# Afghanistan - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 30, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024																																																					April 30, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Let’s see. I have – I don’t have anything off the top, so Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that Israel will carry out an operation against Hamas in Rafah regardless of whether or not &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, regardless of whether or not a ceasefire and hostage release deal is reached. Is it still the case that the U.S. hasn’t seen a credible plan for entering Rafah? And what will you do if they go ahead, as Netanyahu is warning?MR PATEL: That is correct. We – it continues to be the case that we have not seen a credible plan that would address the varying areas of concerns that you’ve heard me talk about a number of times from up here and others, primarily the ability to address the serious humanitarian concerns surrounding – again, Rafah is a region with more than 1 million people seeking refuge, so that an area that continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals. And so any kind of operation that’s – that does not address some of these key concerns would certainly be opposed by us.I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals, but this is something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. Conversations continue to be happening at all levels, and we continue to press forward on those conversations and asking for what their plans may or may not be as it pertains to Rafah.QUESTION: And are you concerned that this warning that they would go ahead with whether or not a ceasefire and hostage deal is reached could derail hostage talks?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that. What I can say, Daphne, is that we remain committed to reaching a deal for the immediate – for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows for additional steps to be taken in terms of surging humanitarian aid, and something that we hope will help bolster the protection of civilians as well.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Israel’s track record in heeding to the U.S. statements or calls could be arguably not great. What gives you confidence or what makes you think that Israel would, in fact, listen and hear your calls not to go into Rafah?MR PATEL: I’d dispute, though, the premise of that a little bit, Leon. Over the course of this conflict, there have been a number of endeavors in which the United States has pressed for that we have seen our partners in Israel undertake, dating back to the beginning of this conflict even in the early days of this conversation that we were having around humanitarian aid. We also continue to see steps being taken as it relates to their cooperation on a number of other lines of effort in the humanitarian aid space.But both – look, when it comes to humanitarian aid, when it comes to the protection of civilians, and when it comes to a potential operation in Rafah, our answer continues to be we need to see more, we need to see more steps being taken. And as it relates to an operation in Rafah, we have yet to see a credible plan that would address the underlying concerns that I laid out to Daphne.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Olivia, go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Just because the Secretary was also asked about this not long ago. He said that the U.S. views on this were well known. But he didn’t address part of the question that – whether Israel had in fact committed to present a military and humanitarian plan. So absent the plans themselves, has there been a formal commitment from the Israeli Government to present those plans before launching any – an invasion?MR PATEL: I am not going to be a spokesperson for the Government of Israel. Through the Strategic Consultative Group that you have seen National Security Advisor Sullivan and Secretary Blinken undertake their consultations with counterparts in Israel, discussions at those levels and through other interlocutors as part of those engagements, those conversations are ongoing. As the Secretary said, the United States position on this could not be clearer. For how long we’ve been talking about this, we have expressed our serious concern about any kind of operation that does not address some of these key pieces, and we’ll continue to stress and raise these very important issues.QUESTION: Thank you. I mean, I totally appreciate not asking you for the Israeli perspective on this, only whether the U.S. has actually received a commitment from the government to have formal plans presented prior to any invasion.MR PATEL: I am just not going to speak to further specificity about this process.QUESTION: Okay. Two others on the region, if that’s okay.MR PATEL: Mind if I jump to Gillian?QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: And then we can – we’ll – I’m sure we’ll get to everybody. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I’m just wondering if State has any comment or any information, anything today on the anti-Israel protests across the nation now, really going from California all the way to New York. A lot of these student protesters are accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in genocide. Wondering if you – if diplomatically &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; foreign-policy-wise, you guys have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, so I’ve spent a number of the last few daily press briefings talking about this, and I’m happy to reiterate what I said before. First, I will echo what the Secretary said in talking to one of your colleagues on the margins of his trip to Beijing. Demonstrating – demonstrations, I should say, expressing your opinion about any kind of government action, expressing your opinion about foreign policy, exercising your First Amendment right – none of those