally we had a chance to meet with many members of the Ethiopian Government as part of our work to advance peace, human rights, and stability in Ethiopia.First, let me share some of our efforts on eastern DRC as we try to de-escalate the conflict between the DRC and Rwanda.  I had the opportunity to meet with President Tshisekedi, President Lourenço, and President Ruto, and President Hichilema in an effort to defuse the situation.  As many of you know, we’ve been actively engaged to prevent conflict between DRC and Rwanda for months.  This effort intensified last November with the visit of the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, and when she went to Kinshasa and to Kigali, and as you know, I and a few other team members were on that trip.As a result of that engagement, there have been intense, regular conversations between senior U.S. Government officials and the senior officials of the governments in Kigali and Kinshasa, including President Tshisekedi and President Kagame.  Our goal is to keep all the stakeholders engaged.  And I also want to remind folks that Secretary Blinken had a chance to talk with President Lourenço in person about this matter when he traveled to Luanda in January.Throughout this recent time period, we have been directly engaged with both governments as well as regional partners to develop and enact mutually agreed upon confidence-building measures that could de-escalate the situation and create room for the Luanda and Nairobi processes to resume.  Our engagement is designed to support these regional diplomatic efforts, especially the Luanda and Nairobi processes, as they are designed themselves to promote de-escalation and create the conditions for lasting peace in the DRC.It was agreed that our role would be to assess and be clear if either side is not honoring the confidence-building measures and commitments that were forged in our discussions.  Keeping the stakeholders engaged and responsive in this process is our goal.  As you know, we’re quite concerned about recent events, and you may have seen the statement that was issued last Saturday.On the other hand, we were also really delighted to see the serious engagement of regional leaders, and we stand ready to support their efforts to resolve this conflict.  And again, we call on all sides to participate constructively in reaching a negotiated solution.During the past week, I also visited Mogadishu with Ambassador Hammer.  That trip was planned as a follow-on to discussions that were organized at our request at the African Union in Addis on February 14th – I’m sorry, February 13th – with the Core Security Partners Group to maintain momentum to counter al-Shabaab after the ATMIS mission concludes at the end of this year.  As dedicated partners of Somalia, we are fully committed to strengthening the Somalia National Army and supporting their counterterrorism efforts, as you saw with the announcement of U.S. funding support for an additional five bases for the Danab Somali Brigade.  It is also important that an appropriately scoped multinational presence remains in Somalia to help maintain stability until Somalia security forces can fully take over.And in our meeting with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, as we did in our meeting with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in Addis, we urged a de-escalation of tensions based on respect for Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – the same words you heard AU Chairperson Moussa Faki stress in his opening address at the summit.The issue of Ethiopia’s desire for increased commercial port access – a valid concern – should be resolved through talks with the federal Government of Somalia and neighboring states, or possibly as part of a regional approach that is based on cooperation and regional economic and security integration.The issue of Somaliland’s status should be resolved by the people of Somalia, including the people of Somaliland, not by external actors.  The region can ill afford more conflict.I also had a chance to discuss important efforts towards constitutional reform with the president and separately with the speaker of the parliament and several other MPs.And as I close my remarks at the top on Somalia, I’d like to express my admiration for the team on the ground – the State Department, USAID, and other interagency partners – for their stellar service in a very difficult environment.  And we also greatly appreciate the role of the U.S. military who are also deployed in Somalia.So I’m going to close off here and turn it over to John Godfrey to review our engagements with Sudan, as we remain deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation and the continued fighting that is threatening to break up the country.  I spent a lot of time in Addis this past week with pro-democracy Sudanese civilians – women, representatives of grassroots organizations, and emergency response rooms, which are groups of young Sudanese trying to get humanitarian assistance out.  I also met with members of the Taqaddum front and others, all who are working tirelessly to advocate for the Sudanese people and prepare for post-conflict governance.  I want to underscore upfront that the United States does not support military governance and will continue, as we have done for decades, to support the Sudanese people against military oppression and in their goal of charting a democratic future.After John talks about Sudan, Mike will brief on our bilateral meetings with Ethiopia, and then we’ll turn to your questions.  Thank you very much for your time and attention.  Over to you, John.AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Phee.  As Assistant Secretary Phee said, we are deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation and intensified fighting in Sudan, which threatens to divide the country and further destabilize the region.  And just for context, I wanted to highlight a UN OCHA report released last Saturday that estimated that there are more than 6.2 million Sudanese who have been internally displaced since the fighting began last April, and about 1.8 million further Sudanese who are refugees in neighboring countries, which makes this the largest displacement crisis anywhere in the world at the moment.  