# Colombia - United States Department of State

- Solicitation for Federal Register Notice 12192: Seeking Private Sector Participants for a Discussion Group on the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS)-affiliated “Group of Friends for Dark and Quiet Skies” Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsBackground: The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) was established by the UN General Assembly in 1959 to review international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, study space-related activities that could be undertaken by the United Nations, encourage space research programs, and study legal issues arising from the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. This solicitation is seeking private sector individuals to advise the U.S. delegation to UNCOPUOS on the topic of the effects of satellite and satellite constellation brightness on optical and infrared astronomy, colloquially known as “Dark and Quiet Skies.”The significant increase in the number of space objects and the growth of large constellations in low-Earth orbit provides new opportunities for enhanced connectivity and economic growth, while at the same time spurring concern over the brightness of these objects interfering with astronomers’ observations and science. This concern has been particularly prevalent in countries with deep roots in astronomical observation. These countries, in coordination with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), proposed establishing an agenda item on this topic under the auspices of the UNCOPUOS Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC). Following several years of active discussion, the Subcommittee reached consensus on an agenda item to be considered for a period of five years titled “Dark and Quiet Skies, astronomy and large constellations: addressing emerging issues and challenges.” During negotiations, several delegations advocated for the formation of a “Group of Friends for Dark and Quiet Skies (GoF DQS),” which would serve as a UNCOPUOS-affiliated group of interested nations committed to discussing and addressing these challenges. The GoF DQS also allows for more substantive participation from academia, the commercial sector, and non-governmental organizations in the discussions. The United States formally joined the GoF DQS in November 2023.The United States views the participation of and input from private sector actors in these discussions as essential for any outcome arising from these discussions to be practical, implementable, and effective. The Department of State, in coordination with the National Science Foundation, is therefore seeking to convene interested and relevant non-governmental stakeholders to provide input on the GoF DQS’s activities and participate in pertinent discussions.Request: In alignment with the Department of State’s notice on “Private Sector Participation in Domestic and International Events on Spaceflight Safety, Sustainability, and Emerging Markets in Outer Space” of 88 FR 67421, the U.S. Department of State is seeking qualified individuals to participate as private sector advisors to a discussion group for the GoF DQS.Individuals interested in participating in the discussion group should:Have experience working in the space sector, and particularly in the areas of satellite operations, satellite design, and/or astronomy; andCurrently affiliated with a U.S. company, non-governmental organization, or academic institution that focuses on space issues.Selected participants will be added to a distribution list that will receive information from the GoF DQS, including meeting summaries, proposals, informational materials, and other related correspondence. The Department of State, in coordination with the National Science Foundation, will arrange meetings with the discussion group to solicit perspectives on the work of the GoF DQS, including:Providing possible best practices or guidelines on ways to mitigate the impact of satellite reflectivity on astronomy;Evaluating proposals put forward by other delegations; andIdentifying methods for outreach and awareness raising.Participants may also be asked to join the GoF DQS meetings, either virtually or in-person. Participation is voluntary. These meetings would likely happen on the margins of either the UNCOPUOS STSC or the UNCOPUOS Plenary, which typically take place in February and June, respectively. Participants will not receive compensation for their time or travel expenses.How to Participate:To express interest in participating as a private sector advisor to the GoF DQS, please submit the following material to GugliettaRT@state.gov by May 31:A brief description of your organization (max 300 words);An explanation of why you would like to participate in the GoF DQS discussion group and how your experience and expertise are relevant to this topic (max 300 words); andA curriculum vitae.The expressions of interest will be reviewed and individuals will be informed of their status by June 4.
- Actions Against Executives of Colombian Maritime Transportation Companies that Facilitate Irregular Migration Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Actions Against Executives of Colombian Maritime Transportation Companies that Facilitate Irregular Migration				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();			}		});	}																										Actions Against Executives of Colombian Maritime Transportation Companies that Facilitate Irregular Migration																																		Press Statement																		May 6, 2024																																							The United States took steps today to impose visa restrictions on executives of several Colombian transportation companies moving migrants by sea.&nbsp; These companies prey on vulnerable irregular migrants by operating&nbsp;services designed primarily to facilitate irregular migration&nbsp;to the United States.Several companies providing maritime transportation are knowingly facilitating the irregular movement of migrants and exposing migrants to exploitation and violence. &nbsp;U.S. visa restrictions promote accountability for these actors and send a signal that no one should profit from vulnerable migrants—not smugglers, private companies, nor public officials.&nbsp; We will continue to take steps to impose visa restrictions against unscrupulous transportation company owners, executives, and senior officials as part of our broader campaign to eliminate such exploitative practices within and beyond the Western Hemisphere, in collaboration with partners in government and in the private sector.These actions were taken pursuant to a State Department policy announced in February 2024, which expanded and superseded a prior Nicaragua policy announced in November 2023, under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 212(a)(3)(C).  The policy targets senior officials of companies providing transportation by land, sea, or charter air designed for use primarily by persons intending to migrate irregularly to the United States.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Colombia																																Migration																															Office of the Spokesperson
- Department Press Briefing – April 24, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 24, 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 &#8211; April 24, 2024																																																					April 24, 2024																																																								1:08 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: That was, like, very in unison. Good job, guys.I don’t have anything off the top, so Ellen, if you’d like to kick us off?QUESTION: Hi, Vedant. Former State Department Security and Human Rights Official Charles Blaha took part in a panel presentation on credible allegations of human rights abuses by Israeli forces this afternoon. And he said that in his experience in 30 years at the State Department, the State Department gave Israel special treatment that no other country in the world got and that it showed undue preference to Israel in accepting its accounts of incidents for – that involve allegations against Palestinians. So aside from the fact that he’s a free citizen, free to say what he wants to say, is he correct? Is the person who was central to the kind of reviews that are happening now in the State Department, is he correct in saying that’s the situation, or did he misunderstand how things worked over three decades?MR PATEL: So I can’t – I can’t speak to these comments; I haven’t seen them, or can’t really speak to this individual and their – what their role may have been here at the State Department. What I can say unequivocally is that we apply the principles and guidelines that are outlined in clear legislation when it comes to the security relationships we have with countries around the world, including Israel, consistently. I will also note that when it comes to the appropriate use of American security assistance we also apply the principles and guidelines as it relates to those consistently with countries across the board.Simultaneously, we have a number of measures and efforts in place when it comes to ensuring that there is compliance with international humanitarian law. We’ve talked about a number of those levers from this briefing room, and we apply the tenets laid out in those measures consistently across the board with countries across the board. There is no such thing as special or preferential treatment when it comes to the implementation and enforcement of what we believe to be U.S. law.Simultaneously, when it comes to Israel, at every conversation we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative to ensure that every possible step is taken when it comes to ensuring that civilian casualties are minimized, that deconfliction measures are implemented immediately, and that humanitarian aid can get to the place that it needs to go and that humanitarian aid workers are protected. And we’ll continue to be very direct about those efforts, and we’ll continue to apply the tenets of our – of these factors consistently across the board with all countries.QUESTION: A former – a couple of former senior State Department officials involved in the process have come forward now to say that’s not the case. Does that – does that prompt – should that prompt an examination of the State Department of its own process?MR PATEL: Again, I have not seen these other comments, but what I can say unequivocally is that there is no such thing as double standards or preferential treatment. We apply the rule of the law, and the standards outlined and the various accountability mechanisms we have consistently across the board with all countries that we have security relationships with. I assume these individuals that you outline are private citizens, so they have every right to speak whatever it is their opinion is on issues pertaining to global affairs, but we – as you know – we see no indication of – or reason to reassess our policy or the steps and procedures that we have in place.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. A senior Israeli defense official has said that Israel’s military is poised to evacuate Palestinian civilians from Rafah and assault Hamas holdouts in the city. Do you feel that U.S. concerns about an operation in Rafah have been heard or addressed?MR PATEL: We don’t. This is an ongoing process. We continue to be very clear – and Ambassador Satterfield reiterated some of this yesterday – that when it comes to a military operation in Rafah there needs to be a serious, credible plan when it comes to how to deal with some of the very pressing humanitarian challenges. You’ve heard me talk about these before: First and foremost, we have more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; Rafah as a region continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as a region of safe departure for foreign nationals. For these reasons and many others, we continue to engage directly with our partners in Israel about them needing a very serious, coordinated, and well-thought-out plan when it comes to any military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Have you gotten any assurances on protection of civilians from the Israelis?MR PATEL: We are having these conversations. They are ongoing. Obviously, in the broader sense of the conflict, we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative of pressing – of protecting civilians and making sure that every possible step is taken to protect and minimize civilian casualties. But on the topic of an operation in Rafah, this is a conversation that we’re going to continue to have. You might have been in the briefing last week in which we talked about National Security Advisor Sullivan’s meeting with the – through the Strategic Consultative Group to talk about some of these issues. These conversations will continue to be ongoing, and we’ll continue to engage with our Israeli partners on this.QUESTION: Will the U.S. take any action if they go ahead with an operation?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals here.QUESTION: Okay. And then if I could just ask, Palestinian Authority has reported finding hundreds of bodies in mass graves at a hospital in Khan Younis this week after it was abandoned by Israeli troops. I know you said earlier this week that the reports are troubling, but will the U.S. call for an independent inquiry?MR PATEL: So first, the – let me just say the allegations are troubling, they are disturbing, we take them very seriously, and we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. It’s our understanding the IDF has spoken to some of this publicly; they have stated that in search of Israeli hostages, they have uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously been buried. And after determining that no hostages were there, these graves were recovered. Obviously, the IDF can speak to – specifically about their operations in the region. But we’re also continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information onto what this is and what the circumstances are here. And when we have that information, we’ll be happy to share that with you.QUESTION: Can I follow up (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; my colleague. At that event, actually, where they released something called the independent task force on the application of National Security Memorandum 20 &#8212; I’m sure you’re aware of. Now, these two former officials from the State Department, they were – of course they’re private citizens, but they were speaking officially of their time spent in the State Department. So you are saying that there has never been at any time a special treatment of Israel in terms of the dispensing aid, military aid, or otherwise, or even political aid?MR PATEL: Said, what I am saying is that when it comes to the security relationships that we have with countries around the world – whether it be Israel, whether it be any other country where we have a robust security relationship – the applications and standards of the laws that guide that security relationship, including the laws and procedures that guide accountability measures that are in place within our system to ensure that human rights are not being violated, to ensure that American assistance is being used properly, the laws and guidelines and standards of those are applied consistently across the board. There is no double standards and is there no special treatment, regardless of country.QUESTION: There is absolutely no special treatment of Israel at any given point in the past 50 years, whatever?MR PATEL: Said, I can only speak &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; to this administration and the work that is ongoing here. I think we – you know we always don’t like turning these press briefings into history lessons.QUESTION: Right, okay. That’s fine.MR PATEL: I’m not here to speak about 50 years. What I can say is that since the onset of this administration and our longstanding security relationship with Israel, this has been the case.QUESTION: Yeah, I’m not interested in relitigating history either. I just wanted to ask you – now, the report they are talking about, or the memo they are talking about, was issued back on February 8th. I believe there is another one coming up soon in May. Can you tell us what it will – what it will do and will not do?MR PATEL: Said, I’m going to not get ahead of the process here. You saw around in March us speak to this first benchmark, which was receiving these letters from the various ministers and government officials who we have security relationships with. But beyond that, there is of course an additional component around the May 8th date, and so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Yeah. Two more points. On the Patrick Leahy Law, now we understand that it is obligatory, right, it is obligatory that whatever arms sent to anyone of your security partners and so on would abide by what is stated or what is dictated by the Leahy Law; it is a law. So can you share with us the mechanism that you apply in enforcing that law?MR PATEL: So Said, without getting technical, let me just be clear: Of course we take our obligations to the Leahy Law incredibly seriously. It is another example of a tool that we have at our disposal that we continue to apply consistently across the board when it comes to countries of – in which we have security relationships. A determination on a Leahy Law violation would essentially mean that it – we would have been found gross violations of human rights, and then particular components under a particular country where we have a security relationship, those specific components would be ineligible for U.S. assistance. But again, that is talking about it in a broad term, and I’m not going to get more specific than that.QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, on the mass grave. Now an Israeli spokeswoman for the Israeli army basically dismissed the whole thing, dismissed the charge. Now you’re saying you find it troubling, and you ask the Israeli Government for clarification. Do you expect them to come back to you with this clarification? Do you have a timeframe?MR PATEL: I don’t have a timeframe for you, and we do expect them to provide us with more information.QUESTION: But considering that this is just happening and it has a certain level of urgency – I mean, considering that the UN is asking for an independent investigation and so on – do you say that we need a response within this period of time?MR PATEL: We are stressing the urgency of not just this incident but other incidents in which we continue to press our partners in Israel for more information and more details about the circumstances surrounding it. We don’t always read those conversations out; sometimes they are private. But our partners in Israel are ones in which we engage with regularly around the clock at varying levels, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Elizabeth, go ahead.QUESTION: There was a report in Israeli media over the weekend that Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich is pushing to legalize 68 outposts in the West Bank. Does the State Department have a reaction to that report? And is this something you’ve raised with Israeli officials?MR PATEL: So look, these reports about directives to support illegal outposts in the West Bank, we believe that to be dangerous and reckless. Our policy, U.S. policy, remains that settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace and the Government of Israel’s program is inconsistent with international law. And we’ll continue to urge Israeli officials to refrain from taking actions to fund outposts that have long been illegal under Israeli law. Actions or announcements seeking to expand outposts will only move the goal of peace and stability in the region further away.Abbie. On the region or anything else?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Hamas released a video today of Israeli American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin. I wondered if you had any comment on the video and if you had any further information on proof of life or the date of the video – and more broadly, if you could give an update on the hostage discussions.MR PATEL: Sure. So the video itself is being actively examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. I can’t comment it – on it any further at this time, on any of the specific parameters on the verification of it or not. But I will just note that if it’s real, that this is another example of Hamas preferring to hold hostages rather than end the war and bring much-needed relief to the Palestinian people in Gaza.On the matter of hostage talks and negotiations, Abbie, there is a deal on the table: release the sick, the wounded, the elderly, women, and there is a ceasefire. It’s simple as that. The whole situation continues to be totally unacceptable to us; since October 7th, we have stressed at every tide and turn that every single hostage needs to be released. And candidly, over the course of this conversation, it’s something that the world has lost focus on a little bit, that it is Hamas that started this war. It’s Hamas that is continuing to hold hostages and has the ability to end it by releasing them.When it comes to this video, Hersh should be home with his family, and we and Secretary Blinken are not going to rest a single minute until that happens, including the President, of course.Alex. On the region?QUESTION: On Iran, if I may.QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Let me see if there’s anything else on Gaza specifically before we pivot to some of the broader topics.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Does the U.S. support an investigation into the mass graves found in Gaza, an independent investigation?MR PATEL: So as I said, we’re continuing to ask our partners in Israel for more information. I don’t have an additional assessment to offer.QUESTION: So you want Israel to investigate but not an independent &#8212;MR PATEL: We are asking for more information on the circumstances relating to the reporting of the mass grave, as I said to both of your colleagues when they asked this very same question.QUESTION: That’s not &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So in the Human Rights Report released on Monday, you said that Israel, the government, took some credible steps to identify and punish officials who may committed – who may have committed human rights abuses. However, we have not seen some credible steps regarding several investigations since October 7, including the killing of Hind Rajab. I wanted to follow up on what Matt said last week. He said that you would ask for more information in the light of – in light of the recent Washington Post report, which cast doubts on earlier Israeli findings. Any updates on this? Have Israelis gotten back to you?MR PATEL: So specifically as to what mechanisms might be in place within the Israeli system, I will let our partners in Israel speak to that, about any efforts that they are undertaking. From the United States perspective – you’ve heard me say this before – we consistently, in all conflict zones, continue to assess and identify evidence, facts, situations on the ground. Those are analyzed. Those are looked through the various inputs and systems that we have to assess violations of possible human rights, and we take the process from there. And we’ll make additional assessments as we need.But these are deliberative processes that are rigorous, that are detail-oriented, that are rooted in the law and rooted in facts, and they take time. I don’t have anything official to offer.QUESTION: But specifically, I’m asking about the killing of Hind Rajab. Have you asked them for more information, and have they gotten back?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on this case specifically. I don’t have anything from up here.QUESTION: And any updates on World Central Kitchen aid workers? You were reviewing Israeli findings. Have you made an assessment?MR PATEL: So when it comes to the findings in the World Central Kitchen, that tragic event, you saw our partners in Israel take a number of steps when it came – comes to accountability measures, specifically as it relates to dismissing three officers and placing some additional others on probation.In light of that, we’ve also continued to see some steps in the right direction when it comes to humanitarian assistance, but we also continue to stress the importance and we need to see additional steps being taken when it comes to deconfliction mechanisms and steps that they can take to protect humanitarian workers. Ambassador Satterfield spoke a great deal about that yesterday, about things like comms equipment and other ways in which steps can be taken to ensure that humanitarian workers are kept safe, and we’re going to continue to press our partners in Israel for those kinds of things.I’ll go back to you, Ellen. Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I ask about the – the work being done for the findings that will be finished on May 8th? Are there any additional new investigations or inquiries being done as part of that examination of Israel’s &#8212;MR PATEL: So the national security memorandum is not a new process or a new policy process in which there are new standards or some sort of new thing that is applied to the countries that we have a relationship on. It is an assessment of whether we find a particular country who we have a security relationship with – whether we find their assurances to use U.S. security assistance properly – whether we find those assurances credible and viable. And that work is ongoing.When it comes the – but when it comes to ensuring that there are not violations of human rights and that human – and that U.S. assistance is being used appropriately, there are a number of processes in place that already exist within the federal government. We’ve talked a lot about them here &#8212;QUESTION: But I understand – I understand that the same processes and standards as before. My question is are there new – any additional investigations, reviews (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not an investigation, Ellen. It’s not an investigation. It is an assessment &#8212;QUESTION: So there’s – so you’re looking at (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t fully understand what you are asking.QUESTION: I mean, are you looking at – is there a deeper look being taken into specific instances in Gaza?MR PATEL: This is work that is already ongoing and totally separate from the national security memorandum. You are conflating these two very separate things.QUESTION: No, I’m talking about the national &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand, I understand, and what I am stressing to you is what we have said from the onset since the national security memorandum was signed. It is not a new investigation or a new process. When it comes to ensuring the appropriate use of American security assistance and ensuring that human rights violations are not taking place, there are a number of steps that already exist within the U.S. Government that are being inputted into, that are being assessed. We are looking at the facts on the ground as we would in any conflict zone, but I’m not going to speak to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: But I’m not going to speak to these ongoing deliberative processes. We’re not gathering new facts. This gathering of facts has been ongoing since the onset of October 7th, as it would in any conflict zone. The national security memorandum process is a totally separate thing. It is not an – outlining any new process or any new investigation. It is an assessment of assurances operated – offered by host governments when it comes to the assurances that they provide on the use of U.S. assistance. We’ve been pretty clear about this going – dating back to a number of press briefings.QUESTION: Right. I guess I’m saying are you doing any additional – you’ve got the assurances, but how do you determine they’re accurate?MR PATEL: That is the work that’s ongoing. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but this is the work that has been ongoing not just in this conflict zone but in every conflict zone on the face of this planet, where we look at the facts on the ground, we work with civil society organizations, we work through our embassies and consulates to assess what is happening on the ground, and those facts, they then are assessed at – looked at further. They are examined. They can move into various other processes as well, whether they be CHIRG, whether it be a Leahy process, whether it be something else. That work is always ongoing.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia.MR PATEL: Okay. I’m going to come back to you at the end.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying with Iran for a while – I have a couple of other questions on Ukraine – Toomaj Salehi, very well-known dissident rapper, very well known for criticism of – his criticism of the Iranian regime, got sentenced today to death. Any reaction, and any steps the U.S. can take to prevent this from happening?MR PATEL: We have seen those disturbing reports. He – we’re talking about someone who has already faced torture and other harsh treatments in detention. This is just another example of the Iranian regime’s horrific and pervasive human rights abuses. We once again condemn the Iranian regime’s use of death – use of the death sentence as a tool to suppress people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms. We continue to closely follow reports of Mr. Salehi’s situation.QUESTION: The MAHSA Act is now the law of the land. Can you guys give us sense of how you’re going to implement it, when, and will you directly – will you be willing to directly target Iranian supreme leader for his gross human rights violations?MR PATEL: So, Alex, we continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to hold the Iranian regime accountable – the MAHSA and SHIP Act, as you so noted. We’re of course going to implement the law, but I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, and we’ll wait on speaking to any of the Iran-related provisions specifically for now.QUESTION: May I move to Ukraine if I may, or &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me finish out on the region and then &#8212;QUESTION: Please come back to me.MR PATEL: &#8212; come back to you.Go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding Toomaj Salehi and the sentence he was just given, is there anything you can do on the international scene to stop it?MR PATEL: Well, look, Guita, we continue to have tools at our disposal when it comes to the – to pressuring the Iranian regime, when it comes to their crackdown and their various serious egregious violations of human rights. I’m not going to preview those from up here. But again, it is – this is just another example of the regime’s pervasive and egregious human rights abuses.QUESTION: Sure. Among the tools you’ve – you always refer to is sanctions, but sanctions is not going to stop them from executing somebody who has spoken in support of freedoms. Anything else you may be able to do?MR PATEL: Well, look, the reports are incredibly disturbing and troubling. And we’ll continue to raise cases like this one and raise violations of human rights like this and continue to make clear these kinds of egregious crackdowns, in public forums like this one, through the international community, so that we can further collectively hold the Iranian regime accountable for its crackdowns.On the region?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Doc.QUESTION: Okay, thank you, Vedant. I just had really a follow-up, but I didn’t get to finish my question about the Netzah Yehuda Battalion. And this is the question: In light of jewishpress.com and Middle East Forum reports regarding the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization criticism of the IDF, that battalion, and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas in its war against Israel, does the U.S. Government vouch for the credibility of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization reports regarding those U.S. sanctions against the Netzah Yehuda Battalion? And a quick follow-up.MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully am following your question. What exactly are you asking about?QUESTION: Have you heard of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization?MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this organization.QUESTION: Okay. Well, I’ll go to the next question here.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: Right. There’s – United States continues to sanction more and more Israelis. Can you describe in detail what is the basis for these sanctions, why there isn’t a public hearing so that the American public can see or hear the evidence, and which other allies does the United States currently have sanctions against the citizens and military units?MR PATEL: So generally, public hearings are not part of the process of designating individuals or entities under our system. But let me just be clear and let’s talk about what this is about. This is about violence in the West Bank, violence that we believe to be destabilizing when it comes to our ultimate goal of peace and stability in the region. And that’s why you saw the administration take steps last week to designate individuals that we believe to be contributing to that instability through violent extremism.Go ahead. Yep.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A question on Iran. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Agency, said in an interview with Deutsche Welle that Iran is weeks rather than months away from having enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. What’s the U.S. assessment on that? Do you have the same belief?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here. What I can say is that we sincerely appreciate the IAEA’s extensive efforts to engage Iran on longstanding questions relating to Iran’s safeguard obligations. And we’re going to continue to support Director General Grossi and the IAEA in their efforts. We’ll also continue to consult closely with the E3 and other appropriate partners on this, but I’m not going to – don’t have anything &#8212;QUESTION: What about his comments? He says that Iran is weeks closer to enriched uranium to have the nuclear – does that concern the U.S. Government?MR PATEL: Look, any kind of – the President has been very clear that we will go at all lengths to ensure that Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon. But I don’t have an assessment to offer on Director General Grossi’s comments, but we certainly continue to appreciate his efforts to engage the Iranian regime as it relates to their safeguard obligations.QUESTION: And one last question, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Yeah. This week and after the Iraqi prime minister went back to Baghdad, the militia group has resumed their attacks. The Pentagon spoke of that, and here at the State Department Matthew spoke of that, too. But my question is that were there any connections with the Iraqi Government on that specific attacks and the resumption of the militia groups attacks on the U.S. forces?MR PATEL: I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon to speak in greater detail about this. I don’t have anything to offer from here.QUESTION: No – no connections from State Department?MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel. Just a few one – and promise to make them brief. On Monday Secretary gave detail about the Human Rights Report, and you said you do not have double standards. Since last year and a half, you do not see a million Pakistani moving out of the country, journalists being put in jail, women in jail, political workers in jail.MR PATEL: Is there a question here?QUESTION: So Pakistan was not part of human rights violation in the yearly report. Do you guys not see any violation happening there since last one year?MR PATEL: I am sure that there is a section that is – that includes Pakistan. But beyond that, did you attend the briefing on Monday?QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: Then you probably recall both the Secretary, Matt, Ambassador Gilchrist being pretty explicit about the fact that the Human Rights Report is not a compendium of every single human rights violation that has occurred in calendar 2023. It is – it has picked certain specific entries. It is not supposed to be some sort of cross-cutting total list that includes every single violation. Of course, when it comes to any country in the world, including of course to Pakistan, human rights continues to be on the agenda, and it’s something that we’ll continue to raise with them.QUESTION: Okay – just one, sir?MR PATEL: Yeah, just one. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the same topic, the Human Rights Report, the Mexican president spent 40 minutes today early in morning criticizing the report. He said, among many other things, that the reporting itself, it’s a breach of international law. He also said that the criticisms of his Mexican Government in the report were not accurate. So what do you have to say about this? Is it unlawful under international law issuing these kind of reports? And do you give assurances of the things that you included regarding Mexico?MR PATEL: So one, certainly the publication of the Human Rights Report is not a violation of international law. It’s something that we have done every year that this secretary has been secretary and for every year almost before that – I can’t think of a year in which the State Department – across administrations, across Secretaries – have issued Human Rights Reports. Again, I’ve said this a number of times this week: the Human Rights Report is not an United States assessment on these various anecdotes and entries that are in there. It is a compilation of entries made from credible inputs – media organizations, government organizations, civil society actors, our embassies and consulates – who input these specific entries.And as it relates to the section on Mexico, I just am not going to speak to these specific entries. Your opportunity to do that was on Wednesday when – or Monday when Ambassador Gilchrist was here. So you all should have attended to talk about some of these entries more specifically.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia &#8212;MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: &#8212; about the Human Rights Reports. Colombia also sent a diplomatic note of protest because of the inclusion of an investigation against the son of the president, of President Petro. Colombia believes that it’s unfriendly, it shouldn’t be included there. And on the other hand, they protested against you, your statements yesterday, because they believe you gave credibility to the information of the investigation. I want to clarify exactly what were you trying to say when you said that you gave credibility, because that – let me be clear – some people are even saying that you said that money enter the campaign.MR PATEL: So I don’t think that – there should be no confusion as it relates to my comments. Let’s just take a step back and talk about this as a matter of fact. First, the Colombian Government has every – it is their prerogative to conduct whatever kind of diplomacy or take whatever actions that they see fit under their government. But what we’re talking about here is that in the 2023 Human Rights Report, in the Columbia section, there are references to an inquiry that was opened by the Colombian attorney general’s office. The – it’s a matter of public record, that the attorney general’s office has opened this inquiry. The State Department didn’t announce it; the Human Rights Report didn’t announce it. This is a matter of public record.And government organizations are one of the many credible inputs that go into compiling the Human Rights Reports. This report, one of the things that it’s known for is compiling credible actions that governments take. But the inclusion of any entry in the Human Rights Report does not denote any kind of fact-finding or assessment by the United States Government as it relates to these specific entries.And on the case that you note yesterday, I was pretty clear yesterday and I will be so again: I have no comments or assessment or details to offer as it relates to this specific matter that the attorney general’s office has raised. That is for them to speak to, including the details and any specifics around the inquiry that they’re looking into. The United States Government does not have an opinion or point of view or an assessment on what’s laid out there.QUESTION: Mr. Patel, just one last thing. There’s a new attorney in Colombia, it was appointed by President Petro, and the course of that investigation is already changing. Does the U.S. trust that the investigation can be conducted fairly? Do you trust, like, the Colombian institutions on this, on the attorney general office appointed by President Petro, investigating his son?MR PATEL: I have no different assessment to offer when it comes to the justice system in Colombia. This is an issue for the Government of Colombia and the Colombian attorney general’s office. I don’t have any other perspective from the United States.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Abbie, go ahead.QUESTION: Turks and Caicos?MR PATEL: Sure. What a pivot.QUESTION: At least – it’s good, yeah. Serious pivot. At least two Americans are currently being detained in Turks and Caicos after bringing in ammunition to the country earlier this year. Does the State Department have any concerns regarding the detention of Americans for bringing ammunition into the country? They’re both looking at the potential of 12-year sentences.MR PATEL: So Abbie, as you know, our embassies and consulates, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens overseas. We’re aware of the arrest of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested, we stand by ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. But in a foreign country, U.S. citizens are subject to the country’s laws even if they may differ from what is law in the United States.I will note that our department put out a security alert in September of 2023 that states that in the Turks and Caicos Islands, firearms, ammunitions, and other weapons are not permitted. Turks and Caicos Island authorities strictly enforce all firearms-related laws, and the penalty for traveling to Turks and Caicos Islands with a firearm or ammunition or other weapon is a minimum of a custodial sentence of 12 years. So – but beyond that, we are aware of these reports, and we are continuing to engage and provide all appropriate consular assistance.QUESTION: Are you able to provide any estimate for how many Americans are being detained in Turks and Caicos for &#8212;MR PATEL: As you know, Abbie, as a veteran covering this department, the number of Americans citizens not just in Turks and Caicos but in any country, that is a number that fluctuates. We do not ask or even require American citizens to register or notify with us when they travel, when they head to any destination, so that is just not a number I can offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been reports that President Erdogan’s meeting with the Hamas leader might have affected his anticipated White House visit. I will not ask you to confirm whether the Turkish president is coming, but I will ask you, what is your message to your allies? Will a meeting with a Hamas leader potentially set an obstacle to White House visit?MR PATEL: So our message to our allies and partners today is the same that it was on October 7th, which is that it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas and that any country who may have a relationship with Hamas, influence with Hamas, needs to send a very clear message that they should take the deal on the table that will release hostages and help bring about much-needed relief to the Palestinian civilians in Gaza; and that they should ultimately ensure that every single hostage is released. But I don’t have any other &#8212;QUESTION: So that – that mean that a meeting with a Hamas leader is business as usual? Or it can influence a visit in United States?MR PATEL: I have no assessments to offer on that meeting beyond that.QUESTION: So could I just follow up on that point very quickly?MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah.QUESTION: So would you like to see your ally – like Qatar, for instance – throw the Hamas leadership from Qatar?MR PATEL: I spoke &#8212;QUESTION: Because there’s been a lot of talk about that.MR PATEL: I spoke a little bit about this &#8212;QUESTION: I understand.MR PATEL: &#8212; last week, Said.QUESTION: But since this was brought up now &#8212;MR PATEL: And that – I will, again, leave it to the Government of Qatar to speak to any steps or – that they may be taking as it relates to their own government.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the Secretary’s visit to China, he said he would address human rights. But on this report that came out on Monday, will he specifically address the persecution of religious groups like the Uyghurs and Falun Gong? And what have talks been like on this in the past?MR PATEL: So what I can say is that in every engagement that we have had with the People’s Republic of China since the onset of this administration, human rights have always been on the agenda, and they will continue to be so. And I have no doubt that human rights will be discussed this week while the Secretary is there.Go ahead.QUESTION: The Secretary’s trip to China comes on the heels of the state visit by the Japanese prime minister, the unprecedented U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral, and forward movement on AUKUS. And next month the inauguration of the Taiwanese president-elect is approaching. How will these factor into discussions with Chinese officials, potentially President Xi?MR PATEL: So, look, broadly the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region continues to be a key tenet of what we will be engaging on, not just with these countries that you laid out, but also in our engagements with the PRC over the course of this week. It’s important to note that there’s a number of other topics that we expect to come up. We talked a little bit about them earlier this week. He’s going to work, the Secretary, to accomplish three main goals: first, make progress on key U.S. priorities, including resuming counternarcotics cooperation, continuing military-to-military communication, issues around artificial intelligence, and strengthening people-to-people ties.He’ll also clearly and directly communicate concerns on regional and global issues; as I said, peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, maintaining cross-strait ties, ensuring that tensions are kept in check. We also will discuss managing our relationship and competition responsibly with the PRC. You can expect all of these things to be talked about, and more importantly, you’ll have a chance to hear from the Secretary at the end of the week when he has a press conference at the conclusion of his trip.You had your hand up in the back. Did you not?QUESTION: Yeah, but my question has been asked.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: But just to follow up &#8212;MR PATEL: Relax, Alex, I will get to you.QUESTION: &#8212; is the Secretary going to have his ending press conference in China or back here in the U.S.?MR PATEL: It will be in Beijing at the end of the week.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two topics, Ukraine first. The first tranche is out today. It did not include long-range ATACMS, but there are reports that the President has already directed administration officials to send them. I think the reports actually say that it has already been delivered and is being used. Can you please confirm that, and overall, your reaction to the first package?MR PATEL: Sure, Alex. So, yes, I can confirm that the United States provided Ukraine with long-range ATACMS at the President’s direction. He quietly directed his national security team to send ATACMS to Ukraine for use inside Ukrainian sovereign territory in February. They started moving as part of the military aid package we announced on March 12th, and those missiles arrived in Ukraine this month. We did not announce this at the onset in order to maintain operational security for Ukraine at their request, and I’ll defer to them to speak about their use and how they may or may not be operationalized in their own military operation.QUESTION: Extremely helpful. And moving forward, can you guys give us a sense of how you guys are going to determine what kind of guns, weapons, do they need to make a tangible change?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on any forthcoming drawdowns or any forthcoming security systems or assets we may be providing our Ukrainian partners, only to say you saw us take a huge step today with the announcement of this $1 billion package. It was incredibly helpful, and our message to our Ukrainian partners is that this assistance is on the way and that our commitment to their defense is unwavering.QUESTION: Again, final one from me on Armenia-Azerbaijan.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I saw reports about some progress has been made in terms of border delimitation. Any reaction? Are you guys involved? Is Special Advisor Bono planning to go to the region or is he involved at all?MR PATEL: I don’t have any travel to announce, Alex, but the Secretary mentioned this in his tweet, that we welcome the announcement that Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed upon the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration as the basis for border delimitation between the two countries. This is an important step towards concluding a durable and dignified peace agreement.Daphne, did you have your hand up?QUESTION: Yeah, I was just going to ask how many ATACM – long-range ATACMS &#8212;MR PATEL: Again, I’m not going to speak to the specifics.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:52 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Colombia																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 23, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 23, 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 &#8211; April 23, 2024																																																					April 23, 2024																																																								1:23 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. As you can see, we have some special guests with us today. I want to introduce Ambassador David Satterfield, our Special Envoy for Middle East Humanitarian Issues and Sonali Korde, Assistant to the Administrator of USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance. Ambassador Satterfield will make some comments at the top, and then they’ll be on hand for some questions. And then I will continue on with the normal daily press briefing, so Ambassador Satterfield, over to you.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Thanks. Immediately after Hamas launched its attack on October 7th, President Biden stood strongly with the nation of Israel. As the President has said many times, Israel has a right and a duty to defend itself against Hamas.Hamas committed a massacre. They used rape, sexual violence to terrorize Israeli women. They continue to hold hostages – 133 Americans, women, elderly, injured – and they hide in tunnels they purposely built over the last 16 years under civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals.We remain committed to supporting Israel in its fight against Hamas because we cannot expect Israel to accept a situation we would not – no one would – in which their citizens continue to live under active threat.But at the same time, President Biden, starting on his visit to Israel October 18, was clear – he was clear privately and publicly with the prime minister, with the war cabinet, and then in his comments – that Israel must do more to protect civilians, to facilitate the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, and to enable its safe and unhindered distribution inside of Gaza. This is both the morally right thing to do, and it is strategically absolutely necessary.Now, the risk of famine throughout Gaza is very high, especially in the north. We’ve been very clear: Israel must do everything possible to facilitate efforts to avert famine in Gaza. Now, the President has made this point clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu during his April 4th call, and he also made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s actions – immediate actions – to protect innocent civilians and ensure the safety of humanitarian workers, as well as to increase the amount of assistance reaching those in need in Gaza.Far too many Palestinian civilians have been killed and injured. As Secretary Blinken has said, even one innocent casualty is one too many. This conflict has been one of the worst in recent memory in terms of how many humanitarian workers – nearly 250 – have been killed since October. Humanitarians should never be a target.Now, since the beginning of the conflict, the U.S. has been leading efforts to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza to alleviate the suffering of innocent Palestinians who have nothing to do with – indeed, are victims themselves – of Hamas and its brutal rule. Let’s recall before the President’s engagement, there was no food, no water, no medicine getting into Gaza. We are the largest provider of aid to the Gaza response. This is and will continue to be a top priority for the President, for the Secretary, for the United States.Now, over the six months past, as a result of our efforts, we have secured the opening of multiple land border crossings, and the volume of assistance entering into and, most importantly, distributed within Gaza has increased significantly. But we know much more aid is needed, and that more aid needs to be done, needs to get out to reach the most vulnerable in Gaza, especially in the north.As their military operations continue – give me a moment – Israel must take all steps to minimize civilian casualties. Protecting civilians is not just a moral obligation – it is that – but it’s a strategic imperative. We’re coordinating closely with Jordan, Egypt, the United Nations, and various international partners to ensure that these measures translate into real, sustained long-term relief for the people of Gaza. It is crucial that Israel sees these commitments through, not just today, but every day.Now, to truly address the urgent needs of the civilian population in Gaza and to enable humanitarian partners to safely distribute life-saving aid throughout Gaza at the scale needed, it’s essential to see a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal in Gaza. The path ahead there is straightforward.There could be a six-week ceasefire today, if Hamas would agree to the terms of a deal on the table. It would help bring immediate relief to the people of Gaza. It would also create the conditions needed to enable the urgent humanitarian work that must be done. Hamas, and Hamas alone, is responsible for the failure to return hostages and implement a ceasefire.Now, we’re going to continue to work, as we have, to pursue peace, to ensure assistance reaches the most vulnerable, and to make sure that humanitarians delivering assistance are protected from harm. Israelis and Palestinians, like all people, deserve to live in peace. They deserve to experience “the quiet miracle of a normal life,” which this and previous U.S. administrations have spoken of as our goal. We’ll do all we can to be part of the work to make that possible.But I know for all of you the question exists. We have commitments. The President has spoken. The prime minister has offered assurances. But where are we? What is, in fact, being done on the ground. As I noted, the volume of assistance has increased dramatically over the course of the last several months. Over 200 trucks of assistance per day average – and the numbers on individual days have topped 400 – have entered into Gaza.Now, those numbers are important, but even more important than the number of trucks dropping their loads inside Rafah or Kerem Shalom into Gaza is the ability of the humanitarian community, primarily the UN, to distribute assistance within Gaza, to pick it up, take it from warehouses, take it from storage yards, and get it to people in need throughout south, central, and northern Gaza. There, too, the numbers have increased significantly to an average of 200 or 200-plus trucks a day in south and central Gaza, where the bulk of the population – 1.8, 1.9 million people – live.More must be done though to ensure that assistance is effectively and efficiently moved, not just in the south and the center, but in the north. The population in the north is in particular threat of malnutrition, wasting, famine. And there all too little aid had come in, until the last several weeks. Aid has been moving now to the north through land corridors from outside Gaza in and from within Gaza north. Nearly 100 trucks a day have been moving to the north over the course of the last several weeks.It is essential that the needs of the people living there be addressed, be assessed accurately. That process will be taking place later this week by the UN, and so we can move beyond counting trucks to focusing – and Sonali can comment on this in detail – on what specific kinds of assistance – specialized feeding, the treatments needed to deal with wasting, to deal with infant, newborn mortality and morbidity, that those can be provided to people in need. Our first priority was, because it had to be, adverting famine. But we now need to move on beyond that goal to addressing the true needs – sanitization, availability of medicine, availability of potable water, the specialized care required for these vulnerable populations. That has to be the ongoing focus.Now, Israel has taken significant steps in these last two, two and a half, weeks. Erez and an additional northern crossing are in the process of being made accessible for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. That was at our request. The so-called gate 96 crossing into the center of Gaza has been open now for several weeks and is being utilized by the UN to move assistance into Gaza. The Jordan channel as we refer to it – Jordanian trucks carrying assistance from the humanitarian hub near Amman directly into Gaza – has also been flowing, for now, through Kerem Shalom into Gaza but in the near future directly from Jordan across the river, in via Israel to northern crossings and into Gaza for distribution.The JLOTS, the U.S. maritime corridor, which Sonali has been working on so hard over these last few weeks – that will also begin operation in early May. We have a significant volume today of assistance moving in by land. We’re going to have an increased volume within the predictable next few weeks moving in from land and sea.And that flooding, that additional assistance has brought with it its own logistical challenges. The problem is not getting assistance into Gaza; it’s getting it distributed within Gaza. And there the logistical constraints are the lack of sufficient trucks in possession of the UN, something that the UN and we have been working on assiduously over these last weeks, to enable a greater logistical capacity to distribute, pick up aid, and move it.And secondly, there are two crossing points, two checkpoints, to and from north Gaza. Those two checkpoints – one on the coastal road, one on an inland road called Salah al-Din &#8212; are now heavily congested with truck movements. That wasn’t a problem before. It’s a problem now, and it needs to be sorted out so assistance can be moved safely and efficiently up, empty trucks brought south, so the cycle can begin again. We’re in close touch with the Government of Israel, with Israeli authorities on how best to expediate, along with the UN, these movements.So, these challenges still exist. There is still considerable work to be done, but progress has been made.And a final note on something that all of you have heard us speak to and you have asked about – deconfliction and coordination. Too many humanitarian workers have been killed. Too many humanitarian movements have not been able to move effectively and efficiently to their destinations. And so we have worked intensively – and the President discussed this with the prime minister – on setting up a mechanism that works in real time between humanitarian actors on the ground, between IDF personnel at checkpoints, at contact points on the ground, and appropriate levels within the IDF structure to enable that efficient, effective, and safe movement of humanitarians, their staff, and the convoys containing assistance. Progress is being made, but more progress still needs to be done to assure that this is in train. To make it work, humanitarian actors need effective communications. They need to be able to talk – talk to the IDF on the ground, talk to command levels of the IDF and vice versa. We’re pleased that progress has been made on availability of appropriate communications systems for humanitarian workers.Lost in the things that need to be done – because those needs are significant – is the fact that we have seen meaningful progress. That progress needs to be sustained, needs to be continued, but the situation has improved, particularly in these last two to three weeks, from where we would be were I briefing at beginning of April or in the latter part of March. But more needs; more has to be done to meet those needs; it has to be sustained.And I’ll leave here with one final comment, which is, if you will, editorial. I have been working Arab-Israeli, Palestinian-Israeli issues for over 40 years. For the past 30 years, since September 13th, 1993, the Oslo Agreement, Hamas has had a choice. The choice is to accept what we refer to as the Oslo principles, then the Quartet principles; to eschew the use of violence; to accept a negotiated, peaceful settlement to the Palestinian-Israel issue. Hamas has made a choice, but it was not one in favor of a peaceful resolution. Hamas, for its own ideological and political reasons, has chosen in favor of violence, threat, to pursue its ambitions. The greatest victims of this have been Palestinians themselves, not just the Israelis who were massacred on October 7th in that paroxysm of bestial violence.Hamas still has a choice. The fighting in Gaza, the suffering of the Palestinian people, could end tonight if Hamas chose to accept the deal for release of hostages and the establishment of a ceasefire, and that ceasefire could with further releases be sustained. But as in the past, Hamas has taken a different course. Let us not lose sight in our correct focus on the requirements incumbent upon Israel to assure all of those humanitarian steps I’ve just spoken to that the fundamental actor responsible for the suffering here is a terrorist group, Hamas. Thank you.MR PATEL: Ellen, you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Ambassador. I don’t really get a sense exactly of the precise details about how close Israel’s compliance has come to the level that President Biden said he wanted to see when he said policy would be shaped by it allowing humanitarian aid. You talk about 200 trucks a day, but aid groups have said the minimum is 500 trucks a day. And there’s – you mentioned communication systems to help with deconfliction. I mean, there was communication systems, if you’re talking about actual – the comms. Those were &#8212;AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Is there a question?QUESTION: Yeah. Those were there with the World Central Kitchen. And you talked about negotiations on the comms – those are two crucial themes. How – it sounds like there’s actually – it’s actually pretty far from meeting the level that’s needed, and how long is Israel going to have until – to meet that standard?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Ellen, we work closely with Israel on the commitments made by the prime minister to the President. I have outlined many of the steps that have contributed to progress, meaningful progress that has been made. The volume of assistance moving into Gaza is significantly greater over these last weeks than the volume in the months that preceded. The volume of assistance on a daily basis being distributed within Gaza, which is the more important number – that is also, on an average, at a higher level than in the previous months. More needs to be done.The north has seen for the first time in all of these six months significant levels of assistance moving in on a daily basis. Is it enough? No, it is not enough, but it is progress. Northern crossings have been opened and are being prepared for opening, in the case of Erez and another northern crossing. Ashdod Port – the President said we need to see Ashdod Port open for humanitarian goods, not just flour. Ashdod Port has been opened. That step has been taken.We’ll get now into important but, if you will, secondary details. Comms equipment – World Central Kitchen did not have the types of communications systems that could have provided redundancy during that terrible event. It is essential those redundant systems with different technical operating parameters be provided. That is what Israel has now approved. So, there is a change that’s been made there.Water – President said water has got to be turned back on. There are three Mekorot national carrier pipelines into Gaza. The southernmost one has been operating. The second one has been intermittently operating; it has been under active repair. Because the network from delivery into Gaza through Gaza has been disrupted, the repairs are ongoing. The northern pipeline, which was turned off since October 7th, has been repaired and is functioning now.All of this reflects progress. Northern crossings, Ashdod Port open, the Jordan channel – it is essential for us that Jordan be able to deliver trucks on a daily basis directly into Gaza. Right now, they are doing so through Kerem Shalom as an interim measure. When the northern crossings are repaired and functional, which we expect will be in the next very few weeks, possibly shorter in the case of Erez, Jordanian trucks will be able to enter there. But they’re already moving. And the JLOTS is in final stages of preparation.All of this represents progress. Is there more to do? Yes. But this is a very different picture I am presenting to you than the one we would have had just three weeks ago on the eve of the President’s call to Netanyahu.MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Hello, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you for being here. Just to put a fine point on my colleagues’ questions, three weeks later, are you – can you say you’re satisfied with the steps that Israel has taken so far? Has the deconfliction mechanism that you talked about, you said there is progress – is that in place now and is working?And the final thing is about the pier. We’re being told U.S. will rely on Israel for security. Can you elaborate on that? Is it going to be security of U.S. troops provided by Israel? Who will distribute the aid inside Gaza? Thank you.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: I’ll take your last part and turn to Sonali for that, but I am not going to give you – and I’ll spare the rest of your colleagues – I’m not going to give you a grade. “Did they get an A+, an A, or a B?” We are in the constant process of monitoring, assessing, facilitating, supporting progress towards the goals the President set. This is not a “gotcha” test. “At 2:00 p.m. on the 7th of May, will Israel pass or not?” This is a set of requirements to help the people of Gaza and the humanitarian workers whose role is vital in facilitating assistance. Progress is being made, but I am not going to stand here and give you a grade on that. More needs to be done.Sonali, do you want to talk about JLOTS?ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: Sure. So just on your question on JLOTS, we’re working – from USAID working very closely with CENTCOM to put together the JLOTS and the pier. We’re working very closely with the UN to handle the distribution mechanism into Gaza. I’ll also say that we are taking a lot of care to respect the UN’s neutrality and independence in terms of distribution.Just on your question on security, I think that’s best placed to DOD, but suffice it to say that IDF is providing some security and force protection measures to U.S. assets that will be offshore. And I’ll have you ask my DOD colleagues further questions on that. Over.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Thanks, Sonali.MR PATEL: Gillian, go ahead.QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, can you talk a little bit more broadly about how you see – since October 7th in particular – the – Israel’s – the Israeli Government’s conduct of humanitarian affairs versus Hamas’s conduct of humanitarian affairs, broadly speaking?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Excuse me? Hamas’s conduct of humanitarian affairs? What do you mean?QUESTION: Well, for an example, yesterday the State Department released the annual Human Rights Report, and featured Israel alongside Hamas in the first page.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: I’m not going to comment on the Human Rights Report or any aspect &#8212;QUESTION: Right, so that’s why I’m asking you about the humanitarian conduct of those governments &#8212;AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Hamas has &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; as they were presented side by side.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Yeah, I’ll comment on Hamas. Hamas has spent 17 years in expending every resource provided for the people of Gaza for its own purposes in constructing a network of military facilities, tunnels, embedded in, under, around humanitarian facilities as a deliberate act of preservation and advancement of their interests. Hamas has sacrificed those thousands of innocent Gazans who had been lost after their brutal massacre on October 7th. Again, inconvenient truth – I’m going to keep reminding of that – something happened on the 7th of October which precipitated all of this.Hamas’s humanitarian policy is the opposite of humanitarian. It is to use innocent civilians as shields, as presumed protection for their own facilities, for their own terrorist military forces, and for the plotting and planning which first and foremost victimizes Palestinians and their future. And how there can be any other consideration of Hamas other than as a terrorist group who has proclaimed – I’ll remind – they’ll do it again and again and again, if given the opportunity. That’s Hamas. That’s why they’re an FTO.Now, with respect to Israel, we require from Israel – because it is the right and moral thing to do – a very different standard of conduct. And as I noted in my remarks, the President made clear on his visit to Israel, shortly after October 7th, it’s not just strategically important for you to do this. It’s the morally right thing to do. It is the reflection of what Israel is – a democracy with values. Does more need to be done? Yes. Could more have been done sooner? Yes, of course. But the point is, over time, progress has been made. With all of the distance that remains to fully meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza – those needs are considerable – progress has been made.QUESTION: Are you – may I follow up with that real quickly?MR PATEL: We’re going to try and get through as many questions as we can. Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, Anne Flaherty with ABC News. Can we – can you first of all clarify that you have not put a timeline on Israel to take certain steps forward when you talked about potable water, more UN trucks? It sounds like it’s more of just a constant discussion that you’re having with Israel. Also, has Israel provided assurances that JLOTS will not be in lieu of these land corridors, that they will both remain open?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: I’ll start with your last one first. We have made clear, and Israel has affirmed to us that the JLOTS, the maritime corridor, whoever operates it – military or, ultimately, anyone else – is an adjunct to, it’s additive to, supplemental to land corridors. There is no question that the most efficient and effective way to deliver assistance is via as many land corridors as possible, which is why the increase in the operation in Kerem Shalom; the opening of the gate 96 corridor into the center of Gaza; the preparation for opening of the two new northern crossings; Ashdod Port, which is a perfectly functional port with immediate access directly into Gaza – all of those are critical. So yes, it’s additive to, it is not a replacement for in any sense of the word.With respect to timing, I think you all know the President must make a determination by May 8th on the NSM-20 issue. I’m not going to get into that question here. But I will say our work is focused every day, every hour, on seeing continuous progress made. We are not doing this because there’s a deadline on May 8th or any other date certain. We’re doing it because every day there are people in need. Every day those needs need to be met.MR PATEL: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Good to see you again, Mr. Ambassador.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Hi, Said.QUESTION: I have two quick questions. Would you say that famine that was looming a couple of weeks ago, three weeks ago, has now been averted? That’s one. And second, I mean, this insistence on the six-week ceasefire – why can’t we have a permanent ceasefire? Because the implicit message for the Palestinians is that after six weeks Israel can resume its bombing of Gaza and bombing civilian targets and so on. So why can’t we have a permanent ceasefire? Thank you.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: I’m not going to get into the details, Said. I hope you will understand – of the hostage deal which is presented and not accepted by Hamas, the terms of that deal. This administration has always insisted that a ceasefire is conditioned upon, part and parcel of not just a hostage release, but hostage releases. Hamas has it in its hands not just to effect a first-phase release, but further releases which would extend the ceasefire beyond that point. Beyond that, I’m not going to comment on famine. I’ll turn to Sonali.QUESTION: All right, thank you.ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: Hi, thanks for that question. So, we don’t know. Assessments on famine are based on a very rigorous methodology that is undertaken by the IPC, the Integrated Phase Classification, which is the expert body that both collects and reviews data. So, we will wait for their determination. What I will say is that in order to address this, we not only need to get trucks in, but we need to get nutritional therapies, we need to reach the moms and kids that are most at risk, especially in northern Gaza. We need to get them clean water. We need to get them health care.I will say that with 29 percent of children under two showing signs of acute malnutrition in northern Gaza – this is what was reported in the IPC – it takes time to reverse that trend. It takes at least six weeks to get a child who is suffering the effects of malnutrition back on track. So, I don’t know that we’ve averted it. We’re certainly trying, but we’ll wait for the data and the experts to tell us what they see.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: John Hendren with Al Jazeera English. To what extent will an operation in Rafah affect your ability to get this aid in there? Will it not certainly push back that effort and make things more difficult?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: John, you know the position which the White House, State have expressed; Secretary Austin as well. We could not support a Rafah ground operation without an appropriate, credible, executable humanitarian plan precisely because of the complications for delivery of assistance; and then on top of that, the consequences of displacement of the hundreds of thousands of Rafahns already multiply displaced. Where do they go? How will their needs be met: shelter, medicine, water, sanitation?Rafah itself today poses significant challenges in all of these areas. The compression of population, whatever the number may today be – 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 million – poses enormous challenges: shelter, sanitation, water. To move them again under kinetic circumstances would complicate that enormously. It’s for all of these reasons that we have been as clear as we have been with the Government of Israel. And that’s not just a past-tense discussion; it is a current tense. We continue discussions with Israel on what we believe are alternate ways of addressing a challenge which we recognize, which is Hamas military present in Rafah. We get it, we understand it, but we think there are other ways to deal with this. And if there is not a credible, executable humanitarian plan, then we cannot support a ground operation.QUESTION: But fair to say that Israel views that differently up till now?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: That’s our position.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Elizabeth, and then these guys have got to wrap.QUESTION: I want to follow up on the pier. How will the U.S. ensure the safety of aid workers who are concerned over the Israeli military’s presence in the area and role securing it given the past failures in deconfliction? And also, will Israel’s so-called dual-use restrictions be applied to goods entering the pier?ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: Sure. So, what I can say is that there are conversations happening every single day between our humanitarian assistance team, the DART, in Jerusalem, CENTCOM on the ground, and our UN partners on the ground. The safety and security of our humanitarian partners is the most important thing; it’s absolutely vital. They need to feel safe and secure.I’m not going to get into specific security measures on what’s being discussed for obvious reasons, but just to say that those are happening, and we’re very cognizant, again, as I said earlier, that the UN needs to maintain its principles of neutrality and independence and access throughout Gaza. So, we are trying to abide by those principles and make sure that everyone involved has the safety and security that they need.QUESTION: And the dual-use goods?MR PATEL: (Off-mike.)ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: I’ll defer to Ambassador Satterfield on dual use. Oh, I can take dual use. So again, we – so the goods will be inspected in Cyprus by Israelis, but also by a team which will include the UN, our colleagues in Cyprus. The dual-use concerns are being discussed. There should be a consistency on what goes in, so we’re not trying to create, like, an exception for Cyprus – just to say that we continue to have conversations with our Israeli colleagues to streamline the process for inspecting and approving goods that are sensitive or on the dual-use list.MR PATEL: Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, Mr. Ambassador, I have two questions. First, did the U.S. ask Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from there? Second, are you preparing for humanitarian emergencies in case a full war – a full-scale war breaks between Hizballah and Israel?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Easiest ones yet. First answer is no. The second is, in the great tradition of those standing at this podium, I don’t comment on hypotheticals.MR PATEL: Laura, you had your hand up in the back. Yes, you, Laura Rozen.QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: Did you not have your hand up?QUESTION: No.MR PATEL: Oh, okay. All right. Go ahead, Doc.QUESTION: Okay, yeah. I wanted to know about Egypt’s role in – about giving relief for the Gazans to be able to go into Egypt. Is Egypt open to taking a lot of the people – to – Gaza to go out through that into a safe area, so that Israel can deal with the Hamas battalions?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: I’ll comment first, and this is longstanding commentary: We believe the future of the Palestinian people of Gaza lies in Gaza, not anywhere else. Egypt has made very clear – preceding October 7th – that they also believe the future for Palestinians lies in Gaza, not in Egypt. We understand that point; we respect it. So does the Government of Israel.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Are you in touch with the organization – the Palestinian organizations like the Red Crescent as far as with these updated comms? And – because we’ve seen medics, for example, attacked as well by the Israelis. So &#8212;AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: There’s a humanitarian hub at al-Arish in which UN, UN agencies are represented, and of course the Egyptian Red Crescent runs that hub in close coordination for delivery of bilateral assistance, non-UN assistance, through the PRCS. And so, with respect to our focus on comms, that has been directed primarily at the UN, the UN family of agencies, rather than at Palestine Red Crescent Society.But Sonali, any further comment on that?ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: No, I think you’ve got it.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Yeah.QUESTION: And one more question. We haven’t seen too many briefings with you. Should we expect more opportunities to ask you some questions?AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: You haven’t seen them because I have been all but about 25 days of the last six and a half months in the region working the actual issues. So, I can’t promise for the future, but thank you.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR PATEL: Final question, go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding the maritime corridor from the Republic of Cyprus, do you have any updates about any possible logistical challenges or how we move forward with that plan?ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: I’m sorry, I think I lost that second word – about any logistics?QUESTION: The maritime corridor from Cyprus, or the Republic of Cyprus, to Gaza to provide humanitarian aid.ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: Yeah, so the update that I can give you is that we are proceeding apace and on schedule, working very closely with CENTCOM. We have colleagues in Cyprus, the Government of Cyprus. We have a coalition of partners working around this: the EU, the UK. And then we’re also working with CENTCOM and Israeli colleagues to set up the assistance and the beach landing spot in Gaza, and critically, we’re working with UN partners to handle the distribution of assistance going into Gaza. Again, this is a humanitarian initiative. We’re keeping it in line with humanitarian principles, and we hope to have more updates for you on this soon.QUESTION: Can I ask one question about JLOTS? We haven’t had a chance to ask anything in the – previously.MR PATEL: If you want to ask one more question about JLOTS, then these guys have got to go.QUESTION: Sure, thank you, thank you. Can you – can you tell me, is – are things still in discussion or is there an agreement that the WFP will actually handle the distribution part of it? Is there an agreement on the rules of engagement with the IDF? And is there – is the deconfliction aspect handled to your satisfaction so that you’re confident that the aid workers will actually be protected as they work with the people with JLOTS?ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR KORDE: So – so yes. We have an agreement with the UN and WFP to work on the logistics. As I said, this is – we’re working out a lot of details on how this is going to work. The partners are working on the security aspects of it. As you mentioned, again, I don’t want to comment on that here just for very obvious reasons, to protect their security.So, all of these issues are being worked through. Again, I’ll re-emphasize that the key principle for the UN’s engagement here is to protect their independence and neutrality and ability to access vulnerable populations throughout Gaza. We are working to make sure that they feel comfortable in upholding those principles. I think the conversations are going ahead really well.Just again, on specific issues around deconfliction and protection, I will ask that you defer those conversations for our DOD colleagues. Deconfliction is an issue for all humanitarian workers working in Gaza. It’s not just a JLOTS issue. As Ambassador Satterfield said, some steps have been made to improve the system, which obviously had some failures given the World Central Kitchen attack, but also we have lost over 200 humanitarian workers through the course of this war. We need to see those steps be implemented and the humanitarian community and IDF continue to talk and engage and iterate and improve the system, so that everyone feels safe and secure in this very difficult operating environment.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody.AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Thank you.MR PATEL: Thanks so much. Ambassador Satterfield, Administrator Korde, thank you so much for joining us today.QUESTION: We can do Zoom press conferences if you’re out in the region. (Laughter.) This was very helpful. Thanks.MR PATEL: All right, okay. Give me two seconds, guys. All right. Well, that was – I’m very glad we were able to have them join us today. Ellen, you want to kick us back off?QUESTION: What to ask?MR PATEL: We can also stop. If that was – (laughter). If that really – if that quenched your thirst, I’m happy to go &#8212;QUESTION: No, if I could.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: I guess the – as you – obviously, there’s been lots of anticipation about the Leahy Law decisions that are expected. Can – there’s been reporting that there were recommendations for some IDF units to be identified as in violation of the Leahy Amendments, but that the Secretary opted not to take staff’s recommendation for several of the units. Can you – can you comment on that?MR PATEL: So, I think I’m going to echo what you saw Matt and the Secretary address as it relates to this question beginning in Capri on Friday, which is I’m just not going to get ahead of this process. What I will say is that we take the Leahy Law incredibly seriously. It is also the standards of it we apply consistently across the board with all countries in which we have security relationships with. That should be no surprise to anybody. But I am not going to get ahead of the process, and I am sure we’ll have more to say in the time forthcoming.Humeyra.QUESTION: Yesterday I think Matt said on UNRWA you guys haven’t had a chance to review it, you were still reviewing it. Do you have, like, an assessment on the Colonna report’s findings?MR PATEL: So, as it relates to the report that foreign – former French Foreign Minister Colonna took the – led on, we first – to take a step back, we welcome and strongly support the recommendations of the independent review of UNRWA mechanisms and procedures related to neutrality. This was released yesterday.We continue to look closely at the report and are assessing how we can continue to work with partners in the region, host authorities in the Government of Israel, to implement some of these recommendations. We, of course, continue to support UNRWA’s important work. It must continue. But at the same time, we continue to advocate for reforms. And we welcome what the former French foreign minister laid out.QUESTION: So, given the language the – the language in the supplemental that’s about to pass and how it prohibits the resumption of U.S. funding, is it fair to say until at least, like, 2025 there is no chance that U.S. would be able to resume funding for UNRWA?MR PATEL: You’ve heard me say this before. We assume this supplemental passes when the – when it passes the Senate. We will be an administration that complies with the law, and the law is very clearly laid out in that national security supplemental as it relates to what kind of relationship the United States can have with UNRWA. We’re continuing to engage with partners in the region, with UN agencies, and other humanitarian organizations about the important work when it comes to humanitarian aid. It’s also really important to note that there is a significant amount of monies for humanitarian aid in the supplemental, including humanitarian aid into Gaza. And so we’ll continue to pursue those lines of effort.QUESTION: And the report also found that Israel was yet to present any evidence for the accusation that hundreds of UNRWA staff were members of terrorist groups. Is the U.S. going to be encouraging Israel to provide that evidence? Are you going to do anything towards that end?MR PATEL: So, the – our understanding is that the United Nations is continuing to pursue an investigation as it relates to &#8212;QUESTION: Separate one.MR PATEL: That’s separate – that relates to the individuals alleged to have participated in the October 7th terrorist attacks. And so, I will – I’m not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Okay. And the final thing is you must have seen the reports about mass graves containing hundreds of bodies around al-Shifa. UN chief said he was horrified by these reports. I’m wondering if U.S. has a comment on this and whether you guys have raised this with the Israeli Government.MR PATEL: We have seen the – those reports, and the reports are incredibly troubling. And we’re inquiring on this with Government of Israel. I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Specifically on the &#8212;MR PATEL: Correct. I don’t have any specific information to offer – insight into what this is or isn’t. I don’t have a sense of that from up here, but we are inquiring about this with the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Do you know who reached out to who? Is it the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the specifics, but it should be no surprise to you that we engage with the Government of Israel at all levels often many times, multiple times a day, at all hours.Anne, go ahead.QUESTION: So, Ambassador Satterfield seemed pretty pleased with how Israel is progressing. Has the U.S. shared with Israel what would happen, if Israel takes its foot off the pedal with regards to humanitarian aid? And then also a question on Ukraine. UK has already beat – beaten us to the punch – biggest military package ever. Can you characterize if the U.S. package to Ukraine is going to look to be – is it shaping up to be the biggest ever?MR PATEL: Let me take that in two parts. First, I’m not sure pleased is the appropriate adjective that I would use. I think Ambassador Satterfield was pretty clear that there have been – there’s been some clear metrics for progress that have been over the past number of weeks. Those are welcome steps, and they are things that we are very happy to see. However, he was also explicitly clear that there continue to be areas – specifically, distribution of aid within Gaza, some of the telecommunication measures that he mentioned, sanitation and others areas, deconfliction – those are areas that we want to and need to continue to see sustained progress, including the sustained progress on the steps that have been made in the right direction. And as it relates to a deadline or anything like that, you &#8212;QUESTION: But is there a consequence?MR PATEL: The Secretary and the President were incredibly clear that these are kinds of steps that we absolutely need to see, or it will have a determining factor as it relates to the kinds of policy we pursue as it relates to Gaza. There has not been a change in that assessment. We expect that these kinds of efforts to be continued and sustained. This situation is still dire. Both things can be true, which is something that we’ve kind of been pretty clear about for quite some time now. We can see steps being taken that we think are beneficial to the overall humanitarian aid ecosystem – stuff like the Ashdod Port opening, some of these northern crossings being opened. These are all good, welcome, positive steps in the right direction. Simultaneously, there continues to be a lot of work that needs to be done. On Ukraine, look, first let me just say as it relates to our partners in the United Kingdom, we welcome any country taking additional steps to support our Ukrainian partners and bolster the transatlantic Alliance. My understanding is that this was an announcement not just about support for Ukraine, but also the United Kingdom committing to contribute 2.5 percent of their GDP towards the defense space by 2030 – again, a step that we think is in line with NATO commitments but also, again, something that bolsters the transatlantic Alliance. So very – very glad and happy to see that news.When it comes to the United States, we have not been shy about the fact that one of the key reasons we need this national security supplemental passed is because we need to continue to support our Ukrainian partners. We are going to wait for, I’m sure, final passage before previewing or talking about any additional next steps when it comes to how we might be supporting our Ukrainian partners.Go ahead, Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Going back to Humeyra’s question, just to follow up &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on that, now it seems that more than 300 bodies have been found. The United Nations is asking or calling for an independent investigation. Would you support such an independent investigation for this matter?MR PATEL: Right now, Said, we are asking for more information.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: That is where – that is squarely where we are leaving the conversation.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: I don’t have any details to match, confirm, or offer as it relates to that. We’re aware of those reports, and we have asked the Government of Israel for additional clarity and information. And that’s where I’m at for today.QUESTION: I understand. If the – if Secretary-General Guterres asked for your support in this effort, would the United States support him in the pursuit of &#8212;MR PATEL: You are asking to – you’re asking about a hypothetical, Said &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; which, again, I’m not going to get ahead of until we have greater fidelity on information as to what this is. And we’re hoping to get that from the Government of Israel as soon as possible.QUESTION: All right. Now on – Israel is said to be expanding the so-called safe zone in Gaza as it prepares to invade Rafah. I wonder if you’ve seen the report, and if you have any comment on that.MR PATEL: I’ve not – I’ve not seen that report, Said. But look, any kind of action that would be inconsistent with what we’d consider the forced relocation or the forced movement or eviction of Palestinians from their homes in Gaza is something that is inconsistent with the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo last December, and a key tenet of that continues to be that there can be no forced relocation.Ellen, you had your hand up? That &#8212;QUESTION: No, I was just going to say on the issue of investigating or finding out the truth of the allegations of the mass grave, your – the State Department’s Human Rights Report yesterday said along the lines that it knew of no instances where Israeli officials had brought accountability basically for crimes alleged in Gaza. In those circumstances, I mean, with that kind of determination by the State Department itself, is waiting for Israel to investigate it the appropriate course of action?MR PATEL: So that’s not a – first, I think we should clarify what the Human Rights Report is and isn’t. It isn’t a determination or an assessment by the State Department. What it is, is a compilation of submitted violations of human rights all around the world that are done in close coordination with our embassies and consulates in all the places that we have them, with civil society organizations, with media organizations. That’s how that report is compiled. I will also note that it is not an exhaustive or a list of every single human rights violation in the world. It is a compilation.But you saw the Secretary speak to this a little bit yesterday. First, as it relates to our own system when it comes to violations of human rights, there are processes and protocols and procedures in place for the United States to assess what is happening on the ground. These are thorough, deliberate, detail-oriented processes that can take time. Those processes are ongoing, and we’ll continue that work, as we continue that work in any conflict zone around the world.Simultaneously, I am sure our partners in Israel can speak to any procedures and parameters they have in place in their own system as it relates to things that would be viewed as violations. And I will let them speak to that.Alex, on the region, or something else?QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Please come back.MR PATEL: Let me stay a little bit on the region; I’ll come back to you.Michel, you had your hand up.QUESTION: On Iran. Al-Jarida newspaper, a Kuwaiti newspaper, has quoted a high-level source in the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, saying that Iran received an American letter offering to resume negotiations to resume the nuclear agreement after reaching security understandings. And the source added that the offer includes promises to cancel a large portion of economic and non-economic sanctions if Tehran cooperates in restricting its atomic activity and regional pacification. Can you confirm this report?MR PATEL: So, Michel, I’m not going to comment on our ways of communicating with Iran except to say we are not in direct talks with Iran on the JCPOA, either in New York or anywhere else.QUESTION: Indirect talks?MR PATEL: What’s that?QUESTION: Are you in indirect talks with Iran?MR PATEL: I just said that we are not in direct talks with Iran.QUESTION: Indirect, indirect – not direct.MR PATEL: I am not going to speak to any of our communicating – ways of communicating with Iran.QUESTION: And one on Israel-Lebanon. War is escalating between Hizballah and Israel on the border. Do you expect a full-scale war between the two sides? And what can you say about the U.S. efforts to find a diplomatic solution for this crisis?MR PATEL: We are continuing to engage in direct conversations with our partners in Israel and other regional partners to avoid any kind of massive, dire escalation. As we know, Israel is – has this challenge of defeating Hamas in Gaza, but simultaneously is dealing with the threat from Hizballah in the north, and Israel of course has every right to defend itself and right to its security, but we have been clear with everyone that we possibly can that it – from the United States point of view, we’re not interested in seeing this escalate. But I don’t have any other thing to offer on the process there.On the Middle East, or anything &#8212;QUESTION: On the region, on Iran. (Inaudible.)MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: So yesterday the special report about human rights indicated that the Iranian regime had terrorist activities and also put pressure on Iran International journalists, my colleagues. So, in one occasion, they had to move their office from London to Washington, D.C. So, do you have any comment on that? Because this is a serious attack on journalists who are working in the United States and also in the UK.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: And – they are my colleagues, and they are concerned about it.MR PATEL: So first let me just say I’m not going to comment on any particular report or any particular anecdote laid out in the Human Rights Report. But it should be no surprise to anybody that Iran continues to be one of the largest exporters of terrorism and has been so since 1979. Simultaneously, it is also a regime that has showed blatant disregard to a free and open press and media environment. I mean, you have seen over the course of the past three years alone a serious crackdown within Iran on civil society, on media organizations, on human rights. We will continue to take steps to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its human rights violations, for other malign activities, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: And one – sorry, one follow-up, sir.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room. I’m going to work the room. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: According to Jewish Press and Middle East Forum reports, the U.S. State Department has announced that it will take legal steps against the Israeli army’s unit known as the Netzah Yehuda Battalion based on reports that the U.S. gets from Dawn, which is a &#8212;MR PATEL: We have spoken to this pretty regularly since Friday, and your colleague just asked about it at the beginning of the press briefing, so I would ask you pay attention. But I will just reiterate what I said, which is that we’re not going to get ahead of our determinative or deliberative processes here. We take our role and responsibility as it relates to implementation of the Leahy Law quite seriously. It is – its standards are applied consistently to all countries who we have security relationships with, but I don’t have any announcement to make.QUESTION: But this is a follow-up to this. According to U.S. State Department website report, the U.S. has declared that it will “take action against those who undermine peace, security, and stability in the West Bank, which undermine the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States, including the viability of a two-state solution.” So does that mean that the U.S. will take action against Arabs who raise millions to support any Arab who murders a Jew, or take action against the Palestinian Authority for the pay for slay – for the pay a salary for life to any Arab who murders a Jew, and finally take action against the Palestinian ministry of education, whose new curriculum indoctrinates Palestinian Arabs to destroy Israel?MR PATEL: So, I see you’re trying to connect a couple different threads there. First, the sentence that you quote from, you’re talking about actions that the United States took in response to violence, extremism that we are seeing in the West Bank, and yes, that absolutely is a detractor from peace and stability in the region. It’s a detractor from Israel’s own security, takes us further away from a two-state solution, and as you saw, we won’t hesitate to take appropriate actions to actors who partake in that kind of activity.Simultaneously, when it comes to the PA, which is what I think you’re referring to, issues like the so-called martyr payments are something that we have raised regularly in our engagements with the PA. It is a tenet of the kinds of reform that we are continuing to insist the Palestinian Authority undertake, and we’ll continue to have those kinds of conversations.In the back. Go ahead.QUESTION: So, on the reforms, today the new Palestinian prime minister announced a new package of reforms designed to strengthen the Palestinian Authority, and it seems like largely these were – these reforms were the same as promised by the previous prime minister. Have they – has the United States, has the State Department been in touch with the Palestinian Authority in – about these reforms that were announced &#8212;MR PATEL: We have conversations with appropriate members of the PA regularly. I don’t have any conversations to read out, but broadly, reform is something that we have stressed and made clear to them as part of the broader conversations we continue to have for peace and stability in the region. But I’m happy to check if we have had any more specific engagements on this news.QUESTION: You – are you familiar with the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ve seen the reports. I’ve not – I think it broke right before I came out, so I haven’t had an opportunity to look into it, but we’re happy to check with the team.Go ahead. Yes, you.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Regarding the recent sanctions by United States on Pakistan &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m going to see if there’s anything else on the Middle East before we come to any other topics.QUESTION: Okay. So, regarding the recent diplomatic push by the United States towards Saudi Arabia and Israel about normalizing ties – so do you think – so with the ongoing circumstances, what is the line of action you have, as Netanyahu is not even bothering United States regarding the aid, (inaudible) regarding the ceasefire, regarding the hostages, even. Meanwhile, you have many Israeli politicians you hosted here just for another attempt just to – a possible house change in the Israeli Knesset. So, what is the line of action you have?MR PATEL: We’ve been pretty clear that we think further integration of Israel into the Middle East region is in better – it’s in better interest of Israel’s security, it’s in better interest for the United States, and it is a further way for us to push back against Iran’s malign and destabilizing behavior. Of course, there is important work that still needs to be done as it relates to that integration, including, of course, ensuring that we can get to a place for a negotiated two-state solution, and those conversations continue to be ongoing.Anything else on the Middle East before I close out?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Let me – I’ll come – Gaza. I’ll come to you after. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday Secretary Blinken released the Human Rights Reports, and he said in his speech that, in quote, “We repeatedly have pressed concerns about Palestinian civilians’ access to humanitarian assistance, displacements of the majority of the population in Gaza, and unprecedented number of journalists killed,” end quote. So, actually, one of the journalists killed in Gaza was one of our colleagues, working for Anadolu Agency of Türkiye. His name is Mustafa Alkharouf, and I want to ask a journalist – I mean, what would be your message to Israeli Government, Israeli military to protect the journalists working in Gaza?MR PATEL: Our message to the Government of Israel is the same message it is to any government on the face of this planet, which is that journalists need to be protected. They do important work; they do especially important work in conflict zones, where they shed light on what is happening on the ground, often in circumstances where it is not easy for public to get their information or get a sense of what is happening. And somewhere like Gaza, they do critical, critical work of informing people about what’s going on. And so, our message everywhere is journalists, media organizations, absolutely need to be protected.You had your hand up in the back. Go ahead.QUESTION: I did. Thanks, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I just wanted to circle back to what one of our colleagues asked, which was in relation to the mass graves story, my colleague referred to calls for an independent investigation, and you said that you were asking for more information from the Government of Israel, and that is squarely where we’re leaving the conversation. Why is there resistance to support an independent investigation into how 300 people ended up in a mass grave?MR PATEL: It’s not about resistance to this particular situation. It is me not wanting to speak in detail about something which Said posed as a hypothetical question, when from the United States perspective, I don&#8217;t have any additional information on this – aside from the public reporting that Humeyra and Said and others have asked about, which is a fair question. But what I am saying, from the United States perspective, is that we’ve seen those reports, and we are asking the Government of Israel for more details and more information.QUESTION: And do you believe that the Government of Israel is a credible source in enlightening you in that regards?MR PATEL: We do. We do. We do.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Regarding the Human Rights Report from yesterday, particularly the chapter of Colombia, Section 4, corruption in government – you made references specifically to an episode or an issue and is the investigations from the attorney’s office in Colombia towards President Gustavo Petro’s son and his brother because of irregular payments that allegedly entered his presidential campaign. Why did you make reference or relate to corruption this issue that hasn’t been solved yet by the Colombian authorities, and taking into account that it’s so sensitive because it targets directly Petro’s campaign?MR PATEL: So again, I – in the context of the Middle East, I will apply the same context here. I’m not going to speak to specific entries in the Human Rights Report. I will just say, again, that this is a compilation of various human rights violations that we’ve seen that are input by our embassies and consulates, that are input by civil society and nonprofit organizations and media organizations.QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: And I will just leave it at that. And I’m happy to check more on the specifics of this, but I don&#8217;t have anything more –QUESTION: Just to follow up, but do you have any credible – I don&#8217;t know – reasons to believe that there are irregular payments that enter into the Petro’s campaign?MR PATEL: What I can say about the entries of the Human Rights Report is that we find them to be credible, which is why we have included them.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: United States imposes sanctions on suppliers to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program. What was the real reason for these sanctions?MR PATEL: The sanctions were made because these were entities that were proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and the means of their delivery. These were entities based in the PRC, in Belarus, and that we have witnessed to have supplied equipment and other applicable items to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program. They are following our October 23rd designation of other – three PRC entities who’ve worked to supply Pakistan’s missile program. We’re going to continue to disrupt and take actions against proliferation networks and concerning weapons of mass destruction procurement activities wherever they may occur.QUESTION: Sir, Iranian president was in Pakistan and during his visit, Pakistan and Iran signed eight MOUs and also agreed to push bilateral trade to $10 billion. A Pakistani Government spokesperson also said that it does not need a waiver from U.S. sanctions to build its portion of a Pak-Iran gas pipeline. How does United States view these agreements and statements?MR PATEL: So first, just let me say broadly we advise anyone considering business deals with Iran to be aware of the potential risk of sanctions. But ultimately, the Government of Pakistan can speak to their own foreign policy pursuits.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: But do you have &#8212;QUESTION: Does the State Department &#8212;QUESTION: On Pakistan &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much. If you could – quick answer for me. Let me get your reaction to today’s Moscow court hearing on Evan Gershkovich, where he’s appeal has been rejected. Do you have anything to say?MR PATEL: We, of course, are incredibly disappointed that Evan has been in pretrial detention for over a year without any clear justification from Russian authorities. Members of the embassy team in Moscow attended Evan’s appeal hearing today. Candidly though, Alex, Russia should stop using individuals like Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, who has also been detained for five years, as bargaining chips. Evan and Paul should be released immediately.QUESTION: Thank you. On Georgia, I wonder if you’re able to keep your eyes on the ball, given the recent developments – three of the nine states – of the protests. We also see that ruling party has announced its own counterprotest, and they also arrested a protestor from last week. They are flirting with a pro-Russian CPAC kind of group. Do you see any happy ending there?MR PATEL: So look, Alex, as it relates to protests, we certainly support what in the United States would be an expression of the people’s rights under the First Amendment to peacefully protest and demonstrate. Our call and our push, of course, continues to be that they be peaceful and certainly would condemn any steps that are taken for these kinds of protests to become violent.But Alex, I think this goes back to the draft law that you and I have been speaking about for a number of weeks now. We continue to find that this kind of legislative activity to be deeply problematic and inconsistent with – what would one would think – EU aspirations. You have to remember we’re talking about something that cracks down on media organizations, civil society organizations, and other things.And I see so many people leaving the room. I’m going to go ahead and call it, today. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 2:23 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Belarus																								China																								Colombia																								Cyprus																								Egypt																								Georgia																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Turkey																								Ukraine																								United Kingdom
- Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund  HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund 				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();			}		});	}																										Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund 																																		Media Note																														April 22, 2024																																							Secretary Blinken congratulates the winners of the 2024 Greening Diplomacy Initiative (GDI) Award and the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund.&nbsp; This year’s winners have gone above and beyond and showcase innovative and impactful initiatives in support of White House, Congressional, and Department mandates, including Executive Orders 14008 and 14057 and the Federal Sustainability Plan.For over a decade, GDI has catalyzed climate solutions within the U.S. Department of State’s management and operations to help conserve natural and financial resources, build climate resilience, and showcase U.S. innovation.&nbsp; Every year, GDI honors teams and initiatives that exemplify sustainable principles and practices in operations and public engagement.&nbsp;Winners of the annual GDI Awards, including the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) sponsored Resilience Innovation Fund, were announced at the Department of State’s Earth Day event.&nbsp; Acting Chief Sustainability Officer Caroline D’Angelo, OBO Director William Moser, and the Office of Management Strategy and Solutions Director Danny Stoian participated in the awards ceremony highlighting the Department of State’s sustainability and climate action achievements.The GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability Performance recognizes achievements of groups or teams within posts, offices, and bureaus.&nbsp; The winners are selected by an intra-agency committee made up of representatives from the policy, functional, and regional bureaus, as well as senior leadership and former GDI winners.&nbsp; The People’s Choice Award winner is selected by a vote open to all Department of State employees; nominations consist of all the submissions for the GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability.Winners of the GDI Awards:U.S. Embassy Islamabad is the overseas winner of the 2024 GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability Performance. In 2023, U.S. Embassy Islamabad implemented initiatives to reduce energy use by 312,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy, saving $400,000 and reducing the Embassy’s annual carbon footprint by 250 tons.  The team replaced over 1,000 filters to increase the efficiency of the HVAC system, increased wastewater recycling by 6.57 million gallons, reduced gas consumption by 4 percent, reduced fertilizer use by 200 kilograms per year, replaced plastic take-out containers for recyclable aluminum at an average of 2,000 dishes per week, and planted a citrus grove to act as a carbon sink.  Additionally, U.S. Embassy Islamabad partnered with several organizations such as the U.S. National Parks Service and Duke University to host events focusing on conservation, wildlife protection, air quality improvement, and other relevant climate topics.  In the past year, sections across U.S. Embassy Islamabad contributed more than $150 million in foreign assistance to help mitigate the effects of climate change.  $72.8 million in grant financing were secured for USAID’s Recharge Pakistan Project to improve water systems and expand green infrastructure.U.S. Embassy Bogota is the runner-up for the 2024 GDI Award for Excellence in Team Sustainability Performance. U.S. Embassy Bogota sponsored the Carrera Verde de Bogota (Bogota’s Green Race) and led multiple collaborative initiatives to generate buzz for the race.  This included a “launch event” where the DCM spoke in front of media outlets with other race sponsors and a partnership between the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the National Police to showcase how U.S. Embassy Bogota helps Colombia address environmental crimes related to wildlife and timber trafficking.  The race ultimately saw over 6,500 participants fund the planting of 20,000 trees in a preserve near Bogota.  U.S. Embassy Bogota also purchased six electric vehicles (EV), which entered the fleet at the end of 2023.U.S. Embassy New Delhi is the winner of the 2024 People’s Choice Award for Team Sustainability Performance. With over 1,200 of votes casted, U.S. Embassy New Delhi emerged as the employee favorite.  U.S. Embassy New Delhi’s Resource Conservation Unit (RCU) championed the on-compound waste management program in 2020 and has expanded it in the past year to include project work debris from residential make-ready and renovations.  By selling the recyclable material, U.S. Embassy New Delhi reduced the inhouse labor cost and time required for storage and transportation.  The program diverted the waste going into landfills and reduced the U.S. Embassy New Delhi trash disposal cost by 70 percent, saving over $40,000 every year.  This endeavor also generated over $300,000 in revenue for U.S. Embassy New Delhi with the sale of over 430 tons of material, which accounts for 10 percent of the total city waste produced in a year.  U.S. Embassy New Delhi found ways to save time, money, and carbon emissions by upgrading the primary crew transportation from a pick-up truck to EV motor bikes (scooters).  By investing in over a dozen EV scooters, FAC staff saved on commuting time and labor hours since motor pool drivers were not required.  To reduce the environmental impact, the FAC/RCU team installed a solar charging station for the EV scooters and golf carts. Now in its sixth year, the Resilience Innovation Fund, sponsored by OBO, provides up to $1 million for innovative projects at posts that advance the Department of State’s resilience and sustainability in its operations and facilities.&nbsp; This year, 16 U.S. embassies and consulates will receive funding for a wide array of projects, including the installation of residential insulation, EV charging stations, irrigation systems, rainwater harvesting systems, low power consumption light upgrades, bicycle storage, and flood fortifications.Winners of the GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Fund:U.S. Embassy LilongweU.S. Embassy BernU.S. Embassy WindhoekU.S. Embassy BeijingU.S. Embassy La PazU.S. Embassy Dar Es SalaamU.S. Embassy SofiaU.S. Embassy IslamabadU.S. Embassy KigaliU.S. Embassy AstanaU.S. Embassy RomeU.S. Embassy BudapestU.S. Embassy Santo DomingoU.S. Embassy BridgetownU.S. Consulate MonterreyThe American Institute of TaiwanThe Greening Diplomacy Initiative is managed by the Office of Management Strategy and Solutions (M/SS).  For more information on the Department of State’s sustainability efforts, GDI, or M/SS, please contact stategdi@state.gov or visit Sustainability at the U.S. Department of State.						Tags																					Colombia																																Embassies and Consulates																																							Greening Diplomacy Initiative																															India																								Office of Management Strategy and Solutions																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations																								Pakistan
- The Impact of Aid on Economic Growth: Analysis of Quasi-Experimental Evaluations in Agriculture and Food Security -->			HomeColombia						hide			 -->	$( document ).ready(function() {		if ($(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {			$(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){				$("#bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");				$(".bc_middle").toggle();				$(".bc_ellipse").toggle();				$(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");			});			$("#bc_hide").click(function(){				$("#bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");				$(".bc_middle").toggle();				$(".bc_ellipse").toggle();				$(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");			});		} else {			$(".bc_ellipse").hide();		}	}); -->The Impact of Aid on Economic Growth: Analysis of Quasi-Experimental Evaluations in Agriculture and Food SecuritySeptember 2023Rigorous quasi-experimental design studies (i.e. cause-and-effect designs that assume near-random assignment of an intervention) suggest foreign assistance, especially in value chain investments, can positively impact economic growth. Evaluations like this can help decision-makers identify projects with growth-related benefits in both agriculture and food security.BackgroundThis review examines evaluations conducted by the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to identify which foreign assistance programs, aimed at fostering economic growth among partners, have demonstrated sustainable impacts on their economic development from 2014 to 2019. A working group analyzed information from rigorous evaluations that sought to determine whether foreign assistance projects have resulted in sustainable economic growth. The working group developed a report specifically focused on five projects that employed quasi-experimental designs on agriculture or food security.FindingsInvestments and projects focusing on agricultural value chains—enhancing, for example, production and distribution—when tailored to specific recipient groups, can yield substantial growth-related impacts, including:A 27% increase in profits from investments in- genetically modified seed investments.Minority communities being 22% more likely to be employed after participating in a job training program.Poor farmers provided with improved farming inputs and strategies are 30 percentage points more likely to use them.RecommendationsAdvocate for quasi-experimental design to improve quality of findings on sustainable economic development.Support interventions to affect change at the household and community level as they can have significant, growth-related impacts.Evaluate projects after completion to measure sustainability and emphasize building capacity to ensure long-term viability.Specify targeted communities as narrowly as possible, paying attention to dynamics of those groups while designing projects.Consider designs that actively encourage participation to ensure rigorous design without denying services to any community.Evaluation QuestionsIs there quantitative evidence that foreign assistance programs have produced sustainable economic growth in the agriculture sector?Does the evidence suggest some of these types of projects are more effective than others?What are the lessons that can be learned from the design of these projects?Approach, Methods, &amp; DataThe report examined 15 evaluations, chosen from a pool of 2,285. These 15 were selected based on the study criteria. Data scientists applied this criteria to searches using computer programming code on the Department of State and USAID databases of projects from 2015-2019. From the 15 evaluations, there were additional criteria added to determine inclusion in the report – specifically, evaluations needed to have positive findings, utilize quasi-experimental or experimental techniques, and represent final evaluations. One mid-term evaluation was included because it covered a five-year period. This led to five evaluations, out of the 15, to be included in the final report. The report sorted these five evaluations into two broad categories (specifically, value-chain investments and training and outreach investments), summarized their key results, tried to reasonably compare the projects, analyzed the findings to offer insights, examined research designs for all 15 projects to find broader lessons learned from how the projects were evaluated, and suggested next steps.Detailed FindingsBroadly, the projects analyzed were impactful, suggesting that foreign assistance can help lead to economic growth. However, the evaluations did not capture outcomes well after the interventions had concluded, only intermediary ones, so the positive impact to long-term economic growth would require further study.Value-chain investments might have a particularly strong return, at least in the shorter term: While the wide variation in the types of projects made it unfeasible to directly compare them, projects directly investing in value chain inputs did appear to have stronger returns compared to those providing training and strengthening organizations. The latter may have more sustainable outcomes because they invest in people and institutions, but the lack of projects measuring outcomes after their completion made that impossible to conclude.Targeted projects can have significant, growth-related impacts: projects that were very targeted were particularly successful. Specifically, the project in Colombia providing job training to Afro-Colombian and Indigenous populations led to a 22% increase in employment, and the project in Bangladesh providing genetically modified eggplant seeds to prevent a particular type of pest led to a 27% increase in profits. These are substantial results that directly address economic growth.Notable outcomes: communities in Colombia job training program were 22% more likely to be employed, 31% more likely to have retirement benefits; farmers in Bangladesh provided genetically modified eggplant seeds had a 27% increase in profits; those benefiting from water associations in Tajikistan cultivated .14 more hectares of high value crops; Ugandans encouraged to use e-verification of agricultural inputs were more likely to use better quality maize and herbicides; and Liberians trained on better agricultural strategies and techniques were 29 percentage points more likely to implement them.The evaluations were rigorous, ensuring confidence in their accuracy, which helps inform future work: There were important implementation and design lessons learned when examining all 15 projects under consideration for the report, particularly those that did not have positive results. First, it is likely that issues with project design affected the conclusions. Specifically, several projects failed to address the possibility that control group participants may have received similar interventions funded by other donors. This could eliminate much of a project’s measurable impact, since both control and treatment groups would be getting a similar treatment. Other projects would have benefited from more careful planning when they measured outcomes – for example, one project only had data for one year of implementation because they did not consider farming seasons when timing their surveys.Detailed RecommendationsAdvocate for quasi-experimental design to improve quality of findings on sustainable economic development: Quasi-experimental design relies on the near-random assignment of an intervention. Researchers who apply this method to existing data assume that they have identified a valid comparison group with which they can determine the impact of an intervention. Unlike experiments that are conducted- in the lab or field, researchers do not have the same amount of control in quasi-experiments. In this method, hidden variables may interfere with determining the impact of an intervention. Still, quasi-experiments can advance rigorous and ethical research.Support interventions at the household and community level as they can have significant, growth-related impacts: Given that most foreign aid projects are implemented in local communities or regions, the outcomes should be measured at the household or community level.Evaluate projects after completion to measure sustainability and emphasize building capacity to ensure long-term viability: Must examine outcomes well after projects finish to measure long-term gains.Specify targeted communities as narrowly as possible, paying attention to dynamics of those groups while designing projects: Projects are most likely to achieve success when they can really focus on the issues recipient groups face, and design around them to optimize delivery of services to them.Consider employing &#8216;encouragement&#8217; designs to maximize rigorous design without denying services to any community: Encouragement designs actively invite participation in the treatment groups. The difference in participation rates between those actively encouraged (the treatment group) and those not (the control group) contribute to assessing an intervention&#8217;s impact. This approach is ethically preferable as it does not withhold treatment from a control group, especially in impoverished regions receiving foreign assistance.Learning SummaryThe Department of State held four “Pause and Reflect” meetings to identify key lessons from this review that could inform current thinking and improve existing practices in the US Government (USG). Some of the lessons identified during the meetings were:The research products that resulted from this study capture important, growth-related insights. These insights can be used to inform (or provide background to) briefing checklists, information memos, interagency multilateral agendas, and other materials. In other words, there are efficiency and intelligence gains from ensuring that personnel at the Department of State have access to and can use the research products that resulted from this study.Dissemination of the findings will help raise awareness of USG efforts to support economic growth-related activities. It will provide examples of where growth-related programming has had impact.
- Colombia HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Colombia				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: Colombia																																					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 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 no significant changes in the human rights situation in Colombia during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by government security forces and armed groups; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious abuses in a conflict; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including enforcement of or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious government corruption; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of racial and ethnic groups, including Afro-Colombian and Indigenous peoples; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and significant or systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association, such as violence against labor activists.The government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.Nonstate armed groups, including U.S.-designated terrorist organizations such as dissidents of the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army, drug-trafficking organizations, and small criminal gangs, committed abuses. These groups were significant perpetrators of human rights abuses and violent crimes, including unlawful killings, kidnapping, human trafficking, bombings, restrictions on freedom of movement, sexual violence, unlawful recruitment and use of child soldiers, and threats of violence against journalists, women, human rights defenders, and religious leaders. The government generally investigated and prosecuted such actions when reported.																														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 or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year. According to the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Temblores, from January 1 through July 31, police committed 12 homicides. In one case, on January 19, in the municipality of Venadillo, Tolima Department, police shot Ricardo Ivan Amaya, who subsequently died in police custody.NGOs and other entities requested investigations of allegations. As of July 31, the Inspector General’s Office reported 52 new disciplinary investigations against 39 members of the armed forces and police for alleged human rights abuses.Investigations into violations by police during the 2021 national protests continued. In July, the attorney general charged national police colonel Edgar Vega Gomez with homicide for the death of two protesters during the 2021 protests.Investigations of killings proceeded, albeit slowly due to the high workload of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement investigators. From January 1 through July 31, the Attorney General’s Office registered four new victims of alleged aggravated homicides or homicides of civilians committed by state agents. During the same period, the Attorney General’s Office formally charged and arrested four members of security agencies for aggravated homicides.The NGO Center for Research and Popular Education (CINEP) reported criminal organizations and illegal armed groups were responsible for 28 extrajudicial executions that occurred between January and August.Human rights organizations, victims, and government investigators accused some members of government security forces of collaborating with or tolerating the activities of criminal gangs, which included some former paramilitary members.The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reported that between January 1 and June 30, it received 113 allegations of homicides of human rights defenders. Of those allegations, the OHCHR confirmed 46 deaths were related to the individual’s actions defending human rights and found 67 cases to be inconclusive. The OHCHR reported 39 victims were men, seven were women, nine were Afro-Colombians, and 11 were Indigenous persons. The OHCHR reported an increase in threats against human rights defenders during the electoral period in the first half of the year. On August 1, the ombudsman announced 92 homicides of social leaders occurred through the end of June. NGOs using different methodologies and definitions reported higher numbers of homicides of social leaders and human rights defenders. The NGO Institute for the Study of Development and Peace (INDEPAZ) reported 151 homicides of social leaders through November 25. NGOs considered the country as highly dangerous for environmental activists.On August 4, armed groups killed Luis Eduardo Timaná in the municipality of Pradera (Valle del Cauca). Timaná was an Indigenous leader of the Kwet Wala Nasa community and candidate to the municipal council of Pradera, representing the MAIS Indigenous political party. Authorities opened an investigation into the incident.According to the Attorney General’s Office, in cases related to the more than 1,000 killings of human rights defenders from January 2016 to August 2023, the government had obtained 166 convictions. The motives for the killings varied, and it was often difficult to determine the primary motive in individual cases.																																				b. Disappearance										According to the Attorney General’s Office, there were no formal complaints of enforced disappearance from January 1 through August 1. Other entities reported different numbers, which varied widely depending on the role of the specific entity and their respective definitions of disappearance. The Office of the Ombudsman reported receiving notifications of 121 cases of enforced disappearance from January 1 through August 31. The National Institute of Forensic and Legal Medicine registered 3,290 cases between January 1 and August 1. Of these cases, 124 involved Afro-Colombians, 29 involved Indigenous persons, 1,316 involved women, and 19 involved members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) community. Of the 3,290 cases, authorities found 126 persons dead and 1,326 alive; 1,838 remained missing. According to the Superior Judiciary Council, as of June 30, there were 16 convictions against 10 persons accused in connection with enforced disappearances.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										Although the law prohibited such practices, there were credible reports government officials employed them.CINEP reported that through June 30, security forces were allegedly involved in two cases of abuse and inhuman treatment involving two victims, one in Tunja, Boyacá, and one in Bogotá. Temblores reported five cases of sexual assault committed by police against peaceful demonstrators. Temblores reported 68 cases of police violence between January 1 and June 30 as part of police actions by the Unit for Dialogue and Order Maintenance against peaceful demonstrators. The Attorney General’s Office and the Inspector General’s Office stated they launched internal investigations of all allegations of excessive use of force.Authorities in the Attorney General’s Office reported they did not formally charge any police or military members for alleged acts of torture.CINEP reported one documented case of torture conducted by a criminal organization. CINEP reported armed groups were responsible for three documented cases of torture through June 30.The government made improvements in investigating and prosecuting abuse cases, but claims of impunity for security force members continued. This was due in some cases to obstruction of justice and opacity in the process by which cases were investigated and prosecuted in the military justice system. Some NGOs commented that military investigators, not members of the Attorney General’s Office, were sometimes the first responders in cases of deaths resulting from actions of security forces. NGOs stated this arrangement could lead to biased investigations. Significant obstacles remained for reducing impunity, including inadequate protection of witnesses and investigators, use of delay tactics by defense attorneys, and the judiciary’s failure to oversee cases effectively and ensure progress. NGOs also stated that inadequate coordination among government entities sometimes allowed statutes of limitations to expire, resulting in a defendant’s release from jail before trial.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Conditions in prisons and detention centers were often harsh and life threatening due to physical abuse, overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, poor health care, and lack of other basic services.Abusive Physical Conditions: Overcrowding existed in both men’s and women’s prisons. The governmental National Prison Institute (INPEC), which operated the national prisons and oversaw the jails, estimated prisons and jails were approximately 22 percent over capacity. According to the Ombudsman’s Office, police stations and transitory detention spaces were greater than 50 percent over capacity. The law prohibited holding pretrial detainees with convicted prisoners, but often this law was not followed. The practice of preventive detention, in combination with inefficiencies in the judicial system, also resulted in overcrowding.There were cases where prisons and pretrial holding facilities had inhuman conditions, deficiencies in the supply of drinking water, sanitation, medical and psychological services, and an unreliable supply of medicines. The unreliable supply of medicines was especially serious in temporary detention centers such as police stations and temporary detention centers of the Attorney General’s Office.Many prisoners faced difficulties receiving adequate medical care. INPEC’s physical structures were generally in poor repair. The Inspector General’s Office noted some facilities had poor ventilation and sanitary systems. Some prisoners slept on floors without mattresses, while others shared cots in overcrowded cells.According to the umbrella human rights NGO Coordinación Colombia Europa Estados Unidos, there were allegations prison guards and inmates committed numerous incidents of sexual and physical violence, including gender-based violence.Physical abuse by prison guards, prisoner-on-prisoner violence, and authorities’ failure to maintain control were problems. Between January 1 and August 8, INPEC reported 22 new disciplinary investigations against 26 prison guards for physical abuse and inflicting personal injuries, and one investigation of sexual abuse.INPEC reported 97 deaths in prisons, jails, pretrial detention facilities, and other detention centers through August 8. Of these deaths, eight were caused by fights, three by suicide, and 69 by natural causes.Administration: Authorities investigated credible prisoner complaints of mistreatment and inhuman conditions. Some prisoners asserted the investigations were slow. The prisoner advocacy NGO Committee for Solidarity with Political Prisoners (CSPP) reported INPEC officials frequently denied them access to visit inmates without adequate explanation, despite CSPP making the requests using the proper administrative processes.Independent Monitoring: The government permitted independent monitoring of prison conditions by local and international human rights groups.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. There were allegations, however, authorities detained citizens arbitrarily.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Officials were required to bring detained persons before a judge within 36 hours of arrest, bring formal charges within 30 days, and start a trial within 90 days of the initial detention. Public defenders contracted by the Office of the Ombudsman assisted indigent defendants but were overloaded with cases. Detainees received prompt access to legal counsel and family members, as provided by law. Bail was generally available except for serious crimes such as murder, rebellion, or narcotics trafficking. Authorities generally respected these rights.Arbitrary Arrest: Even though the law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention, this law was not always respected. NGOs described some arrests as arbitrary. According to Coordinación Colombia Europa Estados Unidos, police misused a temporary protection mechanism to arbitrarily detain protesters, and from January 1 to August, 39 persons were arbitrarily detained using this legal mechanism.Through June 30, Temblores reported 26 cases of arbitrary detention by police involving 145 victims. CINEP reported two cases of arbitrary detention, with 14 victims, by the army, and one case of arbitrary detention, with four victims, by the Attorney General’s Office. According to the Inspector General’s Office, between January 1 and July 31, there was one case of arbitrary detention reported. The Attorney General’s Office reported no cases or investigations initiated for this crime.Pretrial Detention: The civilian judicial system suffered from a significant backlog of cases, which led to large numbers of pretrial detainees. According to INPEC, approximately 23 percent of prison detainees were in pretrial detention. The failure of many jail supervisors to keep mandatory detention records or follow notification procedures made it difficult to account for all detainees. In some cases, detainees were released without a trial because they had already served more than one-third of the maximum sentence for their charges. Civil society groups believed authorities deliberately subjected some community leaders to extended pretrial detention.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality. Much of the judicial system was overburdened and inefficient. Subornation, corruption, and intimidation of judges, prosecutors, and witnesses hindered the independence of the judiciary.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right. The use of delay tactics by defense lawyers, prosecutors’ heavy caseloads, and other problems hampered the efficiency of the judiciary. Military trial judges were required to issue rulings within eight days of a court-martial hearing.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						The government declared it did not hold political prisoners; nevertheless, authorities held some members of human rights advocacy groups on charges of conspiracy, rebellion, or terrorism, which the groups described as government harassment of human rights advocates. According to INPEC, the government held 570 persons on charges of rebellion or of aiding and promoting insurgency; the government prosecuted and won convictions in many of these cases. The government provided the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to these prisoners.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										The law provided a legal basis for assistance and reparations to victims of the 52-year internal armed conflict between the government and the insurgency group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), including victims of government abuses, but the government acknowledged the pace of restitution was slow.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, but there were allegations the government sometimes failed to respect these prohibitions. Government intelligence agencies investigating terrorist organizations sometimes monitored telephone conversations without judicial authorization; the law barred evidence obtained in this manner from being used in court.NGOs accused domestic intelligence and security entities of illegally monitoring lawyers and human rights defenders. On August 31, the Attorney General’s Office charged five police officers with illegally monitoring the communications of two household employees as part of an investigation into actions by members of the government.