things are problematic or antisemitic or Islamophobic, in their own right. It is when those things are coupled with the use of certain language, and rhetoric, and insults that we have seen and have been part of some of these demonstrations.Beyond that, those kinds of things of course we would condemn and take issue with. But we believe that every American has every right to express their points of view, to exercise their First Amendment right. When it comes to policies that are – that as it relate to any particular campus, those campus officials are better suited to speak to those policies that they have in place both in terms of dealing with expressions of First Amendment rights or otherwise. I am not in a space to speak to that.But of course, everyone has every right to make their point of view heard, and from our perspective across this administration we’ve made clear that we insist that these happen in a peaceful, nonviolent manner. And any kinds of these demonstrations, when they are paired with or coupled with rhetoric, language that is antisemitic, Islamophobic, essentially insults or target someone for just who they are, that’s deeply problematic.QUESTION: A quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One thing that’s kind of new as far as I’m aware is you’re seeing regimes now like the Iranian regime, China has started to weigh in – the government, and criticize the Biden administration’s response to these protests. We saw overnight the Chinese saying that the way the U.S. Government is responding is violating these students’ rights. Do you have a comment on these adversaries kind of using it as an opportunity to criticize?MR PATEL: Look, the policies and procedures as it relates to demonstrations, protesting, things like that that may or may not exist on a particular college campus, or may or may not exist in a particular town, city, or municipality, it is certainly not in the remit of the State Department so I am not going to even delve into that.QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s other agencies that are better suited to speak to that. But what I can say broadly, we of course support anybody to be able to express themselves and to exercise their First Amendments rights. They should not and cannot become violent, not peaceful. And in those particular circumstances, we believe it is the right of the appropriate law enforcement and – enforcement and security officials to take appropriate actions consistent with the policies of that jurisdiction. Again, we are delving far away from foreign policy and into law enforcement, which is not the remit of this – of this department.QUESTION: No, because what I’m asking really is: Is it not from a foreign policy, foreign relations, diplomacy perspective, isn’t it, I mean, hypocritical of the Chinese and the Iranians, some of the worst human rights violators in the world, to be criticizing the Biden administration’s policy response to America?MR PATEL: I don’t think anybody in this administration is interested in taking a human rights lesson from the Iranian regime, or the People’s Republic of China for that matter. And both of those regimes’ crackdowns on self-expression, on free and fair press, on basic human rights, is clear.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving &#8212;QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on a couple of things.MR PATEL: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving of the United States with the protesters being arrested is not necessarily the one you would want to have.MR PATEL: Leon, there are laws in this country. Again, we are delving away from the topics that are discussed in this department. But if laws are being broken on certain college campuses, in certain municipalities, in certain towns, in certain cities, in certain counties, it is will within the right for the officials of those jurisdictions to enforce whatever laws that are so appropriate as it relates to that region. Beyond that, we fully support anybody’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right and make their opinions as it relates to any action or policy the government may or may not be taking and making their points of view heard.QUESTION: Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you, I just have quick follow-ups and then I have a couple questions of my own.Now, in response to Gillian, you said there are certain things that are being said in these protests that you have issue with. Could you share some of those with us?MR PATEL: I’m not going to repeat them from up here, Said, but &#8212;QUESTION: But you made an assertion that you are obviously in command of. What are these statements?MR PATEL: Said, there have been a number of these demonstrations in which the imagery, in which the language that has been written on some of the poster material, has either been akin to what I would believe to be antisemitism. But we’ve also seen expressions, rhetoric, signage that is akin to Islamophobia and the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans, as well. Of course any kind of language or rhetoric in that space is concerning, troubling, and unacceptable. But again, we fully support people’s ability to peacefully make their – express their First Amendment rights.QUESTION: Now on the statement by the Israeli prime minister on Rafah, I mean, he is saying very plainly that whether there is a deal or there is no deal, I am going storm Rafah. And you don’t have a position on this? I mean, he’s not waiting for a deal to be arrived at.MR PATEL: I think our position on Rafah – I really don’t appreciate you, Said, twisting my words or the words &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not.MR PATEL: &#8212; of the Secretary or other officials up here. We have made our point of view &#8212;QUESTION: I am quoting what the prime minister of Israel said. I’m not &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand. I understand your question. And in response to your