At the same time, acute food insecurity affects about 17.7 million Sudanese, 5 to 6 million of whom may face acute starvation as early as May.During her time here in Addis last week, Assistant Secretary Phee held an intensive series of meetings on Sudan, as she mentioned, and her meetings focused on three sets of issues: one, the urgent need to stop the fighting; two, facilitating humanitarian access, which is badly needed; and three, supporting Sudan’s civilians, who must determine the country’s post-conflict future.As Assistant Secretary Phee said at the top, she met with women civil society representatives, leaders of grassroots organizations, and resistance committee members, representatives of the emergency response rooms, and members of the Taqaddum pro-democracy front.  Her discussions with Sudanese civilians focused on increasing women’s participation in a political process and in post-conflict governance, on expanding international actors’ engagement with local actors providing humanitarian assistance – and that includes the ERRs that were mentioned – and further diversifying Taqaddum to be more broadly representative and able to speak with a unified voice to articulate civilians’ concerns and put pressure on the two warring parties.Throughout, she made it clear that the United States has long stood with the Sudanese people – that is, the Sudanese civilians – and that neither SAF nor RSF should play a role in post-conflict governance, and that ending the Sudan conflict and restoring civilian governance are high U.S. priorities.  In her many meetings with key stakeholders on multilateral efforts, Assistant Secretary Phee discussed the need for resumed ceasefire talks and coordination of regional initiatives; the urgent need to facilitate humanitarian assistance, which is becoming more urgent by the day, and that includes cross-border assistance from Chad and South Sudan ahead of the impending rainy season, which will make roads impassable; pressing for Sudan-related action in the UN Security Council; and insisting the belligerent parties fulfill their obligations under international humanitarian law as well as meet their commitments to facilitate humanitarian assistance and protect civilians as they agreed to do under the Jeddah Declaration, which neither have done.Thank you.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Thank you, John.  This is Mike Hammer.  Good afternoon, good morning, depending on where you are.  Regarding the meetings that we had with Assistant Secretary Phee and our Ambassador to Ethiopia Erv Massinga, I’d like to highlight those meetings that we had with Prime Minister Abiy, Foreign Minister Taye, Finance Minister Shide, civil society representatives, as well as the Interim Regional Administration President Getachew Reda of Tigray, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Director Daniel Bekele.  And in all those meetings, we expressed U.S. support for the full implementation of the Pretoria Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, which is known as COHA, as well as our willingness to facilitate dialogue with the Oromo Liberation Army and participate in possible talks with the Amhara Fano aimed at finding a peaceful resolution to ongoing violence, as there is no military solution.  We appreciate that the Government of Ethiopia has expressed its openness to dialogue.We also raised our rising concerns about the human rights situations in Amhara and Oromia and urged that the government ensure the protection of civilians and hold to account perpetrators of abuses.  While work remains, we acknowledge progress on transitional justice and advancing a national dialogue that is inclusive and credible.  Both are key to overcoming past grievances and setting Ethiopia on a better trajectory.Specifically to advance the COHA, Ambassador Molly Phee, of course Ambassador Massinga and I, participated in a meeting February 17th hosted by the National Reconciliation Committee headed by Ambassador Teshome with key donors in support of disarmament, demobilization, and the reintegration program in Tigray that is essential to advancing a lasting peace.  The United States stands ready to disburse $15 million to support DDR activities, and we came away heartened by the considerable financial commitments made by international partners to enable the launch of the program soon.  And today I’m actually calling in from Mekelle, the capital of the Tigray region, where I’m following up with the IRA leadership and had a chance to meet with civil society organizations that our USAID is supporting, which provide assistance to survivors of gender-based violence from the horrific two-year war.I was also briefed by the African Union’s Monitoring, Verification and Compliance Mission.  And while there has been a dramatic decrease in human rights violations since the end of the war brought on by the Pretoria Agreement in November of 2022, we remain concerned by the lingering presence of Eritrean troops on Ethiopian territory.  It is also urgent that internally displaced people who have suffered so much be able to return to their homes.Allow me to make a final point.  We know from experience that following agreements to end hostilities, the really hard work is implementation.  That is what we are doing now.  Much remains to be done, but we are encouraged that 15 months after Pretoria, both the federal government in Addis and the Tigrayan Interim Regional Administration remain committed to peace.Now I believe the assistant secretary, John, and I are ready to take your questions.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Phee, Ambassador Godfrey, and Ambassador Hammer.  We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  For those of you who are listening in in Arabic and French, I believe we have had a technical problem with the Arabic interpretation, and I apologize for that.  