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										The government and the FARC, formerly the country’s largest guerrilla insurgency group, continued to implement the 2016 peace accord. In 2017, the FARC completed its disarmament, and as of July, nearly 13,000 former members were engaged in reincorporation activities, including participation in a political party. From the outset, an estimated 800 to 1,500 FARC dissidents did not participate in the peace process. As of October, NGOs estimated there were approximately 5,500 FARC dissidents, including new recruits, combatants who refused to sign the peace accord, and former combatants who signed the accord but returned to arms. A significant percentage of FARC dissidents were unarmed members of support networks that facilitated illicit economies. On October 16, the government signed a three-month ceasefire agreement with the FARC dissident group Estado Mayor Central.The National Liberation Army (ELN) committed crimes and acts of terror throughout the country, including bombings, violence against civilian populations, and violent attacks against military and police facilities. The government began a six-month ceasefire with the ELN on August 3, which the UN Verification Mission monitored. Illegal armed groups and drug gangs, such as the Clan del Golfo, committed abuses.Killings: Regarding extrajudicial executions from the conflict, as of August 31, the Attorney General’s Office reported 3,433 open investigations, with 3,006 cases in the initial prosecution phase and 427 cases advancing to the trial phase.The 2016 peace accord’s transitional justice framework established the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) as an accountability mechanism to investigate serious crimes committed during the 52-year internal armed conflict between the government and the FARC. The JEP proceedings in the false-positives case included cases of forced disappearances in addition to extrajudicial killings.The JEP promoted reconciliation and took steps to hold accountable the perpetrators of violence during the armed conflict. The JEP continued investigations in its 10 prioritized macro cases opened by the end of 2022 focusing on incidents within a certain region, incidents by specific actors, and incidents against certain categories of victims. (A macro case was a comprehensive, thematic case centered on multiple instances of a specific type of abuse during the armed conflict.)Efforts held officials accountable in so-called false-positive extrajudicial killings. (“False-positive killings” was a term used in cases where civilians were killed and falsely presented as guerilla combatants.) Court records stated there were 6,402 of these killings from 2002 to 2008. As of September 1, the JEP reported 3,797 members of the armed forces voluntarily accepted JEP jurisdiction for legal proceedings related to false positives and 508 members gave testimony in the false-positives case known as “macro case 03.” Many of those convicted in the ordinary and military justice systems were granted conditional release from prisons and military detention centers upon agreeing to submit to the jurisdiction of the JEP.On June 28, eight former members of the army admitted their involvement in extrajudicial killings publicly for the first time and apologized to victims in hearings in Dabeiba, Antioquia. Two other indicted former members of the army refused to accept responsibility and faced prosecution.On August 30, the JEP brought charges against retired general Mario Montoya, former commander of the army, and eight other military members for war crimes and crimes against humanity for their role in 130 extrajudicial killings. This was the first indictment of a high-ranking military official under the JEP’s macro case on false-positive killings. The case centered on extrajudicial killings by the military in 2002-2003, when Montoya was commander of the Fourth Brigade, based in Medellin. Multiple subordinates of Montoya testified Montoya was aware of the killings and he attempted to portray the killings as the result of legitimate military operations. The Attorney General’s Office reported that as of August 1, they had 15 open investigations of 20 retired generals related to false-positive killings.The military was accused of some killings, some of which military officials stated were “military mistakes.” In other cases, military officials stated they believed the victim was fighting on behalf of an armed group, while community members stated the victim was not a combatant. Following a March 2022 military operation that killed 11 individuals in Puerto Leguizamo, Putumayo, the attorney general announced charges against 25 officials. In July, the Inspector General’s Office investigated 12 military officials involved with the operation and concluded the military tampered with the crime scene by moving dead bodies and placing weapons near them.Armed groups, notably the ELN, FARC dissidents, and the Clan del Golfo, committed unlawful killings, primarily in areas with illicit economic activities and without a strong government presence. The government reported that between January 1 and June 30, armed groups allegedly killed 85 members of state security forces. The Attorney General’s Office reported the investigation of two cases with 11 victims. Government officials stated most of the violence was related to narcotics trafficking. The Attorney General’s Office reported that from January 1 to July 31, there were 45 cases with 93 homicides of civilians not related to the conflict but committed by FARC dissidents, ELN, and other illegal armed groups.Some members of the FARC who participated in the peace process alleged the government had not fully complied with its commitments, such as ensuring the security of demobilized former combatants and facilitating their reintegration. Independent observers raised concerns that inadequate security guarantees facilitated the killing of former FARC combatants. According to INDEPAZ, between January 1 and October 11, 34 demobilized FARC combatants were killed. Between the signing of the peace accord in 2016 and August 2, the Attorney General’s Office investigated homicides of demobilized former FARC combatants, resulting in 54 convictions in the homicides of 48 former combatants. As of September, 52 cases were in the trial stage, 37 were under investigation, 64 had pending arrest warrants, and 11 were being closed due to the death of the accused.According to the UN Verification Mission, the violence against demobilized former FARC combatants continued in several regions in which illegal armed groups exercised social and territorial control. Since the signing of the 2016 peace accord, observers verified a total of 375 killings of former combatants (including 11 women, 54 Afro-Colombians, and 35 Indigenous persons), 129 attempted homicides (including 10 women), and 32 cases of former combatants deemed missing (all men). INDEPAZ reported 315 killings of former combatants since 2017.The ELN, FARC dissidents, and other groups continued to lay land mines. According to the OHCHR, from January 1 to July 23, the Comprehensive Action Group Against Antipersonnel Mines reported five persons died from landmine explosions and 58 were wounded.Abductions: Criminal organizations, FARC dissidents, the ELN, and common criminals kidnapped persons. According to the Ministry of Defense, there were 3,875 kidnappings from January 1 to June 30. Of the kidnappings, 15 were attributed to FARC dissidents, 13 to the ELN, and the remainder to other organized armed groups and criminal organizations.On July 3, the ELN kidnapped a police sergeant and her children. The victims were released six days later. On July 29, the ELN kidnapped Sergeant Luis Alberto Gómez, commander of the police force in the municipality of Genova, Nariño. Gomez was released on August 2 as part of the demands made by the national government during the August 3 start of the bilateral ceasefire with the ELN. Between January 1 and July 31, four victims of kidnapping died while in captivity. As of August 10, the Attorney General’s Office reported seven convictions for kidnapping.Physical Abuse, Punishment, and Torture: CINEP reported that from January through August, the ELN and criminal organizations were responsible for four documented cases of serious physical abuse that included seven victims. Members of armed groups raped and sexually abused women and children.Other Conflict-related Abuse: Other human rights abuses occurred in the context of the conflict and narcotics trafficking. Drug traffickers and armed groups displaced predominantly poor and rural populations. Armed groups, particularly in the departments of Cauca, Choco, Córdoba, Narino, and Norte de Santander, exploited children, including Venezuelan, Indigenous, and Afro-Colombian children, in human trafficking by forcibly recruiting them to serve as combatants and informants, to harvest illicit crops, and to be exploited in sex trafficking.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right. NGOs and journalists alleged increased harassment and threats from state officials, including police. Violence and harassment, as well as the criminalization of libel, inhibited freedom of the press.Violence and Harassment: According to the journalists’ NGO Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa (FLIP), from January 1 to August 31, there were 410 incidents of violence and harassment against journalists, including threats, physical aggression, and harassment. These threats were made by both governmental and nongovernmental actors.From January 1 through July 31, the Attorney General’s Office investigated two cases of homicide of journalists from 2022, 133 cases of threats against 146 journalists, one case of sexual harassment of a journalist, and 50 cases of physical injuries of journalists. The Attorney General’s Office rarely obtained convictions in these cases.Press freedom organizations reported that in June, a journalist from the department of Chocó was a victim of threats, kidnapping, and sexual violence, including technology-facilitated gender-based violence, in retaliation for her publications on security, judicial, and public-order issues. The source of these threats was unclear.The Ministry of Interior maintained a National Protection Unit (NPU) for the protection of threatened journalists. Some NGOs raised concerns regarding perceived shortcomings in the NPU, such as delays in granting protection and the appropriateness of measures for addressing specific threats.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: FLIP alleged some journalists practiced self-censorship due to fear of being sued under libel laws or of being physically attacked, mostly by nongovernment actors. FLIP asserted the high degree of impunity for those who committed aggressions against journalists was a factor in self-censorship.In July, the publisher Editorial Planeta decided not to publish an investigation by journalist Laura Ardila of the network and influence of a political family known as the Char clan from the Caribbean Coast of the country. Dozens of X (formerly Twitter) accounts harassed and intimidated Ardila with messages that include sexist and misogynistic comments. Ardila informed FLIP she received at least 20 messages a day, which she saw as a campaign of harassment and to discredit her. The book was ultimately published in September by a different publisher.Libel/Slander Laws: Slander and libel were crimes. The government did not use prosecution to prevent media outlets from criticizing government policies or public officials. Political candidates, businesspersons, and others, alleging defamation or libel, publicly threatened to sue journalists for expressing opinions. Two journalists were arrested as a result of Attorney General’s Office investigations for libel and slander. As of July 31, the Attorney General’s Office received complaints filed against 319 journalists for alleged crimes such as libel and slander.Nongovernmental Impact: Members of armed groups inhibited freedom of expression by intimidating, threatening, kidnapping, and killing journalists. National and international NGOs reported media regularly practiced self-censorship because of threats of violence from armed groups.The journalist Yamir Jhan Pico, director of the digital media organization Caribe Noticias 24/7, left the country due to death threats he received, despite receiving government protection.																Internet Freedom						The government reported it did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																Freedom of Association						The law provided for the freedom of association, and the government generally respected this right. Freedom of association was limited, however, by threats and acts of violence committed by armed groups against NGOs, Indigenous groups, and labor unions.																										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										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation. Military operations and insecurity in certain rural areas restricted freedom of movement.In-country Movement: The government required asylum seekers and individuals without regularized migration status to have a salvoconducto (safe passage document) to travel throughout the country; however, humanitarian legal assistance organizations reported long delays in receiving these documents.International and civil society organizations reported armed groups restricted movement of rural communities through roadblocks, curfews, car bombs along egress routes, and improvised explosive devices in areas where illicit crop cultivation and narcotics trafficking persisted.In August, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported a 33 percent decrease in the number of persons displaced between January and June, compared with the same period in 2022. During the same period, the United Nations registered a 2 percent increase in incidents where armed groups confined communities. Communities that suffered restricted movement due to armed incidents and geographical factors had limited access to essential goods and services.																																				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, and the government had a system for providing protection to refugees.While the government generally provided narrow access to the asylum process for persons who requested international protection, the government encouraged asylum applicants to accept alternative migration status such as Temporary Protective Status. The government granted citizenship to children born in Colombia to Venezuelan parents on or after August 19, 2015.Durable Solutions: The law allowed a 10-year temporary protective status for Venezuelans, providing a pathway to legal residence. A total of 2.5 million Venezuelan migrants were eligible, although the government had not fully implemented the program. Officials reported 1.9 million persons had obtained the status, while an additional 600,000 Venezuelans were in the process of obtaining the status. The status allowed authorities to grant Venezuelans who qualified formal access to work, health care, and education.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										There were approximately 6.7 million IDPs living in the country, largely because of the armed conflict and violence in rural areas. Threats posed by armed groups created internal displacement in both remote areas and urban settings. Many IDPs lived in poverty in unhygienic conditions and with limited access to health care, education, shelter, and employment.The government, international organizations, and civil society groups identified various factors causing displacement and confinements, including threats, extortion, and physical, psychological, and sexual violence by armed groups against civilian populations, particularly against women and girls. Other causes included competition and armed confrontation among and within armed groups for resources and territorial control; confrontations among security forces, guerrillas, and criminal gangs; and forced recruitment of children or threats of forced recruitment by illegal armed groups. Drug trafficking, illegal mining, and large-scale commercial ventures in rural areas also contributed to displacement.The NGO National Association of Displaced Afro-descendants stated threats and violence against Afro-Colombian leaders and communities caused high levels of forced displacement, especially in the Pacific coast region.Local institutions in many areas lacked the capacity to protect the rights of and provide public services to IDPs and communities at risk of displacement. Consequently, the government struggled to provide adequate protection and humanitarian assistance to newly displaced populations.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on nearly universal suffrage. Active-duty members of the armed forces and police could neither vote nor participate in the political process. Civilian public employees were eligible to vote, and they could participate in partisan politics but only during the four months immediately preceding a national election.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: National and regional elections were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities. Criminal gangs, FARC dissidents, and the ELN threatened and killed government officials. The ELN, for example, threatened to attack some local political candidates who did not support the ELN. As of May 31, the NPU, under the Ministry of Interior, was providing protection to 335 mayors, 18 governors, and 867 other persons, including members of departmental assemblies, council members, and judges. By decree, the national police’s protection program and the NPU shared responsibility for protecting municipal and district mayors.Political Parties and Political Participation: On January 30, the Inter-American Court for Human Rights ruled that between 1984 and 2016, state agents, including military intelligence officers and paramilitaries acting in concert with state agents, killed or disappeared 5,733 candidates and other persons affiliated with the left-wing political party Union Patriótica in a “generalized, systematic” effort to debilitate the party.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented these laws effectively, although officials sometimes engaged in corrupt practices without punishment. There were numerous reports of government corruption during the year, particularly at the local level and in relation to the implementation of peace accord funds. There was corruption within the justice system. Revenues from transnational organized crime, including drug trafficking and illegal gold mining, exacerbated corruption.Corruption: The Attorney General’s Office opened investigations into President Petro’s son and brother for allegedly accepting irregular payments, some of which allegedly financed Petro’s 2022 campaign. Administrative corruption in ports facilitated the transit of illicit drugs. Journalists reporting on corruption regularly faced threats.The prosecutors investigating members of congress and senior government officials reported that since January, they had initiated 12 new investigations of nine former senators and three former house representatives, 36 investigations of 39 former governors, 94 investigations of 25 governors, and four investigations of former mayors.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												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings. Government officials were often cooperative and responsive to the views of these groups.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: Several human rights NGOs reported receiving threats in the form of emails, mail, telephone calls, false obituaries, and objects related to death, such as coffins and funeral bouquets. The government often condemned the threats and called on the Attorney General’s Office to investigate them. From January 1 to August 11, the Attorney General’s Office investigated 642 cases of threats against human rights defenders. Some activists claimed the government did not take the threats seriously, due to the delayed responses in risk assessments following previous threats and attacks and slow implementation of the subsequent recommendations.The governmental Ombudsman’s Office, as well as members of the ombudsman’s regional offices, received threats from armed groups through pamphlets, email, and violent actions.Between January and June, the Attorney General’s Office reported 127 attacks against human rights defenders. The Ombudsman’s Office verified 91 homicides. In these cases, several individuals were arrested and charged, but no convictions were issued.The government announced progress in the investigations into attacks and killings of human rights defenders. According to the Superior Judiciary Council, between January and June, there were three convictions in cases of threats against human rights defenders. In addition, 24 persons were convicted for homicides of human rights defenders.As of May 31, the NPU provided protection to a total of 9,444 persons, including 197 leaders or representatives of human rights organizations, 420 leaders or representatives of community organizations, 160 leaders or representatives of peasant organizations, 78 activists from human rights organizations, 204 persons from victims’ organizations, and 117 leaders or representatives of social organizations.Government Human Rights Bodies: The ombudsman was independent, submitted an annual report to the House of Representatives, and had responsibility for providing for the promotion and exercise of human rights. The Ombudsman’s Office regularly issued alerts for areas it assessed as at risk of conflict. The government was often slow to implement the recommendations in the alerts.The National System for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law – led by a commission of 21 senior government officials, including the vice president – designed, implemented, and evaluated the government’s policies on human rights and compliance with international humanitarian law. The National System was a large and active entity.Both the Senate and House of Representatives had active human rights committees that served as forums for discussion of human rights problems.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law prohibited rape of women or men, including spousal rape. Rape by a spouse or a current or former cohabitant or co-parent was an aggravated offense that was treated under the law as a violent sexual assault. There were no laws specifically on “corrective rape.” The law provided for sentences ranging from eight to 30 years’ imprisonment for violent sexual assault. For acts of spousal sexual violence, the law mandated prison sentences of six months to two years.Gender-based violence, as well as impunity for perpetrators, was a problem. The law required the government to immediately protect survivors of domestic violence from further physical or psychological abuse, but the law was not always enforced, particularly in rural areas.Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): The law prohibited FGM/C, but incidents were reported in several Indigenous communities. Two-thirds of women from the Embera community underwent FGM/C, according to the UN Population Fund. Local officials confirmed a high level of underreporting on a regional and national scale.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: By law, femicide was punishable with penalties of 21 to 50 years in prison. The law augmented both imprisonment and fines if a crime caused “transitory or permanent physical disfigurement,” such as in the case of acid attacks, which had a penalty of up to 50 years in prison. The government did not always enforce the law effectively.The law provided for measures to deter and punish harassment in the workplace such as sexual harassment, verbal abuse or derision, aggression, and discrimination. The government did not always enforce the law effectively. The Attorney General’s Office and the Inspector General’s Office opened numerous cases against members of the military and police for rape, abuse, and sexual harassment of women, Afro-Colombian and Indigenous leaders, and members of the LGBTQI+ community. NGOs reported sexual harassment was a pervasive and underreported problem in workplaces and in public.Discrimination: Although women had the same legal rights as men, discrimination against women persisted. The Office of the Advisor for the Equality of Women had primary responsibility for combating discrimination against women, but advocacy groups reported the office was not always effective. The government continued its national public policy promoting gender equity. The law did not specifically require equal pay for equal work, and there were legal restrictions on women’s employment in some industries. Unemployment disproportionately affected women, who faced hiring discrimination and received salaries that generally were not commensurate with their education and experience.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Contraception was widely available. The government provided access to sexual and reproductive services. Emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis were available for survivors of sexual violence, including survivors of conflict-related sexual violence.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										Afro-Colombians and Indigenous individuals were entitled to all constitutional rights and protections but faced significant economic and social discrimination. Afro-Colombian labor unions reported discrimination in the port sector.NGOs and the OHCHR reported Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities were disproportionately affected by illicit economic activities in territories with weak local governments. According to the Truth Commission’s final report, 38 percent of Afro-Colombians and 27 percent of Indigenous persons were registered as victims of the conflict, despite together representing less than one quarter of the country’s population.The government promoted equal opportunity for Black, Afro-Colombian, Palenquera, and Raizal populations. The Petro administration acknowledged that prior government policies disproportionally excluded Afro-Colombian, Indigenous, and ethnic communities from opportunities for health care, education, and economic growth. The vice president launched a strategy to advance the implementation of the ethnic chapter of the peace accord, which supported Afro-Colombians and established a directorate under the new Ministry of Equality to focus on Afro-Colombian communities. The Ministry of Interior provided technical advice and funding for social projects proposed by Afro-Colombian communities.																																				Indigenous Peoples										Killings of members and leaders of Indigenous groups continued. In the first half of the year, INDEPAZ reported more than 20 deaths of Indigenous social leaders, constituting nearly 20 percent of all social leaders killed. As of August, the OHCHR reported the homicide of 11 Indigenous human rights defenders. Activists and political analysts noted increasing killings of and threats to Indigenous leaders, many of whom were environmental activists. The United Nations received reports of an increasing number of Indigenous children and adolescents, including many girls, being recruited by illegal armed groups. Of the 48 cases of child recruitment by illegal armed groups verified by the OHCHR, 25 included Indigenous children.Despite special legal protections and government assistance programs, Indigenous persons suffered discrimination and lacked access to basic services and equal access to employment. Indigenous communities were often among the poorest in the country, were food-insecure, and had the highest age-specific mortality rates. Many of these communities lacked access to health-care facilities, sanitary and hygiene products, and clean water. Poor economic conditions also made health-related isolation recommendations difficult due to overcrowded housing.The law required the government to consult beforehand with Indigenous groups regarding governmental actions that could affect them. The law gave Indigenous groups perpetual rights to their ancestral lands, but Indigenous groups, neighboring landowners, and the government often disputed the demarcation of those lands. Armed groups often violently contested Indigenous land ownership and recruited Indigenous children to join their ranks.Some Indigenous groups asserted they were not able to participate adequately in decisions affecting their lands. Indigenous communities such as the Wayuu community in La Guajira protested private and government entities that developed projects on Wayuu territories without consulting them.The government stated it consulted with Indigenous leaders when possible before entering Indigenous lands, but for security reasons, the government could not provide advance notice of most military operations, especially when in pursuit of enemy combatants.The law provided for special criminal and civil jurisdictions based on traditional community laws within Indigenous territories. Legal proceedings in these jurisdictions were subject to manipulation and often rendered punishments more lenient than those imposed by civilian state courts.																																				Children										Child Abuse: Child abuse was a serious problem. Multiple laws against child abuse existed; however, these laws were not always enforced effectively. The Colombian Family Welfare Institute provided psychosocial, legal, and medical care to victims.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: Marriage was legal at age 18. Boys older than 14 and girls older than 12 could marry with the consent of their parents. The government effectively enforced the law. According to UNICEF, 5 percent of all girls in the country were married before age 15, and 23 percent were married before age 18.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited sexual exploitation of a child or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child and stipulated a penalty of 14 to 25 years in prison. The law prohibited pornography using children younger than 18 and stipulated a penalty of 10 to 20 years in prison and a fine for violations. The government generally enforced the law, but rates of prosecution and conviction were low. Penalties existed for sexual exploitation by armed groups, sex tourism, and commercial sexual exploitation; however, judicial authorities prosecuted very few cases. In 2022, convictions for human trafficking, which included cases of child sex trafficking, were the lowest in a decade.																																				Antisemitism										The Jewish community, with an estimated 5,000 members, reported instances of antisemitic graffiti, including near synagogues, and antisemitic comments on social media.For further information on incidents of antisemitism, whether or not those incidents were motivated by religion, and for reporting on the ability of Jews to exercise freedom of religion or belief, please see the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				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: Consensual same-sex conduct between adults, cross-dressing, and other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors were legal.Violence and Harassment: There were reports of societal abuse and sexual assault of LGBTQI+ persons. According to the NGO Colombia Diversa, from January 1 to September 10, there were 23 homicides of LGBTQI+ persons, including 12 gay men, six transgender women, three lesbian women, one transgender man, and one nonbinary person. The NGO Caribe Afirmativo reported that on May 1, Dani Sharith Polo, known as “La Pola,” a representative of LGBTQI+ victims in the Colombian Caribbean, was attacked and later died. There were allegations of police violence based on sexual orientation.The country experienced high levels of impunity for crimes against LGBTQI+ persons, especially against transgender individuals. Investigators and police often mislabeled the gender identities of victims and improperly interviewed LGBTQI+ victims, leading to intentional and unintentional intimidation. LGBTQI+ NGOs noted it was common for police either in conversation or in their reports to identify transgender victims as “a man disguised as a woman” or vice versa.Discrimination: The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. The government did not enforce the law, however, especially when it concerned transgender individuals. The law explicitly recognized LGBTQI+ couples and their families and granted them rights equal to rights of other persons.NGOs reported transgender individuals faced significant discrimination in accessing public services. According to the NGO Foundation Group of Action and Support for People with Trans Life Experience (in Spanish, Fundación GAAT), in addition to the bullying and discrimination they faced in public, transgender individuals had difficulty accessing formal jobs; health services, including mental health support; and education. Only four of every 100 transgender individuals had formal jobs, according to Fundación GAAT. The organization reported that delays for transgender individuals in receiving updated identification documents were obstacles to employment. Transgender individuals cited barriers to public services when health-care providers and police refused to accept their government-issued identification.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: The country recognized male, female, transgender, or nonbinary markers as the gender in legal identification documents. NGOs such as Caribe Afirmativo highlighted that updating a gender designation was difficult due to the financial costs associated with acquiring the underlying documents, such as birth certificates and updated medical documents.Some transgender individuals stated it was difficult to change their gender designation on national identity documents and that transgender individuals whose identity cards listed them as male were required to show proof they had performed mandatory military service or obtained the necessary waivers from that service.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: Laws did not prohibit so-called conversion therapy. Fundación GAAT estimated approximately 20 percent of LGBTQI+ persons had been a victim of so-called conversion therapy. NGOs reported transgender individuals, particularly transgender men, were often sexually assaulted in so-called corrective rape. A university study estimated the majority of those experiencing so-called conversion therapy received it from a religious figure or a medical provider. Official data for victims of conversion therapy did not exist because conversion therapy was not considered a crime and the practice was not legally regulated.Medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were not performed on nonconsenting adult intersex persons. Information on “normalization” surgeries on children was not available.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: No restrictions existed on the freedom of expression, association, or peaceful assembly of LGBTQI+ persons.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities did not have access to education, employment, health services, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others. The law prohibited arbitrary restriction on the full exercise of the rights of persons with disabilities or harassment of persons with disabilities; however, enforcement was rare. The law prohibited discrimination against persons with physical and mental disabilities but did not explicitly prohibit discrimination against persons with sensory or intellectual disabilities. No law mandated access to information and telecommunications for persons with disabilities.According to the NGO Somos Defensores, government authorities seldom enforced laws providing rights to individuals with disabilities. Access of persons with disabilities to education, health services, public buildings, and transportation was generally not on an equal basis with other persons. Persons with disabilities were unemployed at a much higher rate than the general population. A senior government official estimated 85 percent of persons with disabilities were unemployed.The government made efforts to improve and address disability rights. The recently created Ministry of Equality and Equity housed the Vice Ministry of Diversity, which managed the Persons with Disabilities portfolio. The National Development Plan included measures to address and close gaps that prevented persons with disabilities from fully enjoying their rights. The government also increased student quotas at universities for persons with disabilities and provided legal and tax incentives for employers to hire persons with disabilities.Although children with disabilities attended school at all grade levels, advocates noted most teachers and schools were neither trained nor equipped to successfully educate children with disabilities. Advocacy groups also stated children with disabilities entered the education system later than children without disabilities and dropped out at higher rates.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										There were confirmed reports of societal violence and discrimination against persons with HIV and AIDS. In a 2022 survey, the government reported a high proportion of persons with HIV decided to keep their diagnosis hidden from their partner, spouse, family, work, and friends primarily due to fear of rejection, stigma, and discrimination. Many persons with HIV suffered exclusion from or reduction of social activities, religious activities, and family activities. In a survey, more than 15 percent of individuals with HIV reported online aggression occurring at least once due to their HIV diagnosis. Furthermore, 17.9 percent of individuals with HIV surveyed reported they lost their job at least once; more than one-quarter of these persons said their job loss was due to their HIV diagnosis.