question, and Daphne’s question, and the number of times that we have asked – been asked about a potential operation into Rafah from up here, we have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region, when it comes to this region in particular in Gaza being an important conduit for the delivery of humanitarian aid, it being a region in which foreign nationals at least at the beginning of this conflict were able to use, are able to use consistently for safe departure.So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a non-starter for us. And you’ve heard me say this. You’ve heard the Secretary say this. You’ve heard Matt say this; you’ve heard Admiral Kirby, Karine, the President. We have been consistent on this.QUESTION: Yeah. So would it be appropriate for the United States of America to say, whether there is a deal or not a deal, we find that the storming of Rafah is unacceptable?MR PATEL: I – we have been pretty clear about that, Said.QUESTION: Very clear?MR PATEL: We have been very clear that many – any kind of military operation into Rafah that does not address these concerns would be unacceptable to the United States.QUESTION: Right. Now I have a question on the humanitarian situation. Officials at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leaked a – they leaked a document that says that the Israeli Government intently sort of put obstacles in the way of these humanitarian aid convoys or whatever, getting food to Gaza. Now are you aware of that report?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to comment on leaked documents, Said.QUESTION: Why won’t you comment on this document?MR PATEL: I’m not going to comment on leaked documents, on things that continue to exist under a deliberative process. I will just say that the Secretary and the leaders of this administration, they hear a diverse range of views from across this department, from across the interagency. When it comes to processes that are within the deliberative process, we take those points of view into consideration, but beyond that, I am just not going to speak to purportedly leaked documents.QUESTION: Okay. Would you agree that there is a – almost a common opinion among professionals and experts and so on that Israel is in fact – and the prime minister of Israel are in fact – take measures day after day to sort of make these humanitarian aids, including American – large portions of American aid &#8212;MR PATEL: I would disagree with your characterization.Julia.QUESTION: Thank you. I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict. But I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, “Branding Israel’s leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of antisemitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world.”Do you agree with that assessment that it’s antisemitic for the ICC to pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the campus protests?MR PATEL: So fundamentally, at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that’s the crux here. Beyond that, I’d let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments.But at the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work – important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular incident – instance – in this particular instance, I’m sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.QUESTION: If I may, another on Saudi Arabia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There have been reports that Saudi Arabia has decided to normalize relations with Israel but is waiting to determine when they do that based on the U.S. election and the results of the election. What do you make of Saudi Arabia potentially weighing this presidential election so much, when the urgency is now?MR PATEL: So I would – I’d defer to officials in the Saudi Government to speak to their position. I’m not a spokesperson for them. What I can say from the United States is that we also have been unambiguous about how we feel that a greater – a more integrated Middle East region is better for not just the interests of the United States, but it is better for peace and stability in the Middle East region. It is also something that we believe other officials across the Middle East region and Arab world view this as well.We are continuing to work this. We think that Israel’s further integration in the Middle East region can unlock additional benefits. It can offer greater security, which is in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interest of the people of Israel, and it’s also in the interest of other partners as well.But of course, we also are continuing to stress and underline the importance of doing everything we can to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire – one that releases the hostages, one that allows a surge of humanitarian aid into the region as well.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: I don’t know if somebody asked you about this or not, but I want to ask you about the Amnesty International report.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So basically, Amnesty just published its report. I don’t know if you’ve seen it in details. But they say there is a reasonable evidence that Israel has committed war crimes, a gross violation of international – of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law. I’m just wondering – I mean, with something as serious as this from a very reputable organization, that normally use it to talk about rogue states, et cetera, when they finding and they publish their reports – why the State Department still now has not published anything to either contradict or to support other human rights organizations been talking about what’s happening in Gaza? Basically &#8212;MR PATEL: So first, I’ve not seen that specific report, Nadia. But I think you were in the briefing room just about a week and a half ago in which we – when we unveiled the 2024 Human Rights Report, in which there was, in fact, a section outlining Israel and the