You are nevertheless welcome to submit questions in the Q&amp;A tab in either French or Arabic, and we will address your questions at the very least, and we’re working on the interpretation issue.As for all journalists, please – if you would like to ask a question live, please indicate that by clicking on the raise hand button, and then also please make sure that we can see your name, your media outlet, your location, and preferably your question also in the Q&amp;A tab.  I just want you to understand that, from our side, we only see your Zoom logon, and we quite possibly might only see a telephone number.  So if we cannot tell who you are or what outlet you’re from, we will not call on you.So for all questions, we’d ask you that – ask that you limit yourself to one question only.  And again, the topic of today’s briefing is: U.S. Efforts with African Partners to Advance Peace and Security.So for our first question, I’d like to go to Mr. Steve Wembi of Infos Direct, Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The question is:  “The U.S.A. had called for a ceasefire in the armed conflict in the east of the country and asked the belligerents to resolve the conflict politically.  Unfortunately, this ceasefire was respected for only a few days, and today there is a full resumption of fighting.  What is your next approach to silence the weapons in the east?”Assistant Secretary Phee, if you would like to take that question.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Sure.  Thanks very much, Steve.  We remain committed to the idea and the principle that there is no military solution to the crisis in eastern DRC.  What I took away from our meetings in Addis about this discussion – and as you heard, we talked with the leadership of Angola and Kenya and Zambia, as well as President Tshisekedi.  We understand that everyone is ready to do their part to try and reduce tensions, reduce fighting, and provide relief to the people of eastern DRC who have suffered so much and for so long.  So again, we are trying to provide our unique resources and capabilities in monitoring actions in that part of the world to contribute towards confidence and legitimacy processes to resolve the tensions.So we’re committed, our partners are committed, the parties are committed to working with us, and we continue to work intensively to address the crisis.MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  So for our second question, I’d like to go to Mr. Alula Birhanie of the Addis Media Network in Ethiopia.  And the question is:  “How extensive are the political measures taken by the U.S.A. to stabilize the region?”  Ambassador Hammer, would you like to address that one?AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Well, maybe I could defer first to Molly as the broader region, and then maybe dive deeper into Ethiopia.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  I’m not really sure I understand the question, Johann.  What was it again?  What measures we’re taking &#8212;AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Yeah, I can &#8212;MODERATOR:  How – yeah.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  &#8212; take a first crack at it.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Okay.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Basically what this call reflects is the tremendous American engagement at senior levels – from the White House to Secretary Blinken to the travels that the assistant secretary has just done – in our effort to work with our African partners, to – as the question asked – to actually stabilize the region.  I think that it goes without question that the United States is focused on trying to alleviate the suffering that we’ve seen throughout the Horn, and that we are prepared to remain very much engaged, not only to end the conflicts but also to help Africans in the Horn of Africa build a better future for themselves.And really, it is important that it be recognized that we don’t do this alone, and we do it with our African partners.  The visit to the African Union Summit was an opportunity for all of us to engage on these issues, to think together on how we can partner and how we can be most effective in trying to, again, bring peace and stability to the region.  But perhaps, again, the assistant secretary would like to add something further.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  No, thanks, Mike.  I think you’ve covered it, and I believe it should be clear from the number and type of meetings that we described how deeply we value our engagement with our African partners to support them as they strive to bring peace and prosperity for their populations.  And where there are those who engage in disruptive activities, we are there to counsel otherwise and to encourage getting back on the path to peace and prosperity.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you very much.  I’d just like to remind all the participants today:  If you do have a question, please type that into the Q&amp;A box, not the chat, okay?  And again, if you wish to ask a question, please make sure that you have identified yourself and we know what outlet you’re from.Okay.  So next question comes from Aidan Lewis, Reuters, in the UK:  “How concerned are you about foreign states deepening Sudan’s war by supporting the rival sides or fighting proxy conflicts there?  And to what extent are the warring factions in Sudan impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid?”So Ambassador Godfrey?AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Great, thank you, Johann.  To answer the question, I would say that we are deeply concerned by external support to SAF and RSF, and have since the beginning of the conflict urged external actors to refrain from providing materiel support to the two belligerent parties, which has two principle consequences: one, it prolongs the fighting, extends the war; it also reduces the prospects for finding a negotiated exit from the conflict.  And I would just note here that the recent UN panel of experts report highlighted violations of the Darfur arms embargo.  