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of certain workers to form and join unions, bargain collectively, and conduct legal strikes. The law prohibited antiunion discrimination. Members of associated workers’ cooperatives, however, were not allowed to form unions, since the law recognized members of a cooperative as owners. The law also prohibited members of the armed forces and police from forming or joining unions.The law provided for automatic recognition of unions that obtained 25 signatures from potential members and complied with a registration process.The law provided for associated workers’ cooperatives, collective pacts, and union contracts. Under collective pacts, employers could negotiate accords on pay and labor conditions with workers in workplaces where no union was present or where a union represented less than one-third of employees. Law and regulations prohibited the use of workers’ cooperatives and collective pacts to undermine the right to organize and bargain collectively, including by extending better conditions to nonunion workers through such pacts.A company could contract a union, at times formed explicitly for this purpose, for a specific job or work; the union then in essence served as an employer for its members. Workers who belonged to a union that had a union contract with a company did not have a direct employment relationship with either the company or the union.Labor disputes for workers under a union contract could be decided through an arbitration panel, as opposed to deciding in labor courts, if both parties agreed. Prohibited practices included an employer impeding workers’ rights to strike, meet, or otherwise associate, and extending better conditions to members of collective pacts than to union members. Unions cited multiple instances in which companies fired employees who formed or sought to form new unions.The government had the authority to fine violators of labor rights. The law stipulated that offenders repeatedly misusing workers’ cooperatives or other labor-contracting mechanisms should receive the maximum penalty and could be subject to losing their legal status to operate. Employers who engaged in antiunion practices could also be imprisoned for up to five years, although government officials acknowledged a fine was more likely than imprisonment. Penalties were commensurate with penalties prescribed for other violations regarding denials of civil rights, such as discrimination. The Ministry of Labor’s Special Investigations Unit, part of the labor inspectorate, had the authority to investigate and impose sanctions; it was reportedly overburdened with cases, resulting in delays responding to union requests for review. Through August 11, no new fines were assessed for abusive subcontracting in the five priority sectors of palm oil, sugar, ports, mines, and cut flowers. One fine was imposed for freedom of association violations in the sugar sector. The government engaged in regular meetings with unions, civil society groups, and the business sector on these and related issues.Government enforcement of applicable laws was inconsistent. Penalties were rarely applied against violators. The government reported some progress in implementing a new system for fine collection that would help ensure timely and regular collection of fines related to these protections.Despite steps by the Ministry of Labor to strengthen its labor law inspection system, the government did not establish a consistent, robust national strategy to protect freedom of association and collective bargaining. Structural problems adversely affected prosecutions, which resulted in a continued high degree of impunity for violators of these rights, including in cases of threats and violence against unionists. The government continued to reach labor formalization agreements with firms engaged in abusive subcontracting or that had labor conflict during the year. Most of the agreements resulted in direct employment contracts, and a few were indefinite-term contracts. Labor rights groups expressed concern these agreements were not sufficiently monitored by the Ministry of Labor to ensure they were followed.Field-based inspections by the Ministry of Labor for abusive subcontracting in the five priority sectors were infrequent. Critics claimed inspections lacked necessary rigor, assessed fines were not collected, and abusive subcontracting continued.The ministry employed a telephone- and internet-based complaint mechanism to report alleged labor violations, and it provided a mechanism for submitters to track the status of their cases. Union members complained the systems did not allow citizens to register anonymous complaints and registered complaints did not result in any government action.Some employers used temporary contracts, temporary service agencies, and other forms of subcontracting, including cooperatives, to limit worker rights and protections. Labor confederations and NGOs reported enforcement actions did not eliminate abusive subcontracting and illegal labor intermediation.Violence, threats, harassment, and other practices against trade unionists affected the exercise of the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The tripartite Interinstitutional Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Workers did not meet during the year.Judicial police and prosecutors investigating criminal cases of threats and killings were required to determine during the initial phase of an investigation whether a victim was an active or retired union member or engaged in union formation and organization, but it was unclear whether investigators did so.It could take several months to transfer labor-related cases from regional field offices of the Attorney General’s Office to the Attorney General’s Human Rights Directorate. Cases were transferred only with the approval of the attorney general in response to direct requests, instead of automatically. Authorities did not criminally prosecute or convict any cases of forced labor during the year.The government included in its protection program labor activists engaged in efforts to form a union, as well as former unionists under threat because of their past activities. As of May 31, the NPU was providing protection to 244 trade union leaders or members, a decrease from the prior year. Between January 1 and August 3, the NPU processed 44 new risk assessments of union leaders or members and developed 90 work plans of protective measures for the same population, all of which were active as of August 24. The NPU provided protection in 40 cases which were assessed as facing an “extraordinary threat.” The NPU reported the average time needed to implement protection measures upon completion of a risk analysis was 78 days in regular cases.In cases of unionist killings from previous years, the pace of investigations and convictions was slow, and high rates of impunity continued, although the attorney general made progress in sentencing. Three homicides of unionists occurred during the year.With respect to cases of threats against unionists, the Attorney General’s Office reported receiving 58 cases in 2022 and 33 cases as of August 18. None of these cases reached the trial phase; however, charges were filed in two cases of threats against union leaders.The National Union School (ENS) and other labor groups stated focusing on killings alone masked the true nature and scope of the violence against labor activists. Labor groups noted that in some regions, nonlethal violations increased. Through October 13, the ENS reported 25 death threats, four assassination attempts, one abduction, and one case of harassment.																																				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 minimum wage for all sectors, and it was above the poverty line.The law provided for a regular workweek of 48 hours and a minimum rest period of eight hours within the week. Exceptions to this could be granted by the Ministry of Labor and were frequently granted in the mining sector. The law stipulated that workers receive premium compensation for nighttime work (work performed from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.), hours worked in excess of 48 per week, and work performed on Sundays. The law permitted compulsory overtime only in exceptional cases where the work was considered essential for the company’s functioning.Occupational Safety and Health: The law provided for workers’ occupational safety and health (OSH) in the formal sector. The legal standards were appropriate for the main formal industries. The law did not cover informal-sector workers, including many mining and agricultural workers. In general, the law protected workers’ rights to remove themselves from situations that endangered health or safety without jeopardy to their employment. In cases of formal grievances, authorities generally protected employees in this situation.Nonunion workers, particularly those in the agricultural and port sectors, reportedly worked under hazardous conditions because they feared losing their jobs through subcontracting mechanisms or informal arrangements if they reported abuses. Some unionized workers who alleged they suffered on-the-job injuries complained companies illegally fired them in retaliation for filing workers compensation claims. Only the courts could order reinstatement, and workers complained the courts were backlogged, slow, and corrupt. The Ministry of Labor could punish a company found to have broken the law in this way, but it did not offer other guarantees to workers.Security forces reported armed actors, including FARC dissidents, the ELN, and criminal groups, engaged in illegal mining of gold, coal, coltan, nickel, copper, and other minerals. Illegal mines, which lacked safety precautions, were particularly common in the departments of Antioquia, Boyacá, Choco, Cundinamarca, and Valle del Cauca. The government reported that between January 1 and July 31, security agencies and other authorities closed more than 2,446 illegal mines as part of the interagency initiative to combat illegal mines. Most of these mines were in Antioquia, Boyacá, Cauca, Santander, and Valle del Cauca. During the same period, the Attorney General’s Office reported the prosecution of 816 individuals involved in illegal mining activities.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The Ministry of Labor was required to enforce labor laws in the formal sector, including wage, hour, and OSH regulations, through periodic inspections by labor inspectors. The government did not effectively enforce the laws in all cases. Inspectors had the authority to perform unannounced inspections and could also initiate sanction procedures, including after opening investigations. The number of inspectors was insufficient to enforce the law effectively. Penalties were commensurate with those for negligence and fraud but were applied rarely to violators. Unionists stated more fines needed to be collected to cause a reduction in wage and hour violations and OSH problems.The national statistical service reported that from April through June, 55.8 percent of all laborers worked in the informal sector. The government did not enforce labor laws in this sector.																																				    							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 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 Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Colombia
- Space – Outer Space Treaty – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Colombia, March 21, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- Special Representative McAuliffe Travels to Colombia and Costa Rica for the Launch of Three Climate Entrepreneurship Hubs Office of the SpokespersonSpecial Representative for Global Partnerships Dorothy McAuliffe will travel to Bogotá, Colombia and San José, Costa Rica on April 3-4, to launch three Coalition for Climate Entrepreneurship (CCE) Hubs in Latin America. The launches follow the announcement of a Hub in Guatemala by Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment Jose W. Fernandez during a visit to Guatemala on March 18.This expansion of the CCE network in Latin America was made possible by implementing partners PVBLIC Foundation and CleantechHUB, as well as university partners in-country that will host these makerspaces on-campus:In Bogotá – Universidad Externado de ColombiaIn San José – Universidad LCI VeritasIn Guatemala City – Universidad Rafael LandívarCCE is a public-private partnership that aims to address the climate crisis and contribute to economic empowerment by nurturing entrepreneurship focused on climate solutions. Over two years, the Hubs will drive climate entrepreneurship, create green jobs, and contribute to a zero-carbon sustainable and inclusive future.The three CCE Hubs in Latin America aim to engage 1,000 relevant actors, involve 450 students in presenting green ideas, train 100 startup teams, and mentor 40-60 educators. Special emphasis will be placed on increasing the representation of underserved groups, including women, African-descendant populations, and indigenous peoples, in climate entrepreneurship.For more information, visit the CCE webpage: https://www.state.gov/coalition-for-climate-entrepreneurship-cce/ , and to stay up to date, follow along on social media @GPatState on X, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Any questions or media inquiries can be directed to: partnerships@state.gov
- Department Press Briefing – March 28, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 28, 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 – March 28, 2024																																																					March 28, 2024																																																								1:18 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: The United States is deeply disappointed by Russia’s veto of the United Nations Security Council 1718 Committee Panel of Experts mandate renewal. We are also disappointed that the People’s Republic of China decided to abstain after 14 years of supporting this important mandate.For the past 15 years, the 1718 Committee Panel of Experts has been the gold standard for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations on the implementation of UN sanctions on the DPRK. Throughout those 15 years, the panel of experts enjoyed the Security Council’s unanimous support, and up until this year has been renewed by consensus. Russia’s actions today have cynically undermined international peace and security, all to advance the corrupt bargain that Moscow has struck with the DPRK. Moscow appears to be intent on facilitating the DPRK’s illegal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its veto today was a self-interested effort to bury the panel’s reporting on its own collusion with the DPRK to secure weapons that it can use to further its aggression against Ukraine.Russia alone will own the outcome of this veto: a DPRK more emboldened to reckless behavior and destabilizing provocations, as well as reduced prospects for an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.Despite today’s veto and abstention, all Security Council resolutions and UN measures addressing the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs remain in effect. We will continue to work to counter the DPRK’s unlawful actions, work with likeminded states through all available means to limit the threat posed by the DPRK, and respond to efforts by its enablers to shield the DPRK from responsibility.And with that, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure, let me follow up on that to begin with. You say Russia alone will own the outcome of the veto. Could you explain a little bit about what do you mean by that? Obviously, you’re saying that Russia has a self-interest in this, but do you think there are any repercussions? Is there anything that the U.S. or elsewhere is going to do to enforce the sanctions a bit more after this?MR MILLER: So the sanctions will continue to be in effect, as I said. But unfortunately, this important panel has not seen its mandate renewed. And we will continue to work to secure information about the DPRK’s pursuit of illegal weapons, and we will continue to work to make that information public and make it available to other members of the Security Council. But I think what we’ve seen by – as a result of Russia’s or what we will see as a result of Russia’s actions today is a DPRK that’s emboldened. It continues to be largely isolated in the world, but we are in a different place than when you had Russia and China voting to uphold accountability for the DPRK. And now you’ve seen a Russia that has cut this bargain with the DPRK because it’s in desperate need of weapons to pursue its aggression against Ukraine. And then you saw today one of the ways that Russia is delivering on its end of the bargain with the DPRK, which is try to undercut what had been up until now unanimous United Nations Security Council actions.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I know that the U.S. has publicly spoken of cooperation between the DPRK and Russia. Is it your view that this will actually pave the way for a greater cooperation? There are reports that the Russian spy chief was in Pyongyang – I think it was this week, even. Is there concern that – in light of this that there will be greater military cooperation?MR MILLER: I don’t think that what happened today paves the way for greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. I think today – what happened today is an example of greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. We saw that cooperation kick off last year when they began having – when there began to be increased talks between the two, and then of course we’ve seen the DPRK transfer military equipment to Russia that has shown up on the battlefield in Ukraine. It’s been used by Russia to further its war against Ukraine. And we’ve been waiting to see how the – Russia – see some of the ways that Russia would hold up its end of the bargain. I think we saw one of them today.QUESTION: Sure. Maybe I can switch topics, unless somebody else has the DPRK. I was wondering if you have a reaction to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, just today on Israel, saying that Israel must ensure urgent humanitarian assistance, and that famine has already set in in Gaza.MR MILLER: So that order, to my understanding, was just issued in the last hour. Our team is reviewing it right now, so I don’t have a detailed reaction to the full text of the order. It’s something we want to review before we give that reaction. But as a general proposition, of course, increasing humanitarian assistance to Gaza is something that we support, and something that we have urged Israel to help facilitate. So that general conclusion is very much something we agree with, but as it pertains to the exact text of the order, I want to give the team time here to look through it before I respond in detail.QUESTION: Just one more for me, and I know you just said that you want time to review it, but is it – the word “binding” again, but the International Court of Justice, is it – is it the view of the United States that Israel must comply with this, that it must do more?MR MILLER: Again, having not even reviewed the order myself and knowing that there is a team reviewing, I don’t want to respond until we’ve had a chance to do that.QUESTION: I mean, just to follow up on that, can you say that in principle you are &#8212;MR MILLER: In principle, of course, we support the work of the ICJ. But I don’t know if this – I just haven’t reviewed the exact text to know how it applies in this instance, so I’m obviously loath to comment on it for that reason.QUESTION: I see, okay. We might come back to this, but just on – do you have a reaction on the new Palestinian cabinet that’s been announced? Is it – what do you think about it? Because U.S. has called for reform of the Palestinian Authority. Looking at the list and the fact that new prime – a new cabinet has been announced, is this something that the United States welcomes?MR MILLER: So we have long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reformed cabinet with new leadership. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this during his travels in the region. And so now that the PA has appointed a new cabinet, we will be looking to this new government to deliver on policies and implement credible and far-reaching reforms. It’s something we’ve spoken to a number of times, our belief that a reformed PA is essential to delivering results for the Palestinian people and establishing the conditions for stability in both the West Bank and Gaza. So we will engage with this government based on its actions. We’ll be closely tracking the steps it takes to advance the key reforms and look forward to engaging with them on that matter.QUESTION: Can you get into what the specific reforms you’re hoping for actually look like?MR MILLER: So in – I’m not going to get into specific reforms, but broadly speaking we have encouraged them to implement reforms that crack down on corruption. We have encouraged them to implement reforms that increase transparency, that increase media freedoms, and increase the ability for civil society to engage with the government.QUESTION: And you said you’re looking for them to – I think you said, like, act on policy. Like, which policies are you hoping that they act &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, that’s why – just the ones I just referred to.QUESTION: Those ones.MR MILLER: Yeah, those.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But also I think it’s important – so we’ve always believed that the PA needed to be a government that was fully representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and in Gaza. I do note that there are Palestinians from Gaza who are members of this new cabinet. We have always made clear that we’re not going to pass judgement on specific individuals; that’s not for the United States to do. That – those are decisions for the Palestinian people, but we do welcome them taking steps to make a cabinet that is fully representative of the Palestinian people. And now we will look – look to them to implement policies that follow up on reform and deliver on the demands that we have heard over and over from the Palestinian people.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I hope you indulge me, and my colleagues. I want to go back to &#8212;MR MILLER: I always indulge you, Said.QUESTION: I know you do.MR MILLER: I think, but I don’t know if that means &#8212;QUESTION: Maybe &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know if that means 14 questions are coming.QUESTION: That is true. Maybe I &#8212;MR MILLER: Maybe not that – maybe not that much indulgence.QUESTION: Yeah, maybe I have more this time around. Anyway, I want to go back to the issue of the Albanese report yesterday, and you said that she made some antisemitic statements and so on in the past. Can you share those statements with us?MR MILLER: I can. I didn’t actually think this was a controversial statement.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: She made a remark at one point referring to the Jewish lobby controlling America, and in fact expressed regret for that remark afterwards. So that’s what I was referring to.QUESTION: But the – I think the term that was – she was accused for is when she used the term Shoah for Nakba, which is exactly – that’s the word &#8212;MR MILLER: So Said, I – hold on. I will – I’m not referring to anyone else’s comments.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And I – that’s not what I was referring to.QUESTION: That’s what she – I understand.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: But the comment that she made, she said Shoah is Nakba in Arabic, which is exactly what it is.MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it’s a catastrophe.MR MILLER: Said, I am not &#8212;QUESTION: So – all right.MR MILLER: I’m not even familiar with the comment you’re referring to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s not what I was referring to in my remarks.QUESTION: That’s fine. Okay, so let me – you also said that you disagree with the position itself, that you – you’re not – you don’t approve having that position in the United Nations. Why not?MR MILLER: We have been very clear that the – that we do not believe genocide has taken place. We do not believe that’s an appropriate term or constructive one to use in this instance.QUESTION: So let me ask you something. Is there a reasonable definition of genocide that would include what happened in Bosnia or to the Rohingya and at the same time exclude what is happening in Gaza?MR MILLER: So, Said, the definition of genocide is one that is well &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on, hold on – well-founded in international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And if you look at the position that the department’s legal advisors laid out before the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; ICJ, they do go through this chapter and verse. I’m not going to repeat all of it here from the podium. I obviously don’t have the filing with me, but you can look where we do go through exactly why we don’t believe genocide is an appropriate term to use in this – in this regard.QUESTION: Okay. Although many countries in the world now are more and more using the term. In fact, France said that they would probably try the soldiers that served in this war for war crimes that they have committed if they are involved. But anyway, let me ask you about a couple of other things, if you allow me. The Canadian minister of – I’m sorry – a Canadian minister said that the United States implored them to continue aiding UNRWA. Can you confirm that, that the ambassador to the UN actually implored the Canadians to continue aiding UNRWA?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, but we have always made clear that we think the work that UNRWA does is important &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; that we support the – hold on; I see you – I see the &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m with you, I’m with you, I’m with you.MR MILLER: I see the interruption coming, so sorry to – sorry &#8212;QUESTION: It’s just my habit. That’s okay.MR MILLER: That’s fine; I understand. We have always made – (laughter) – sorry – we have always made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does, and we have always made clear that it’s important that that work not be interrupted, even though we were – we thought it was appropriate on behalf of the United States to suspend our funding. Now, of course, that funding has been blocked going forward. So we have engaged with other countries about different ways to ensure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is not interrupted, that it continues.And again, I think you have to go back to something I said before that’s been lost a little bit. When we suspended our funding, we only had an upcoming funding of about – an upcoming payment of about $300,000 coming, not a major – when you look at the overall funding that we provide, it was not a major amount of money that we were providing any time before this summer anyway. So we have been working with other countries to make sure that that work can continue unimpeded.QUESTION: So by the way, I mean, this suspension – now that something is blocked, does that make the investigation or waiting on the investigation moot? Does it make the issue moot?MR MILLER: So with respect to a question of U.S. funding, it’s now blocked. That’s an act of Congress &#8212;QUESTION: So you have &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and you &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not waiting on the results?MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on, hold on. It would – the members of Congress, I’m sure, will want to see the results of that investigation and decide what they might do in future funding cycles. But certainly, we want to see the results of that investigation as well, and should note that other countries have said they want to see it and the UN itself, which commissioned this investigation on its own accord, has made very clear that they think it’s important that they see – that they get timely – a timely, full accounting of what that investigation shows.QUESTION: And finally, I promise, an Israeli officer &#8212;MR MILLER: That wasn’t too – that’s not too many, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: All right. So that was –MR MILLER: No, no.QUESTION: Anyway, an Israeli officer said that Israel engaged in waste of – or over-bombing and so on. He said we could have done the same thing with 10 percent of the kind of destruction that they levied on Gaza. Have you seen that report and do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I have – haven’t seen that comment. I’m not sure I follow, Said.QUESTION: No, he’s saying that Israel engaged in obvious overkill in terms of the amount of bombing, the waste, and the destruction of urban areas, and so on; they could have done exactly the same thing with 10 percent of the destruction.MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Have you seen that report? And maybe you all have to take a look at it again.MR MILLER: I have not seen that specific comment, but obviously we have urged the Government of Israel to take every step that it possibly can to minimize harm to civilians and minimize harm to civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: May I go back to Russia, please?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Starting from Kirby’s statements this morning, he revealed very interesting details about communications between Washington and Moscow in the run-up to last week’s attack. He said that there was a written warning to Russians early last month, and he also said it was one from multiple warnings since last September. I was hoping you could help us unpack a little bit how many terror attacks you believe you have prevented in Russia from happening? How many people’s lives you have saved, do you think? Were they all about ISIS threat? And finally, why do you think that they chose not to act on this very knowledge?MR MILLER: I think you’re going to be disappointed in my answer, because unfortunately I’m not able to provide further information. As usual, when it comes to information that we are able to declassify and make public, there is a limit of what we can say to protect sources and methods, and that’s very much the case here.What I can say is what the admiral said this morning, which is we did on March 7th provide a warning to Moscow. We provide clear, detailed information about the terrorist threat to large gatherings, including concerts. We then, the next day, put out a public warning urging citizens to avoid large gatherings, and that was not the first warning that we’ve given to Russia.Now, when it comes to why they didn’t take any action or why they didn’t take sufficient action or whether they could have taken sufficient action, I just can’t speak to that.QUESTION: So they chose not to take an action and to start blaming &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what – that’s not what I said.QUESTION: Right, right. Yeah, but the reality is that they didn’t act on that knowledge.MR MILLER: They didn’t prevent the – they didn’t – certainly didn’t, obviously didn’t prevent the terrorist attack, but I can’t speak to any actions they &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Then they start blaming Ukraine and the U.S., and then today they said they have established facts that there was some funding involved from Ukraine. Do you – how do you square those circles? So what is the intention there, and do you think that this was deliberate approach from Russia from get-go?MR MILLER: A deliberate what from Russia?QUESTION: Approach, like policy to – when they receive that knowledge, they decided to build around it some new &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t think there’s any circle that needs to be squared here. I think the Russian Government is putting forward propaganda and disinformation. I think that’s been very clear, that they are trying to use this terrorist attack – this tragic incident, where we saw, unfortunately, Russian citizens killed – to justify their aggression in Ukraine. And if underlying facts don’t actually matter, they’re going to make up supposed facts to back up what they want to do. That’s what they’ve done really since the outset of this war, and sadly that’s what they’re doing here.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, on Evan Gershkovich, tomorrow is the first-year anniversary of his arrest. Kirby today confirmed that we are trying to still discuss with Russians some options to get him out of Russian jail. Is there any active offer from the U.S. since last December – they rejected the one – that they haven’t responded yet?MR MILLER: I’m just not – I have never spoken in that level of our detail about our work to secure the release of either Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan, and I’m not going to do so today.QUESTION: And a final one, if I may, on Armenia. We discussed yesterday Azerbaijan’s reaction and you responded to that, but Russia is also – seems to have been uneasy about this meeting. Zakharova today (inaudible) around what the Azeris said yesterday, that it was divisive. She said that the West is trying to, quote/unquote, create new rifts in the region and forcing the countries in the region to follow anti-Russian line. So what is your response to the comments?MR MILLER: So I would say if anything the – some of the turbulence we have seen in the region has been fueled by Russia’s actions over the past few months.With respect to this meeting in Brussels, as I said yesterday, it is to focus on economic resilience for Armenia as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs, and nothing else.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita.QUESTION: Matt, on Wednesday 11 women human rights activists in – were sentenced to 60 years of – a total of 60 years of imprisonment in Iran. I was wondering if you have any comments on that.MR MILLER: So we condemn the Iranian regime’s use of harsh sentences for women’s rights activists that are meant to intimidate them and suppress their voices. As Iran’s leadership continues its violent crackdown on any dissent, they should know that the world is watching. Ongoing, widespread reports of torture, forced confessions, and restrictions on legal counsel undermine any shred of credibility in the decisions handed down by Iranian courts.And the United States continues to coordinate with our allies and partners to condemn these sham trials and to pursue accountability for Iran’s human rights abuses, and we will continue to take action to support the people of Iran in practical ways – both seen and unseen – in coordination with our allies and partners.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks. On Afghanistan, the family of American citizen detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett, released a statement this week, saying that they have received a disturbing phone call from him, in which the family says it was clear that his mental and physical health is significantly deteriorating. CBS News interviewed the family in December last year, where they highlighted the same concern about his health. And I believe at the time, envoy Tom West was – he did have a meeting with the Taliban. I was wondering if you could update us on any talks between the U.S. and the Taliban with Tom West or otherwise.MR MILLER: Let me just first say, with respect to the family, that as is always the case when you think about people who have their loved ones being wrongfully detained overseas, I cannot imagine the pain that they’re going through and the grief that they’re suffering and how difficult it must be knowing that their loved one is going through such a tragic hardship. And so what I can say to the family and what I can say to the American public on behalf of this government is that we are working every day to try and bring Ryan Corbett home.We have continually pressed, including in our meetings with Taliban representatives, for the immediate and unconditional release of Ryan Corbett and other Americans detained in Afghanistan. We have made clear to the Taliban that these detentions are a significant obstacle to positive engagement, and we will continue to do that. We are using every lever we can to try to bring Ryan and these other wrongfully detained Americans home from Afghanistan.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, I don&#8217;t know if you saw the reports in the Politico two hours ago about the day after, Gaza day after, and the talks between the U.S. and regional partners. And according to the report, quoting U.S. official, that there’s two ideas that gaining traction. One is to form a multinational task force and the second one is to form a peacekeeping Palestinian force. But my question is, if you can answer to this that – is the Palestinian Authority included in these talks?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations or speak to what it sounds like are reported – anonymous comments from reported officials inside the United States Government. What I will say is that what the United States has made clear – and the Secretary first made this clear in a speech in Tokyo last November – is that there are a few principles that we want to see applied to when the conflict ends. And one of those is that the Palestinian Authority should govern both Gaza and the West Bank. We want to see a united West Bank and Gaza that is governed by the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority.So we have engaged in talks with partner countries in the region, and we have engaged in talks with the Palestinian Authority about exactly what that might look like. And as you might imagine, there are a number of different proposals on the table. I won’t go into those here for probably obvious reasons. But yes, we have engaged with both the Palestinian Authority and with countries in the region about the full panoply of post-conflict issues that Gaza will face.QUESTION: We – and you said before from your podium that countries in the region are committed to Gaza the day after, but they want something from Israel, to be committed, for example, to the two-state solution, all that. Israeli leadership still won’t commit to this. Is there any update on your talk with the Israelis about that? Do you – are you being able to push them beyond their public stance?MR MILLER: So I don&#8217;t have any update to offer. Obviously they’ve spoken to this on a number of occasions. But the work that we have been doing with our Arab partners is to put together not just a kind of nebulous idea, but a concrete proposal of what this would look like, of what post-conflict governance would look like, both as it pertains to security in Gaza and the rebuilding and reconstruction of Gaza and a political path forward for the Palestinian people that answers their very legitimate aspirations.As part of that, we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia about how to further integrate Israel with its neighbors, including with Saudi Arabia, and those are discussions that are ongoing as well. So that work continues. But at some point, our goal is very much to have something to put forward, to put it on the table for Israel to look at. And until we get to that point – and it’s something we’re working hard on every day – I don&#8217;t want to sort of speculate about what decisions might look like.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Matt, what role will the Palestinian Authority play in the operation of the pier in Gaza in two or three weeks?