In addition, there is – there are reports about resumed ties between Sudan and Iran that could include, reportedly include Iranian materiel support to SAF, which is also very troubling and a source of great concern for us.On the issue of humanitarian assistance, I think this is a really timely question, and unfortunately the answer to the query is that neither side has taken the steps that they have repeatedly committed to to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.  So just to remind:  Under the Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Sudanese Civilians, both SAF and RSF signed on to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief.  And very candidly, that has not happened.In addition to that, there were a series of measures that they agreed to, confidence-building measures, in the second round of Jeddah talks, that included participation in a humanitarian forum under the auspices of UN OCHA, as well as specific steps to facilitate humanitarian assistance corridors and distribution of aid inside Khartoum itself.  Those have not been met either.And finally, there is the persistent issue of so-called bureaucratic impediments, which includes things like visas for humanitarian assistance workers, travel permits, and inspection of humanitarian cargoes.  Those remain persistent challenges for humanitarian actors.  And finally, I would highlight the confusing signals principally from the Sudanese Armed Forces about whether they would or would not facilitate cross-line assistance into areas under RSF control.The upshot of all of that is that humanitarian assistance since last April has not been able to flow in a rapid and unimpeded way that both sides have committed to, and that you now have a situation where 17.7 million Sudanese, approximately, are in a state of acute food insecurity, and 5 to 6 million of them may be in a situation of acute starvation as early as late May.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Ambassador Godfrey.  So I see a hand up and a submitted question from Sisay Sahlu.  Sisay, can we open your mic?  Please limit yourself to just one question, and keep it brief, if you don’t mind.QUESTION:  Can you hear me?MODERATOR:  Yes, we can hear you now.QUESTION:  Thank you.  My name is Sisay Sahlu; I’m a journalist in Ethiopia, media called The Reporter newspaper.  I would like to know just, Assistant Secretary of State Molly Phee, regarding the resolution of the conflict between the two largest groups in Oromia and Amhara region, regarding the fight and the death of numerous civilians, the fight with the federal troop.  My argument here is, like, I want to make clear that is, like, the U.S. officials are trying to solve the – see the issue, like, as it was seen in the northern Ethiopia?These are – the ongoing conflict in Oromia and Amhara is tough, and it has never been seen by U.S. officials.  Is there any sanction?  Is there anything that the U.S. officials are looking to impose or to try to solve that’s happening in Oromia and Amhara region, especially with the Fano groups and with the (inaudible) groups?  Is there any sanction list for authorities who are, like, unwilling to resolve the dispute?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Thank you, Sisay.  If you heard about the number of meetings we had in Ethiopia, we met with many members of the government as well as community and human rights activists, as well as Dr. Daniel Bekele.  So this has been a recurring theme in our discussions with our Ethiopian partners.  The prime minister says that he is committed to peaceful resolution of the challenges that Ethiopia is now facing in the Amhara and Oromia regions.  We encourage him to act on that commitment.We have expressed concern publicly and privately about the conduct of security services in responding to insurgent and criminal attacks.  We know that that’s a complicated security challenge, but more must be done to respect the rights of civilians.  And we remain postured through our ambassadors in the region to support the Ethiopian Government and other stakeholders as they try to restore calm to both regions.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  If I may add – this is Mike Hammer – you may also recall that we were directly involved in a round of talks with the Oromo Liberation Army in Dar es Salaam last November, and remain ready, as we’ve offered to the government and the parties, to help facilitate a peaceful resolution to that conflict.  And we know that our Ambassador Massinga in Addis is also offered to the government, and if there’s an opportunity to engage with the Fano, we would welcome the opportunity to try to, again, advance peace.  And as we’ve said repeatedly, there is no military solution to these conflicts.  And in fact, the focus right now should be on dialogue and of course ensuring the protection of civilians.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  All right, thank you very much.  I’d like to invite Ange Kasongo, Reuters, in the DRC, to ask her question, which was posed in French.  Ange, you may pose your question in French or in English, as you like.  We do have interpretation.QUESTION:  (In French.)MODERATOR:  All right, thank you for the question.  Which of our panelists would like to address that?ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  You need to provide us with some guidance about where we can find the translation so we’re properly responding to the question.MODERATOR:  Ah.  Okay, apologies.  There is a translation tab, but I will – let me just read; we have a translation of it at any rate.  “So the efforts in Addis Ababa between Kigali and Kinshasa, under the auspices of Angola, have not succeeded in either a promise of dialogue or in a ceasefire.  Can you tell us a little bit about the blockage which has not permitted this conflict to arrive to a stage of dialogue?”ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Well, I can reaffirm the commitment of the United States to continue to press both sides, as well as to work energetically with regional countries to try and address the current spike in conflict that we’re seeing in eastern DRC.  