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to that question. They are the lead in the construction of this pier. And I would – for that sort of detail, I would defer to them.QUESTION: But do you want the PA to play any role there?MR MILLER: Again, I would defer to the Pentagon for that question. The PA is not currently operating in Gaza. I know they’ve had employees that were in Gaza, but of course the PA has not been the governing authority in Gaza for some time. So when it comes to any kind of concrete role in that – in the operation of the pier, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, like I said, I’d have to defer to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on this particular issue?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: It is said that the Israelis have agreed to actually provide security for the operation of the pier. Are you aware of that?MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports. I don’t have any confirmation of them.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago I asked you about repeated instances of Israeli soldiers rifling through and parading women’s underwear. Especially in light of ongoing allegations of sexual abuse against Israeli soldiers and allegations that they tortured and sexually abused UNRWA staffers in order to coerce false confessions, I’m wondering – since then we’ve heard troubling details of these allegations, including soldiers sticking electrified rods up people’s anuses. We’ve continued to see not single-digit but now piles of photos and videos of soldiers parading through women’s underwear. So I’m wondering, what are the updates on those instances we talked about a few weeks ago? And what is the update now that this keeps seemingly happening unabated?MR MILLER: So I would say whenever we see these reports we make clear to the Israeli Government what we make clear publicly, which is that they need to be investigated and, if appropriate, there needs to be accountability.And I would refer to you – to a comment that the IDF advocate general – Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, who I believe is the chief investigator for the IDF, said several weeks ago in a letter when she wrote and said that she had encountered actions by IDF soldiers that “do not meet IDF values, that deviate from orders and disciplinary boundaries – and have crossed the criminal threshold,” causing “strategic damage” to Israel in the international area. “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do” represent the – “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do represent the collective... have no place in the IDF.” And you saw the chief of staff of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, say, “We must be careful not to use force where it is not required, to distinguish between a terrorist and... who  not, not to take anything that is not ours — a souvenir or weapons — and not to film revenge videos.”So the IDF has made very clear itself – this isn’t the United States speaking – that they do see – they have seen inappropriate actions take place by IDF soldiers, and they need to be investigated, and those responsible need to be held accountable. And we would very much agree with that.QUESTION: And then on the sexual abuse allegations, any sort of update on &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on those &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; what I understand are ongoing investigations.QUESTION: And just on the assurances, earlier you said after receiving assurances from Israel that they’re not violating humanitarian law, the U.S. so far has not seen proof of that. I’m wondering what these assurances look like, because we have all seen proof from the International Court of Justice, from the United Nations, and from footage especially the past few weeks, over and over again, of Israel seemingly targeting civilians, hospitals, churches – footage even yesterday showing Israeli forces seeming to execute unarmed Palestinians waving white flags. They’re blocking aid to the point that the U.S. is trying to build a pier to deliver aid as if Israel is a belligerent and not an ally. So with all this, how is Israel not violating humanitarian law? Are these assurances just Israel saying that they promise they’re not, and they evidently continue to do so?MR MILLER: So I – so I spoke to this extensively on Monday and Tuesday, and I would encourage you to check the transcript. I’ll do a little bit of it again, but I don’t think – I think I will spare everyone else here 15 or 20 minutes of me in vain on the national security memo again. But what I will say is we received assurances from the Government of Israel that are consistent with the requirements of the national security memo now, but I think to your underlying question, we look at those assurances through a lens of the ongoing processes that we have to answer this very question. And we do have – we do have processes going on examining specific incidents in the conduct of the campaign, and those processes are ongoing. They’ve not reached a final determination at this point.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if you have any reaction and comments about the Hamas leader visit to Iran and what he said about Israel. He said that Israel is losing the international community’s support, and he took the UN Security resolution as an evidence that Israel is losing support. Do you have any reaction and comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to respond broadly to something that a leader of Hamas said, but I would say with respect to the UN Security Council resolution, we’ve made very clear our position on that resolution, which is we think it is consistent with our longstanding – not think – it is consistent with our longstanding position that there ought to be a ceasefire linked to the release of hostages. And that’s what we have believed Israel’s position to be as well.QUESTION: And do you any sense that Israel is losing the international community’s support because they are not following the UN Security Council resolution?MR MILLER: Look, I think if you look around the world, there are a number of countries who have not supported Israel’s action from the beginning. I think that’s been pretty clear and not at all in dispute. And then there have been countries like the United States that have backed Israel’s right to defend itself while at times disagreeing with certain ways they went about this campaign and calling on them to do more to both protect civilians and deliver – increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those civilians.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. According to some media reports, India has submitted the findings of the attempted murder of a Sikh human rights lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in New York. Could you share some details, please?MR MILLER: I will have to get back to you. I’m not – I have not seen those reports.QUESTION: Sir, after the attack in Moscow, officials are warning that the group has also set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threat posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: That it has set its sights on what?QUESTION: Sir, how you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I missed the – I missed the middle part there of the buildup to the question.QUESTION: Sir – sir, intelligence reports that officials are warning that the group has also set to – set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threats posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: On Western targets. Oh, I see. I’m sorry; I apologize. So we remain vigilant against the evolving threat posed by terrorist groups, including ISIS-K. We have maintained an unwavering focus on terrorism since the President took office three years ago, working both unilaterally and with our partners to successfully disrupt threats around the globe and degrade ISIS. In addition, in February 2022, operating on the President’s orders, U.S. military forces successfully targeted Haji Abdullah, the leader of ISIS, later that year. At the President’s direction, the United States successfully concluded an airstrike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed the emir of a different terrorist group, al-Qaida – Ayman al-Zawahiri. And we will continue to work to hold ISIS accountable for its actions and to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries.QUESTION: Sir, the main hideouts of these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan, and United States always said that it will continue to have the ability to target terrorists in Afghanistan who pose a threat to American interests. So is there any action expected on this?MR MILLER: So we remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan can never again be a launching pad for terrorism, and we continue to push the Taliban to fulfill all of their counterterrorism commitments to the international community. We have made clear to the Taliban that it is their responsibility to ensure that they give no safe haven to terrorists, whether it be al-Qaida or ISIS-K or any other terrorist organization. And we remain vigilant against the evolving threat of these terrorist groups, and our Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the C5+1 help intensify our efforts to monitor terrorist threats from the region and prevent terrorists’ ability to raise funds, travel, and spread propaganda.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. A couple other issues. Venezuela. I saw that you issued a statement last night on this, on the opposition’s struggle to field a candidate against Maduro. Are you under the impression that this violates the understandings in Barbados, the Norwegian-brokered understandings? And what does this mean about a potential snapback of sanctions on this?MR MILLER: So I would say that we remain deeply concerned – and it’s not just the United States that’s deeply concerned, it’s our regional partners who share this concern about decisions by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council to prevent opposition parties from registering candidates for the upcoming presidential election. We are going to continue to make clear to Maduro and his representatives that there needs to be – they need to ensure international observer access, they need to end the jailing and harassment of civil society members, and they need to allow a free and fair election.And then, as we have made clear, actions that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Barbados Agreement will have consequences. We’ve spoken to that. We’ve spoken to the fact that there’s a general license that expires next month. I’m not going to make any determinations from here about how – about what decision we will take then, but we have been very clear with the – with Maduro and his representatives about what we expect them to take and what the consequences could be if they don’t.QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there’s no determination – there’s no determination from here as of now what decision you’ll take? Is there still time, basically? I mean, could they still – is there still time for &#8212;MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is we’ve made clear that that general license with respect to oil expires in April, and you heard us say some months ago that that’s an important date to watch. We allowed another general license to expire and not be renewed – I think it was one for gold – and there’s a big one coming up for oil. And that continues to be an important date, and we’re going to be watching the – Maduro’s actions and making determinations about how we will proceed.QUESTION: Just a couple more. Don’t know if this is something you’re following, but tensions between Colombia and Argentina.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I have been following that, yeah.QUESTION: Oh, okay. That makes two of us. The &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not the same as saying I’m going to have anything to say about it.QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: But I have been following it. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t counting on it. But what do you make of it? I mean, the letters and the chronology. The president of Argentina, President Milei, said that President Petro is, quote, “a terrorist” and Colombia has expelled diplomats. Does the – has the U.S. been – has friendly relations with both countries. Has the U.S. been dealing at all with this?MR MILLER: So I think I’m going to stay out of this one. This is ultimately an issue between Colombia and Argentina. I will say that we, as you noted, maintain strong relations with both of them, and we support continued dialogue and diplomatic relations between both sides. But as to this specific dispute, I think I will refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And you’re going to stay out of the actual remarks, how he characterizes Petro?MR MILLER: Yes, I think that would be wise.QUESTION: Just one – just one more before I yield. Do you have anything more to say about Niger after yesterday? Anything more on &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s something that we continue to work on and we continue to engage with the CNSP, but I don’t have an update.Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Can you give us any indication or awareness of the – of Haiti’s transitional presidential council being closer to formation? I believe eight members have been chosen of what’s supposed to be a nine-member council. And any update on U.S. plans for further evacuations of Americans from Haiti?MR MILLER: So on the first, you may have seen that they issued a statement yesterday. We were encouraged to see the transitional presidential council release its first statement. We hope that the council will continue to work to take the steps they outlined in that statement, including finalizing their organization and operation, appointing an interim prime minister, and taking steps to restore order to Haiti. Ultimately, as we’ve said, these are decisions for Haitians to make. We will continue to work with CARICOM and our partners in the region to offer our support for them as they go through this process.And then with respect to facilitating the departure of American citizens, let me first give you an update on the numbers. We now have successfully evacuated or facilitated the departure of somewhere around 450 U.S. citizens since March 17th. That includes over 300 that have departed Port-au-Prince and almost a hundred from Cap-Haïtien. There are helicopters that are going today from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, and we continue to explore other alternatives and other options to get American citizens out of Haiti. But I don’t have any announcements today, but we’re going to continue to work on that and may have more to say tomorrow or over the weekend.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. My first question is about Congress has asked the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu to send the Pakistani – U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, Mr. Blome, to meet Imran Khan. Any update when he’s meeting?MR MILLER: Congress asked? Who in Congress?QUESTION: You know the congressional hearing where Mr. Donald Lu had appeared?MR MILLER: I remember that, yeah. I just – usually “Congress” means like an act of Congress. I – did you mean like a member of Congress, or &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, yes. Couple of member of Congress have asked the assistant secretary that the U.S. ambassador should go and meet Imran Khan in jail to see how he is, what’s the situation.MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on meetings by the ambassador.QUESTION: Okay. Just one more thing: 6,000 scholarships each year the U.S. gives to Pakistani students, and not a single complaint has ever been seen. All students are taken on merit; it’s amazing. But since the lady who you have called milestone – because I carry these values from the high school and university here from the U.S., so that’s why I do get upset at times when you use terms like “milestone” for corrupt people. This principal in Pakistan &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry – I’m sorry to have upset you.QUESTION: Yes, it does – Michael Thompson, a principal at a university, a college in Lahore where the milestone lady that you call is the chief minister there, he just resigned there because one of her favorite try to waive off his son’s tuition fee. The principal, an Australian principal working in Lahore – isn’t this shameful? Like – and should you be calling milestone to people &#8212;MR MILLER: I could not possibly have a comment on that situation.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. In the back.QUESTION: Okay. The United &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no, behind you. Sorry, I’ll come to – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Back of the room. You’re halfway through.QUESTION: Okay. The United States approval of limited operation in Rafah acts as a green light for Israel to start a military operation in Rafah. This is seen as a step back in the U.S. stance, which – affecting its image and credibility. What’s your comment, please?MR MILLER: I think that’s a bit of a mischaracterization of what we’ve said with respect to Rafah. First of all, we have always made clear that we support Israel’s right to hold Hamas accountable and its right to take the fight to Hamas operatives inside Gaza, including in Rafah. But what we have said is that we think that there is a better way to do that than the full-scale operation that Israel has said it’s contemplating, and we look forward to having a conversation in the coming days with Israel to lay out what those options could look like and what that better path could look like. We have always made clear, though, that whatever kind of military operation that Israel conducts, whether it be in Rafah, whether it be in Khan Younis, or whether it be anywhere else, needs to take into account the civilian population and minimize civilian harm to the population in those communities.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There is the guarantee that civilian will not affected or not dangerous, their lives?MR MILLER: Look, I think it’s – I mean, it’s obviously in any war impossible to make a guarantee. What we want to see is civilian harm minimized to the maximum extent possible, and so that means putting – designing military campaigns around protecting civilians first. It’s one thing the Secretary has made clear in his conversations with the Government of Israel that they ought to do, and at the same time – it’s a separate issue but it’s very much connected – making sure that they do everything to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance so that those civilians who do remain in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza have access to food and water and medicine and shelter that they need to survive in what is obviously a very difficult situation in the middle of an open war.QUESTION: Okay, excuse me, I want to ask you about the mission of the American military delegation to Tel Aviv, whether is an alternative visit of the Israeli military delegation to Washington D.C., and what the idea they carry, yeah, and there is headlines of – for this delegation.MR MILLER: So with respect to a military delegation, I think my colleagues at the Pentagon are briefing in an hour, a little over an hour, and I would encourage you to submit that question to them. They should speak to that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Daniele Compatangelo for Italian Television. Oops. So that’s my question – United States – NATO under President Biden got more strong and Europe is happy about it, but there are talks in Europe. The – different government would like to create a European force that can support NATO and the U.S. So what would it be the answer from the U.S., from the State Department, if Europe would create a European – their own European forces to protect Europe?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speculate. We will continue to work with our European partners, but as you made clear in – I think the lead-in to your question, we have been very clear about the United States commitment to NATO, the United States commitment to our transatlantic Alliance, United States commitment to all of our allies in Europe, and we think it’s important that NATO be bolstered and expanded, as we have seen happen with the increase – with the increase in two members in the last year or so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, can I ask – can I ask &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, so they’re not against NATO. They actually – they would – this force would make NATO stronger.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But the other question would be do – does the U.S. believe that Europe should be more active to protect themself, let’s say also helping more Ukraine, or be more active in the Mediterranean with the Middle East? Or should be done always together with the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I think that’s an incredibly broad question that’s hard to answer in the time I have here.QUESTION: Well, what can you say shortly?MR MILLER: I would say that we want to work together with our European allies, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do things outside of cooperation with the United States. But we share values and interests with those countries, and we work together, and sometimes they do things separately but that pursue our common goals. And we, of course, support that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So about a dozen CEOs from American businessmen met with Xi Jinping yesterday. So the CCP has been notorious for linking silence with human rights abuses on a trade relationship. How does the United States ensure that human rights is the foundation of these trade relationships with China?MR MILLER: So I will say that in all of our meetings with officials from the PRC we make clear where we have concerns about China’s human rights practices. We raise them consistently. That includes the Secretary, when he has met with his counterparts, and it includes other officials from the U.S. Government who make very clear what we think about human rights in China and where we have deep concerns.QUESTION: And also the CCP’s banning intel on AMD sales – their chips. How does the U.S. protect American companies in this regard doing business with China?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Coming back to the Moscow attack, The New York Times reported today that the United States did not provide Moscow with all the information it had about the threat of the attack because it didn’t want to disclose its sources and methods. Do you believe the warning Washington provided to Moscow contained all the details about the attack?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to intelligence information from here. I think that’s – I’ve always made that pretty clear. But what I’ll say is that we provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities about terrorist threat – terrorist threats against large gatherings and concerts – notable word – in Moscow, and unfortunately I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. There are media reports in Russia and Ukraine that Victoria Nuland had to resign because of an imminent investigation about her activity in Ukraine since 2014. Do you have anything on that?MR MILLER: That – yeah, that is absolutely false. And I know Toria has long been a boogeyman for the Russian Government; it’s not the first time they’ve propagated disinformation against her. I guess I might have thought it would stop with her departure from the State Department, but maybe I’m surprised that it hasn’t. No, that is absolutely false.And I think with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:04 p.m.)# # #Department Press Briefing IndexThursday, March 28, 20241:18 p.m. EDTBriefer: Spokesperson Matthew Miller~RUSSIA/NORTH KOREA/CHINA~~ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES~~RUSSIA/UKRAINE~~ARMENIA~~IRAN~~AFGHANISTAN~~ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES/REGION~~AFGHANISTAN~~VENEZUELA~~COLOMBIA/ARGENTINA~~HAITI~~CHINA~U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATEDEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFINGDPB # 35MARCH 28, 2024(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)Briefer: Matthew Miller, Spokesperson1:18 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: The United States is deeply disappointed by Russia’s veto of the United Nations Security Council 1718 Committee Panel of Experts mandate renewal. We are also disappointed that the People’s Republic of China decided to abstain after 14 years of supporting this important mandate.For the past 15 years, the 1718 Committee Panel of Experts has been the gold standard for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations on the implementation of UN sanctions on the DPRK. Throughout those 15 years, the panel of experts enjoyed the Security Council’s unanimous support, and up until this year has been renewed by consensus. Russia’s actions today have cynically undermined international peace and security, all to advance the corrupt bargain that Moscow has struck with the DPRK. Moscow appears to be intent on facilitating the DPRK’s illegal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its veto today was a self-interested effort to bury the panel’s reporting on its own collusion with the DPRK to secure weapons that it can use to further its aggression against Ukraine.Russia alone will own the outcome of this veto: a DPRK more emboldened to reckless behavior and destabilizing provocations, as well as reduced prospects for an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.Despite today’s veto and abstention, all Security Council resolutions and UN measures addressing the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs remain in effect. We will continue to work to counter the DPRK’s unlawful actions, work with likeminded states through all available means to limit the threat posed by the DPRK, and respond to efforts by its enablers to shield the DPRK from responsibility.And with that, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure, let me follow up on that to begin with. You say Russia alone will own the outcome of the veto. Could you explain a little bit about what do you mean by that? Obviously, you’re saying that Russia has a self-interest in this, but do you think there are any repercussions? Is there anything that the U.S. or elsewhere is going to do to enforce the sanctions a bit more after this?MR MILLER: So the sanctions will continue to be in effect, as I said. But unfortunately, this important panel has not seen its mandate renewed. And we will continue to work to secure information about the DPRK’s pursuit of illegal weapons, and we will continue to work to make that information public and make it available to other members of the Security Council. But I think what we’ve seen by – as a result of Russia’s or what we will see as a result of Russia’s actions today is a DPRK that’s emboldened. It continues to be largely isolated in the world, but we are in a different place than when you had Russia and China voting to uphold accountability for the DPRK. And now you’ve seen a Russia that has cut this bargain with the DPRK because it’s in desperate need of weapons to pursue its aggression against Ukraine. And then you saw today one of the ways that Russia is delivering on its end of the bargain with the DPRK, which is try to undercut what had been up until now unanimous United Nations Security Council actions.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I know that the U.S. has publicly spoken of cooperation between the DPRK and Russia. Is it your view that this will actually pave the way for a greater cooperation? There are reports that the Russian spy chief was in Pyongyang – I think it was this week, even. Is there concern that – in light of this that there will be greater military cooperation?MR MILLER: I don’t think that what happened today paves the way for greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. I think today – what happened today is an example of greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. We saw that cooperation kick off last year when they began having – when there began to be increased talks between the two, and then of course we’ve seen the DPRK transfer military equipment to Russia that has shown up on the battlefield in Ukraine. It’s been used by Russia to further its war against Ukraine. And we’ve been waiting to see how the – Russia – see some of the ways that Russia would hold up its end of the bargain. I think we saw one of them today.QUESTION: Sure. Maybe I can switch topics, unless somebody else has the DPRK. I was wondering if you have a reaction to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, just today on Israel, saying that Israel must ensure urgent humanitarian assistance, and that famine has already set in in Gaza.MR MILLER: So that order, to my understanding, was just issued in the last hour. Our team is reviewing it right now, so I don’t have a detailed reaction to the full text of the order. It’s something we want to review before we give that reaction. But as a general proposition, of course, increasing humanitarian assistance to Gaza is something that we support, and something that we have urged Israel to help facilitate. So that general conclusion is very much something we agree with, but as it pertains to the exact text of the order, I want to give the team time here to look through it before I respond in detail.QUESTION: Just one more for me, and I know you just said that you want time to review it, but is it – the word “binding” again, but the International Court of Justice, is it – is it the view of the United States that Israel must comply with this, that it must do more?MR MILLER: Again, having not even reviewed the order myself and knowing that there is a team reviewing, I don’t want to respond until we’ve had a chance to do that.QUESTION: I mean, just to follow up on that, can you say that in principle you are &#8212;MR MILLER: In principle, of course, we support the work of the ICJ. But I don’t know if this – I just haven’t reviewed the exact text to know how it applies in this instance, so I’m obviously loath to comment on it for that reason.QUESTION: I see, okay. We might come back to this, but just on – do you have a reaction on the new Palestinian cabinet that’s been announced? Is it – what do you think about it? Because U.S. has called for reform of the Palestinian Authority. Looking at the list and the fact that new prime – a new cabinet has been announced, is this something that the United States welcomes?MR MILLER: So we have long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reformed cabinet with new leadership. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this during his travels in the region. And so now that the PA has appointed a new cabinet, we will be looking to this new government to deliver on policies and implement credible and far-reaching reforms. It’s something we’ve spoken to a number of times, our belief that a reformed PA is essential to delivering results for the Palestinian people and establishing the conditions for stability in both the West Bank and Gaza. So we will engage with this government based on its actions. We’ll be closely tracking the steps it takes to advance the key reforms and look forward to engaging with them on that matter.QUESTION: Can you get into what the specific reforms you’re hoping for actually look like?MR MILLER: So in – I’m not going to get into specific reforms, but broadly speaking we have encouraged them to implement reforms that crack down on corruption. We have encouraged them to implement reforms that increase transparency, that increase media freedoms, and increase the ability for civil society to engage with the government.QUESTION: And you said you’re looking for them to – I think you said, like, act on policy. Like, which policies are you hoping that they act &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, that’s why – just the ones I just referred to.QUESTION: Those ones.MR MILLER: Yeah, those.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But also I think it’s important – so we’ve always believed that the PA needed to be a government that was fully representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and in Gaza. I do note that there are Palestinians from Gaza who are members of this new cabinet. We have always made clear that we’re not going to pass judgement on specific individuals; that’s not for the United States to do. That – those are decisions for the Palestinian people, but we do welcome them taking steps to make a cabinet that is fully representative of the Palestinian people. And now we will look – look to them to implement policies that follow up on reform and deliver on the demands that we have heard over and over from the Palestinian people.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I hope you indulge me, and my colleagues. I want to go back to &#8212;MR MILLER: I always indulge you, Said.QUESTION: I know you do.MR MILLER: I think, but I don’t know if that means &#8212;QUESTION: Maybe &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know if that means 14 questions are coming.QUESTION: That is true. Maybe I &#8212;MR MILLER: Maybe not that – maybe not that much indulgence.QUESTION: Yeah, maybe I have more this time around. Anyway, I want to go back to the issue of the Albanese report yesterday, and you said that she made some antisemitic statements and so on in the past. Can you share those statements with us?MR MILLER: I can. I didn’t actually think this was a controversial statement.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: She made a remark at one point referring to the Jewish lobby controlling America, and in fact expressed regret for that remark afterwards. So that’s what I was referring to.QUESTION: But the – I think the term that was – she was accused for is when she used the term Shoah for Nakba, which is exactly – that’s the word &#8212;MR MILLER: So Said, I – hold on. I will – I’m not referring to anyone else’s comments.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And I – that’s not what I was referring to.QUESTION: That’s what she – I understand.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: But the comment that she made, she said Shoah is Nakba in Arabic, which is exactly what it is.MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it’s a catastrophe.MR MILLER: Said, I am not &#8212;QUESTION: So – all right.MR MILLER: I’m not even familiar with the comment you’re referring to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s not what I was referring to in my remarks.QUESTION: That’s fine. Okay, so let me – you also said that you disagree with the position itself, that you – you’re not – you don’t approve having that position in the United Nations. Why not?MR MILLER: We have been very clear that the – that we do not believe genocide has taken place. We do not believe that’s an appropriate term or constructive one to use in this instance.QUESTION: So let me ask you something. Is there a reasonable definition of genocide that would include what happened in Bosnia or to the Rohingya and at the same time exclude what is happening in Gaza?MR MILLER: So, Said, the definition of genocide is one that is well &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on, hold on – well-founded in international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And if you look at the position that the department’s legal advisors laid out before the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; ICJ, they do go through this chapter and verse. I’m not going to repeat all of it here from the podium. I obviously don’t have the filing with me, but you can look where we do go through exactly why we don’t believe genocide is an appropriate term to use in this – in this regard.QUESTION: Okay. Although many countries in the world now are more and more using the term. In fact, France said that they would probably try the soldiers that served in this war for war crimes that they have committed if they are involved. But anyway, let me ask you about a couple of other things, if you allow me. The Canadian minister of – I’m sorry – a Canadian minister said that the United States implored them to continue aiding UNRWA. Can you confirm that, that the ambassador to the UN actually implored the Canadians to continue aiding UNRWA?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, but we have always made clear that we think the work that UNRWA does is important &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; that we support the – hold on; I see you – I see the &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m with you, I’m with you, I’m with you.MR MILLER: I see the interruption coming, so sorry to – sorry &#8212;QUESTION: It’s just my habit. That’s okay.MR MILLER: That’s fine; I understand. We have always made – (laughter) – sorry – we have always made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does, and we have always made clear that it’s important that that work not be interrupted, even though we were – we thought it was appropriate on behalf of the United States to suspend our funding. Now, of course, that funding has been blocked going forward. So we have engaged with other countries about different ways to ensure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is not interrupted, that it continues.And again, I think you have to go back to something I said before that’s been lost a little bit. When we suspended our funding, we only had an upcoming funding of about – an upcoming payment of about $300,000 coming, not a major – when you look at the overall funding that we provide, it was not a major amount of money that we were providing any time before this summer anyway. So we have been working with other countries to make sure that that work can continue unimpeded.QUESTION: So by the way, I mean, this suspension – now that something is blocked, does that make the investigation or waiting on the investigation moot? Does it make the issue moot?MR MILLER: So with respect to a question of U.S. funding, it’s now blocked. That’s an act of Congress &#8212;QUESTION: So you have &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and you &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not waiting on the results?MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on, hold on. It would – the members of Congress, I’m sure, will want to see the results of that investigation and decide what they might do in future funding cycles. But certainly, we want to see the results of that investigation as well, and should note that other countries have said they want to see it and the UN itself, which commissioned this investigation on its own accord, has made very clear that they think it’s important that they see – that they get timely – a timely, full accounting of what that investigation shows.QUESTION: And finally, I promise, an Israeli officer &#8212;MR MILLER: That wasn’t too – that’s not too many, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: All right. So that was –MR MILLER: No, no.QUESTION: Anyway, an Israeli officer said that Israel engaged in waste of – or over-bombing and so on. He said we could have done the same thing with 10 percent of the kind of destruction that they levied on Gaza. Have you seen that report and do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I have – haven’t seen that comment. I’m not sure I follow, Said.QUESTION: No, he’s saying that Israel engaged in obvious overkill in terms of the amount of bombing, the waste, and the destruction of urban areas, and so on; they could have done exactly the same thing with 10 percent of the destruction.MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Have you seen that report? And maybe you all have to take a look at it again.MR MILLER: I have not seen that specific comment, but obviously we have urged the Government of Israel to take every step that it possibly can to minimize harm to civilians and minimize harm to civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: May I go back to Russia, please?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Starting from Kirby’s statements this morning, he revealed very interesting details about communications between Washington and Moscow in the run-up to last week’s attack. He said that there was a written warning to Russians early last month, and he also said it was one from multiple warnings since last September. I was hoping you could help us unpack a little bit how many terror attacks you believe you have prevented in Russia from happening? How many people’s lives you have saved, do you think? Were they all about ISIS threat? And finally, why do you think that they chose not to act on this very knowledge?MR MILLER: I think you’re going to be disappointed in my answer, because unfortunately I’m not able to provide further information. As usual, when it comes to information that we are able to declassify and make public, there is a limit of what we can say to protect sources and methods, and that’s very much the case here.What I can say is what the admiral said this morning, which is we did on March 7th provide a warning to Moscow. We provide clear, detailed information about the terrorist threat to large gatherings, including concerts. We then, the next day, put out a public warning urging citizens to avoid large gatherings, and that was not the first warning that we’ve given to Russia.Now, when it comes to why they didn’t take any action or why they didn’t take sufficient action or whether they could have taken sufficient action, I just can’t speak to that.QUESTION: So they chose not to take an action and to start blaming &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what – that’s not what I said.QUESTION: Right, right. Yeah, but the reality is that they didn’t act on that knowledge.MR MILLER: They didn’t prevent the – they didn’t – certainly didn’t, obviously didn’t prevent the terrorist attack, but I can’t speak to any actions they &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Then they start blaming Ukraine and the U.S., and then today they said they have established facts that there was some funding involved from Ukraine. Do you – how do you square those circles? So what is the intention there, and do you think that this was deliberate approach from Russia from get-go?MR MILLER: A deliberate what from Russia?QUESTION: Approach, like policy to – when they receive that knowledge, they decided to build around it some new &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t think there’s any circle that needs to be squared here. I think the Russian Government is putting forward propaganda and disinformation. I think that’s been very clear, that they are trying to use this terrorist attack – this tragic incident, where we saw, unfortunately, Russian citizens killed – to justify their aggression in Ukraine. And if underlying facts don’t actually matter, they’re going to make up supposed facts to back up what they want to do. That’s what they’ve done really since the outset of this war, and sadly that’s what they’re doing here.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, on Evan Gershkovich, tomorrow is the first-year anniversary of his arrest. Kirby today confirmed that we are trying to still discuss with Russians some options to get him out of Russian jail. Is there any active offer from the U.S. since last December – they rejected the one – that they haven’t responded yet?MR MILLER: I’m just not – I have never spoken in that level of our detail about our work to secure the release of either Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan, and I’m not going to do so today.QUESTION: And a final one, if I may, on Armenia. We discussed yesterday Azerbaijan’s reaction and you responded to that, but Russia is also – seems to have been uneasy about this meeting. Zakharova today (inaudible) around what the Azeris said yesterday, that it was divisive. She said that the West is trying to, quote/unquote, create new rifts in the region and forcing the countries in the region to follow anti-Russian line. So what is your response to the comments?MR MILLER: So I would say if anything the – some of the turbulence we have seen in the region has been fueled by Russia’s actions over the past few months.With respect to this meeting in Brussels, as I said yesterday, it is to focus on economic resilience for Armenia as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs, and nothing else.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita.QUESTION: Matt, on Wednesday 11 women human rights activists in – were sentenced to 60 years of – a total of 60 years of imprisonment in Iran. I was wondering if you have any comments on that.MR MILLER: So we condemn the Iranian regime’s use of harsh sentences for women’s rights activists that are meant to intimidate them and suppress their voices. As Iran’s leadership continues its violent crackdown on any dissent, they should know that the world is watching. Ongoing, widespread reports of torture, forced confessions, and restrictions on legal counsel undermine any shred of credibility in the decisions handed down by Iranian courts.And the United States continues to coordinate with our allies and partners to condemn these sham trials and to pursue accountability for Iran’s human rights abuses, and we will continue to take action to support the people of Iran in practical ways – both seen and unseen – in coordination with our allies and partners.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks. On Afghanistan, the family of American citizen detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett, released a statement this week, saying that they have received a disturbing phone call from him, in which the family says it was clear that his mental and physical health is significantly deteriorating. CBS News interviewed the family in December last year, where they highlighted the same concern about his health. And I believe at the time, envoy Tom West was – he did have a meeting with the Taliban. I was wondering if you could update us on any talks between the U.S. and the Taliban with Tom West or otherwise.MR MILLER: Let me just first say, with respect to the family, that as is always the case when you think about people who have their loved ones being wrongfully detained overseas, I cannot imagine the pain that they’re going through and the grief that they’re suffering and how difficult it must be knowing that their loved one is going through such a tragic hardship. And so what I can say to the family and what I can say to the American public on behalf of this government is that we are working every day to try and bring Ryan Corbett home.We have continually pressed, including in our meetings with Taliban representatives, for the immediate and unconditional release of Ryan Corbett and other Americans detained in Afghanistan. We have made clear to the Taliban that these detentions are a significant obstacle to positive engagement, and we will continue to do that. We are using every lever we can to try to bring Ryan and these other wrongfully detained Americans home from Afghanistan.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, I don&#8217;t know if you saw the reports in the Politico two hours ago about the day after, Gaza day after, and the talks between the U.S. and regional partners. And according to the report, quoting U.S. official, that there’s two ideas that gaining traction. One is to form a multinational task force and the second one is to form a peacekeeping Palestinian force. But my question is, if you can answer to this that – is the Palestinian Authority included in these talks?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations or speak to what it sounds like are reported – anonymous comments from reported officials inside the United States Government. What I will say is that what the United States has made clear – and the Secretary first made this clear in a speech in Tokyo last November – is that there are a few principles that we want to see applied to when the conflict ends. And one of those is that the Palestinian Authority should govern both Gaza and the West Bank. We want to see a united West Bank and Gaza that is governed by the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority.So we have engaged in talks with partner countries in the region, and we have engaged in talks with the Palestinian Authority about exactly what that might look like. And as you might imagine, there are a number of different proposals on the table. I won’t go into those here for probably obvious reasons. But yes, we have engaged with both the Palestinian Authority and with countries in the region about the full panoply of post-conflict issues that Gaza will face.QUESTION: We – and you said before from your podium that countries in the region are committed to Gaza the day after, but they want something from Israel, to be committed, for example, to the two-state solution, all that. Israeli leadership still won’t commit to this. Is there any update on your talk with the Israelis about that? Do you – are you being able to push them beyond their public stance?MR MILLER: So I don&#8217;t have any update to offer. Obviously they’ve spoken to this on a number of occasions. But the work that we have been doing with our Arab partners is to put together not just a kind of nebulous idea, but a concrete proposal of what this would look like, of what post-conflict governance would look like, both as it pertains to security in Gaza and the rebuilding and reconstruction of Gaza and a political path forward for the Palestinian people that answers their very legitimate aspirations.As part of that, we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia about how to further integrate Israel with its neighbors, including with Saudi Arabia, and those are discussions that are ongoing as well. So that work continues. But at some point, our goal is very much to have something to put forward, to put it on the table for Israel to look at. And until we get to that point – and it’s something we’re working hard on every day – I don&#8217;t want to sort of speculate about what decisions might look like.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Matt, what role will the Palestinian Authority play in the operation of the pier in Gaza in two or three weeks?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to that question. They are the lead in the construction of this pier. And I would – for that sort of detail, I would defer to them.QUESTION: But do you want the PA to play any role there?MR MILLER: Again, I would defer to the Pentagon for that question. The PA is not currently operating in Gaza. I know they’ve had employees that were in Gaza, but of course the PA has not been the governing authority in Gaza for some time. So when it comes to any kind of concrete role in that – in the operation of the pier, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, like I said, I’d have to defer to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on this particular issue?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: It is said that the Israelis have agreed to actually provide security for the operation of the pier. Are you aware of that?MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports. I don’t have any confirmation of them.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago I asked you about repeated instances of Israeli soldiers rifling through and parading women’s underwear. Especially in light of ongoing allegations of sexual abuse against Israeli soldiers and allegations that they tortured and sexually abused UNRWA staffers in order to coerce false confessions, I’m wondering – since then we’ve heard troubling details of these allegations, including soldiers sticking electrified rods up people’s anuses. We’ve continued to see not single-digit but now piles of photos and videos of soldiers parading through women’s underwear. So I’m wondering, what are the updates on those instances we talked about a few weeks ago? And what is the update now that this keeps seemingly happening unabated?MR MILLER: So I would say whenever we see these reports we make clear to the Israeli Government what we make clear publicly, which is that they need to be investigated and, if appropriate, there needs to be accountability.And I would refer to you – to a comment that the IDF advocate general – Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, who I believe is the chief investigator for the IDF, said several weeks ago in a letter when she wrote and said that she had encountered actions by IDF soldiers that “do not meet IDF values, that deviate from orders and disciplinary boundaries – and have crossed the criminal threshold,” causing “strategic damage” to Israel in the international area. “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do” represent the – “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do represent the collective... have no place in the IDF.” And you saw the chief of staff of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, say, “We must be careful not to use force where it is not required, to distinguish between a terrorist and... who  not, not to take anything that is not ours — a souvenir or weapons — and not to film revenge videos.”So the IDF has made very clear itself – this isn’t the United States speaking – that they do see – they have seen inappropriate actions take place by IDF soldiers, and they need to be investigated, and those responsible need to be held accountable. And we would very much agree with that.QUESTION: And then on the sexual abuse allegations, any sort of update on &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on those &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; what I understand are ongoing investigations.QUESTION: And just on the assurances, earlier you said after receiving assurances from Israel that they’re not violating humanitarian law, the U.S. so far has not seen proof of that. I’m wondering what these assurances look like, because we have all seen proof from the International Court of Justice, from the United Nations, and from footage especially the past few weeks, over and over again, of Israel seemingly targeting civilians, hospitals, churches – footage even yesterday showing Israeli forces seeming to execute unarmed Palestinians waving white flags. They’re blocking aid to the point that the U.S. is trying to build a pier to deliver aid as if Israel is a belligerent and not an ally. So with all this, how is Israel not violating humanitarian law? Are these assurances just Israel saying that they promise they’re not, and they evidently continue to do so?MR MILLER: So I – so I spoke to this extensively on Monday and Tuesday, and I would encourage you to check the transcript. I’ll do a little bit of it again, but I don’t think – I think I will spare everyone else here 15 or 20 minutes of me in vain on the national security memo again. But what I will say is we received assurances from the Government of Israel that are consistent with the requirements of the national security memo now, but I think to your underlying question, we look at those assurances through a lens of the ongoing processes that we have to answer this very question. And we do have – we do have processes going on examining specific incidents in the conduct of the campaign, and those processes are ongoing. They’ve not reached a final determination at this point.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if you have any reaction and comments about the Hamas leader visit to Iran and what he said about Israel. He said that Israel is losing the international community’s support, and he took the UN Security resolution as an evidence that Israel is losing support. Do you have any reaction and comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to respond broadly to something that a leader of Hamas said, but I would say with respect to the UN Security Council resolution, we’ve made very clear our position on that resolution, which is we think it is consistent with our longstanding – not think – it is consistent with our longstanding position that there ought to be a ceasefire linked to the release of hostages. And that’s what we have believed Israel’s position to be as well.QUESTION: And do you any sense that Israel is losing the international community’s support because they are not following the UN Security Council resolution?MR MILLER: Look, I think if you look around the world, there are a number of countries who have not supported Israel’s action from the beginning. I think that’s been pretty clear and not at all in dispute. And then there have been countries like the United States that have backed Israel’s right to defend itself while at times disagreeing with certain ways they went about this campaign and calling on them to do more to both protect civilians and deliver – increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those civilians.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. According to some media reports, India has submitted the findings of the attempted murder of a Sikh human rights lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in New York. Could you share some details, please?MR MILLER: I will have to get back to you. I’m not – I have not seen those reports.QUESTION: Sir, after the attack in Moscow, officials are warning that the group has also set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threat posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: That it has set its sights on what?QUESTION: Sir, how you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I missed the – I missed the middle part there of the buildup to the question.QUESTION: Sir – sir, intelligence reports that officials are warning that the group has also set to – set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threats posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: On Western targets. Oh, I see. I’m sorry; I apologize. So we remain vigilant against the evolving threat posed by terrorist groups, including ISIS-K. We have maintained an unwavering focus on terrorism since the President took office three years ago, working both unilaterally and with our partners to successfully disrupt threats around the globe and degrade ISIS. In addition, in February 2022, operating on the President’s orders, U.S. military forces successfully targeted Haji Abdullah, the leader of ISIS, later that year. At the President’s direction, the United States successfully concluded an airstrike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed the emir of a different terrorist group, al-Qaida – Ayman al-Zawahiri. And we will continue to work to hold ISIS accountable for its actions and to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries.QUESTION: Sir, the main hideouts of these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan, and United States always said that it will continue to have the ability to target terrorists in Afghanistan who pose a threat to American interests. So is there any action expected on this?MR MILLER: So we remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan can never again be a launching pad for terrorism, and we continue to push the Taliban to fulfill all of their counterterrorism commitments to the international community. We have made clear to the Taliban that it is their responsibility to ensure that they give no safe haven to terrorists, whether it be al-Qaida or ISIS-K or any other terrorist organization. And we remain vigilant against the evolving threat of these terrorist groups, and our Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the C5+1 help intensify our efforts to monitor terrorist threats from the region and prevent terrorists’ ability to raise funds, travel, and spread propaganda.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. A couple other issues. Venezuela. I saw that you issued a statement last night on this, on the opposition’s struggle to field a candidate against Maduro. Are you under the impression that this violates the understandings in Barbados, the Norwegian-brokered understandings? And what does this mean about a potential snapback of sanctions on this?MR MILLER: So I would say that we remain deeply concerned – and it’s not just the United States that’s deeply concerned, it’s our regional partners who share this concern about decisions by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council to prevent opposition parties from registering candidates for the upcoming presidential election. We are going to continue to make clear to Maduro and his representatives that there needs to be – they need to ensure international observer access, they need to end the jailing and harassment of civil society members, and they need to allow a free and fair election.And then, as we have made clear, actions that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Barbados Agreement will have consequences. We’ve spoken to that. We’ve spoken to the fact that there’s a general license that expires next month. I’m not going to make any determinations from here about how – about what decision we will take then, but we have been very clear with the – with Maduro and his representatives about what we expect them to take and what the consequences could be if they don’t.QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there’s no determination – there’s no determination from here as of now what decision you’ll take? Is there still time, basically? I mean, could they still – is there still time for &#8212;MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is we’ve made clear that that general license with respect to oil expires in April, and you heard us say some months ago that that’s an important date to watch. We allowed another general license to expire and not be renewed – I think it was one for gold – and there’s a big one coming up for oil. And that continues to be an important date, and we’re going to be watching the – Maduro’s actions and making determinations about how we will proceed.QUESTION: Just a couple more. Don’t know if this is something you’re following, but tensions between Colombia and Argentina.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I have been following that, yeah.QUESTION: Oh, okay. That makes two of us. The &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not the same as saying I’m going to have anything to say about it.QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: But I have been following it. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t counting on it. But what do you make of it? I mean, the letters and the chronology. The president of Argentina, President Milei, said that President Petro is, quote, “a terrorist” and Colombia has expelled diplomats. Does the – has the U.S. been – has friendly relations with both countries. Has the U.S. been dealing at all with this?MR MILLER: So I think I’m going to stay out of this one. This is ultimately an issue between Colombia and Argentina. I will say that we, as you noted, maintain strong relations with both of them, and we support continued dialogue and diplomatic relations between both sides. But as to this specific dispute, I think I will refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And you’re going to stay out of the actual remarks, how he characterizes Petro?MR MILLER: Yes, I think that would be wise.QUESTION: Just one – just one more before I yield. Do you have anything more to say about Niger after yesterday? Anything more on &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s something that we continue to work on and we continue to engage with the CNSP, but I don’t have an update.Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Can you give us any indication or awareness of the – of Haiti’s transitional presidential council being closer to formation? I believe eight members have been chosen of what’s supposed to be a nine-member council. And any update on U.S. plans for further evacuations of Americans from Haiti?MR MILLER: So on the first, you may have seen that they issued a statement yesterday. We were encouraged to see the transitional presidential council release its first statement. We hope that the council will continue to work to take the steps they outlined in that statement, including finalizing their organization and operation, appointing an interim prime minister, and taking steps to restore order to Haiti. Ultimately, as we’ve said, these are decisions for Haitians to make. We will continue to work with CARICOM and our partners in the region to offer our support for them as they go through this process.And then with respect to facilitating the departure of American citizens, let me first give you an update on the numbers. We now have successfully evacuated or facilitated the departure of somewhere around 450 U.S. citizens since March 17th. That includes over 300 that have departed Port-au-Prince and almost a hundred from Cap-Haïtien. There are helicopters that are going today from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, and we continue to explore other alternatives and other options to get American citizens out of Haiti. But I don’t have any announcements today, but we’re going to continue to work on that and may have more to say tomorrow or over the weekend.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. My first question is about Congress has asked the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu to send the Pakistani – U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, Mr. Blome, to meet Imran Khan. Any update when he’s meeting?MR MILLER: Congress asked? Who in Congress?QUESTION: You know the congressional hearing where Mr. Donald Lu had appeared?MR MILLER: I remember that, yeah. I just – usually “Congress” means like an act of Congress. I – did you mean like a member of Congress, or &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, yes. Couple of member of Congress have asked the assistant secretary that the U.S. ambassador should go and meet Imran Khan in jail to see how he is, what’s the situation.MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on meetings by the ambassador.QUESTION: Okay. Just one more thing: 6,000 scholarships each year the U.S. gives to Pakistani students, and not a single complaint has ever been seen. All students are taken on merit; it’s amazing. But since the lady who you have called milestone – because I carry these values from the high school and university here from the U.S., so that’s why I do get upset at times when you use terms like “milestone” for corrupt people. This principal in Pakistan &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry – I’m sorry to have upset you.QUESTION: Yes, it does – Michael Thompson, a principal at a university, a college in Lahore where the milestone lady that you call is the chief minister there, he just resigned there because one of her favorite try to waive off his son’s tuition fee. The principal, an Australian principal working in Lahore – isn’t this shameful? Like – and should you be calling milestone to people &#8212;MR MILLER: I could not possibly have a comment on that situation.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. In the back.QUESTION: Okay. The United &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no, behind you. Sorry, I’ll come to – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Back of the room. You’re halfway through.QUESTION: Okay. The United States approval of limited operation in Rafah acts as a green light for Israel to start a military operation in Rafah. This is seen as a step back in the U.S. stance, which – affecting its image and credibility. What’s your comment, please?MR MILLER: I think that’s a bit of a mischaracterization of what we’ve said with respect to Rafah. First of all, we have always made clear that we support Israel’s right to hold Hamas accountable and its right to take the fight to Hamas operatives inside Gaza, including in Rafah. But what we have said is that we think that there is a better way to do that than the full-scale operation that Israel has said it’s contemplating, and we look forward to having a conversation in the coming days with Israel to lay out what those options could look like and what that better path could look like. We have always made clear, though, that whatever kind of military operation that Israel conducts, whether it be in Rafah, whether it be in Khan Younis, or whether it be anywhere else, needs to take into account the civilian population and minimize civilian harm to the population in those communities.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There is the guarantee that civilian will not affected or not dangerous, their lives?MR MILLER: Look, I think it’s – I mean, it’s obviously in any war impossible to make a guarantee. What we want to see is civilian harm minimized to the maximum extent possible, and so that means putting – designing military campaigns around protecting civilians first. It’s one thing the Secretary has made clear in his conversations with the Government of Israel that they ought to do, and at the same time – it’s a separate issue but it’s very much connected – making sure that they do everything to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance so that those civilians who do remain in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza have access to food and water and medicine and shelter that they need to survive in what is obviously a very difficult situation in the middle of an open war.QUESTION: Okay, excuse me, I want to ask you about the mission of the American military delegation to Tel Aviv, whether is an alternative visit of the Israeli military delegation to Washington D.C., and what the idea they carry, yeah, and there is headlines of – for this delegation.MR MILLER: So with respect to a military delegation, I think my colleagues at the Pentagon are briefing in an hour, a little over an hour, and I would encourage you to submit that question to them. They should speak to that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Daniele Compatangelo for Italian Television. Oops. So that’s my question – United States – NATO under President Biden got more strong and Europe is happy about it, but there are talks in Europe. The – different government would like to create a European force that can support NATO and the U.S. So what would it be the answer from the U.S., from the State Department, if Europe would create a European – their own European forces to protect Europe?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speculate. We will continue to work with our European partners, but as you made clear in – I think the lead-in to your question, we have been very clear about the United States commitment to NATO, the United States commitment to our transatlantic Alliance, United States commitment to all of our allies in Europe, and we think it’s important that NATO be bolstered and expanded, as we have seen happen with the increase – with the increase in two members in the last year or so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, can I ask – can I ask &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, so they’re not against NATO. They actually – they would – this force would make NATO stronger.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But the other question would be do – does the U.S. believe that Europe should be more active to protect themself, let’s say also helping more Ukraine, or be more active in the Mediterranean with the Middle East? Or should be done always together with the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I think that’s an incredibly broad question that’s hard to answer in the time I have here.QUESTION: Well, what can you say shortly?MR MILLER: I would say that we want to work together with our European allies, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do things outside of cooperation with the United States. But we share values and interests with those countries, and we work together, and sometimes they do things separately but that pursue our common goals. And we, of course, support that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So about a dozen CEOs from American businessmen met with Xi Jinping yesterday. So the CCP has been notorious for linking silence with human rights abuses on a trade relationship. How does the United States ensure that human rights is the foundation of these trade relationships with China?MR MILLER: So I will say that in all of our meetings with officials from the PRC we make clear where we have concerns about China’s human rights practices. We raise them consistently. That includes the Secretary, when he has met with his counterparts, and it includes other officials from the U.S. Government who make very clear what we think about human rights in China and where we have deep concerns.QUESTION: And also the CCP’s banning intel on AMD sales – their chips. How does the U.S. protect American companies in this regard doing business with China?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Coming back to the Moscow attack, The New York Times reported today that the United States did not provide Moscow with all the information it had about the threat of the attack because it didn’t want to disclose its sources and methods. Do you believe the warning Washington provided to Moscow contained all the details about the attack?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to intelligence information from here. I think that’s – I’ve always made that pretty clear. But what I’ll say is that we provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities about terrorist threat – terrorist threats against large gatherings and concerts – notable word – in Moscow, and unfortunately I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. There are media reports in Russia and Ukraine that Victoria Nuland had to resign because of an imminent investigation about her activity in Ukraine since 2014. Do you have anything on that?MR MILLER: That – yeah, that is absolutely false. And I know Toria has long been a boogeyman for the Russian Government; it’s not the first time they’ve propagated disinformation against her. I guess I might have thought it would stop with her departure from the State Department, but maybe I’m surprised that it hasn’t. No, that is absolutely false.And I think with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:04 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Argentina																								Armenia																								China																								Colombia																								Haiti																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine																								Venezuela