We have – we would prefer to use the channel that we’ve established between the two parties in which we’ve agreed together with them on a series of confidence-building measures that would restore calm and create a space for dialogue.  And when the parties don’t agree to those measures, we – or don’t follow through on their promised implementation, we will call them out.This conflict, as you know better than I, has been long running for decades.  So it is not a surprise that we haven’t reached immediate resolution, but we have had some success over the past few months.  Again, I was encouraged by my engagement in Addis, where it was clear to me that the regional partners are committed to trying to take additional steps to de-escalate the situation.  And we will just continue to try, because the consequences for the people of eastern DRC and for the security and stability of the region are too costly not to remain actively engaged and pressing forward.I would like to highlight that yesterday the UN Security Council adopted additional sanctions measures against the M23, and we will continue to look at all tools available to us to encourage resolution of the tensions.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you very much.  Our time is running short.  I think we might have time for one more question.  There’s a question in the Q&amp;A from Galami Ahmat Galami of Tchad Media in N’Djamena.  And the question is translated:  “Thank you for this press conference.  The situation in Sudan has consequences for Chad, and it’s important to address those consequences.  The United States has proposed several solutions to stop the war, including diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions, and peacekeeping initiatives.  It’s a complex issue, but an international cooperation and dialogue are crucial for finding a resolution.  Is – what is the United States approach to resolving the conflict and the spillover effects into Chad.”ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  John, do you want to address that first?AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Yeah, sure, happy to do so.  Thank you for the question.  First of all, I’d like to start by thanking Chad for hosting such a large number of Sudanese refugees, including but not only from the Darfur region, who have been displaced by the fighting.  Chad has been a very good host for those refugees, and we know that that puts a burden on the country.  You’re right that we have adopted a series of different measures to try to bring an end to the fighting, facilitate humanitarian access, and ensure that in a post-conflict environment there is civilian governance with no role for either of the military parties in governance.We have called on SAF and RSF to fulfill the commitments they both made to IGAD at the extraordinary summit on December 9th to meet face to face at the level of General Burhan and General Hemedti.  We’ve also called for them to implement what they agreed to in principle there, which is an unconditional and – ceasefire, and an immediate one.  We have worked actively from the beginning of the conflict, as I mentioned earlier, to urge external actors to refrain from providing materiel assistance.  We were actively involved in two rounds of talks in Jeddah that were designed to achieve ceasefires and facilitate humanitarian assistance.  And in the first round of Jeddah, we were able to effect some short-term ceasefires that enabled the delivery of about – of humanitarian assistance to about two and a half million people.We have used sanctions, and Assistant Secretary Phee has been very clear with both sides that we will continue to identify additional potential actions going forward for as long as the fighting continues and the two sides refuse to negotiate an exit to the fighting.  And just to remind – since the beginning of the conflict, we’ve sanctioned 14 individuals and entities to deny the belligerents the means to prosecute the war, and also to reduce and deter atrocities and other human rights violations, as well as to ensure that there’s a post-conflict civilian government, and again, not one that is dominated by either of the belligerents.  And the other measures have included the Secretary of State issuing an atrocities determination on December 6th that indicated that SAF has committed war crimes and that the RSF has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.But maybe just to get to what’s arguably the most important part of the question, we’ve now had several different efforts to reach a negotiated exit from the conflict, including the Jeddah talks, IGAD’s initiative in December and January, and more recently, talks in Manama.  We are open to the possibility of going back to talks, and frankly, I think we’re open in terms of what the venue is and what the format is.  We do think there needs to be participation by the external actors who have leverage to bring to bear against both parties so that we can find a negotiated exit to this terrible conflict.MODERATOR:  Okay.  Well, I think we might have time for one more question.  And there’s a question in here from Constance Daire for Africa Intelligence.  “Regarding the MOU between Ethiopia and Somaliland, are you worried it will affect the fight in Somalia against al-Shabaab, especially regarding the Ethiopian forces in ATMIS?  And has the official signing of the MOU been delayed after meetings with the Ethiopian authorities in the context of the AU Summit?”  And that will &#8212;ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Thanks for that question.  As I explained in my opening statement, we had always planned to travel to Mogadishu on the occasion of the African Union Summit, because now is the time for everyone to be focused on discussing the scope and shape of the future ATMIS mission, which is designed to end at the end of this year.  We were grateful that the African Union Commission hosted a meeting with all the stakeholders who are engaged in Somalia’s fight against al-Shabaab, and that includes the troop-contributing countries from Africa, including Ethiopia.  Those were – that was an important discussion about how we can all work together on that project, and that’s where the focus needs to be.  That’s why I had agreed to travel to Somalia to highlight the American commitment to Somalia as they seek to liberate their country from al-Shabaab and be able to develop their country for their people.So that is the goal for all of us.  That’s what we shared with the Ethiopian Government, that while we recognize their legitimate concerns as a landlocked country, we needed to address those concerns in a way that didn’t disrupt the shared commitment among all partners in the region, on the continent, and internationally, to help Somalia through this difficult period.  So that’s where our focus is now, and that we’re encouraging all sides to de-escalate the tensions that were provoked by the MOU, to communicate better.  We’re contributing, hopefully, to improve communication, and we also consulted with other partners in the Horn about how to, again, focus on what we’re doing together to tighten up our effort to combat al-Shabaab and help Somalia develop.It was important to me to also have a conversation with Somali partners when I was in Mogadishu about their need to continue to focus on governance, to deprive al-Shabaab from any sort of weakness among their engagement among the member states that creates a vulnerability for the terrorists.  So that’s the focus of the parties, that’s our focus, and we will continue to contribute to, again, a reduction in tensions and an expansion in communication so there’s no room for misinterpretation or inadvertent miscommunication that could cause trouble.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you very much.  So that does conclude the Q&amp;A portion of our briefing today.  And I’m glad we were able to get to so many of the questions.  There were a lot of journalists online and a lot of interest.  We were not able to get to everybody, but unfortunately our time is limited.  I’d like to find – I’d like to ask whether Assistant Secretary Phee, Ambassador Hammer, or Ambassador Godfrey have any final words and invite you to deliver any final thoughts you might have at this point.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Well, thanks for that opportunity.  And again, thanks to all for spending some time with us today.  I hope you walk away from this conversation with the knowledge that the United States remains deeply engaged with all of our partners across the continent in a support role to help them address these longstanding tensions and challenges.  Again, we’re acutely focused on the crises in Sudan and in eastern DRC given the damage they are doing both to the people of those regions and to stability on the continent.  And we continue to remain engaged with all partners in an effort to promote stability and create the conditions for peace and economic development.I know that Mike and John would much rather be working, as I would, on expanding trade and investment, but we need to see secure conditions to allow that focus on economic development.  So thanks to all of you for listening to us.  I hope you come away reassured that we’re deeply engaged and will remain deeply engaged across the continent.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  All right.  Ambassador Hammer, Ambassador Godfrey, any final words for us?AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  No, I think the Assistant Secretary covered it well.  Again, as always, we appreciate your interest and also your courage.  Oftentimes, as journalists working in very difficult and challenging environments, freedom of the press, as Molly said at the opening, is essential and is something that we as the United States support not only on the continent but around the world.  So thank you again for your time and the work that you do.AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Just would echo Assistant Secretary Phee’s expression of appreciation for the chance to engage with everybody today on a really important set of challenging issues facing the region, and appreciate the interest and the thoughtful questions.MODERATOR:  All right, that concludes today’s briefing.  I want to thank Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee, Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Michael Hammer, and U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Sudan John Godfrey, for joining us.  Thank you to all the journalists for participating.  A recording and transcript of today’s briefing will be distributed to participating journalists as soon as we can produce them this evening.  If you have any questions about today’s briefing, you may contact the Africa Regional Media Hub at AFMediaHub@state.gov.  I would like – also like to invite everyone to follow us on Twitter at our handle @AfricaMediaHub.  Thank you.# # #
- Constitutional Referendum in Chad HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Constitutional Referendum in Chad				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Constitutional Referendum in Chad																																		Press Statement																														December 19, 2023																																							We are pleased that Sunday’s constitutional referendum took place peacefully and congratulate Chadians for the orderly manner in which they expressed their preferences, regardless of how they voted.  We also respect those who chose not to participate.  As Chad moves towards presidential and legislative elections, we hope that all Chadians who choose to pursue their political agendas through peaceful and democratic methods will be able to compete on an equal basis, and that those in charge of the process will act independently and impartially.						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Chad																																Elections																																																					Human Rights and Democracy																															Office of the Spokesperson																																Referendum