Palestinian territories.When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza – and I have spent a number of days talking about this – we are continuing to assess what is happening on the ground. We have a number of tools at our disposal to look into what is happening on the ground and, if required, hold appropriate and relevant parties accountable. You’ve heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about Leahy. You have heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about the CHIRG process. We continue to have those options as well as other avenues under the Foreign Assistance Act to look into these things. And as in any conflict zone, Nadia, this work is ongoing and we are feeding into that process in close coordination with not just our embassies and consulates, but also civil society, independent media reporting of such things, and, of course, NGOs as well.QUESTION: Can you just assure us that, actually, you treat Israel the same way as you treat any other country that found in violation of international law? Because what we hear from you is all the statements and some actions, like we see with the settlers, but many believe that when the prime minister of Israel pick up the phone, call the White House, the finding is changed and delayed and pushed, just like we heard about – even the Secretary, we were together in Italy when he assured us that we’re going to hear about this report – about the Leahy report and the violation of using U.S. weapons. But we haven’t heard about it. So I just wanted an assurance from you that actually you’re taking these things seriously.MR PATEL: Well, I spent about 50 percent of the daily press briefing yesterday talking about it, so I would take issue with how you laid that out. There are absolutely – we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold any country with, and that is with – in Gaza, outside of Gaza, anywhere. International law, international humanitarian law needs to be followed, and it needs to be abided by. And when we find violations or when we find issues that are concerning, not only do we raise them with the Israeli Government, we will take appropriate actions consistent with the systems and tools that we have in the United States to take appropriate actions.I spent a great deal of yesterday talking about the Leahy process in which we found five violations of – gross violations of human rights. So when we see issues, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. There is no different standard or different set of rules when it comes to any country on which we have a relationship with.QUESTION: Okay. Just one final clarification.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary said that the offer they gave to Hamas is generous. Who decide what is generosity? Is it the United States and Israel? What is it – is it Arab partners in the Saudi summit that they decided it was generous? I mean, I guess my question: How do you define what is generous and what is (inaudible)?MR PATEL: So Nadia, over the course of this conflict, we have seen Hamas move the goal post, renege on agreements that they have made as it – as relates to part of this deal. And so the Secretary was simply underlining the fact that we are in this position in which Hamas has a generous offer on the table, and it’s imperative for them to move and to act on it as swiftly as possible.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one point of clarification on Leahy, which I know you amply addressed yesterday, but you mentioned yesterday that the process was open-ended, right? It was subject to the MOU that exists between the Israeli Government and the United States. This new information that Israel has provided with regard to the fifth unit, is – can it continuously supply new information with regard to that unit until the U.S. sort of adjudicates in a particular direction? Or is this a finite set of information on whose basis the U.S. will decide whether to take punitive action?MR PATEL: I would say the information is definitive and it is more that, consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have, we are bound by that to consult and engage with officials in Israel on the process, on steps that they may or may not be taking, and we are assessing all of those things to ensure that they are in standard with what is laid out in the Leahy Law. And if not, as I said yesterday, there will, of course, be a resistance of applicable – a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance.QUESTION: Okay. And then a separate question on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary from Jordan earlier mentioned the opening of new crossings into northern Gaza. I was hoping you could just update us on the overall metrics, on the volume of aid that’s going in, and how that compares to what the U.S. believes is necessary.MR PATEL: So look, we are still very much in the same place that we were when David Satterfield came and talked to you all. We have seen some measurable steps in the right direction. Northern crossings including Erez and Zikim are preparing to reopen. We are seeing that routes from Jordan and Ashdod are showing progress, but not fully yet realized. And southern crossings, specifically Kerem Shalom and Rafah, have seen some fluctuating numbers of trucks, but trending in the right direction.This is all to say that we still need to see more. And some metrics that I can offer is that April – on April 25th, approximately 303 trucks entered Gaza according to the UN; 282 trucks via Kerem Shalom, and 21 trucks via Rafah. That is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more. And I know also we spend a lot of time up here talking about trucks and their inflows and outflows, possibly because it might be the most digestible metric out there when talking about this issue.But ultimately, when we talk about humanitarian aid, it is great to see trucks enter Gaza; it is even better when the humanitarian aid that enters Gaza is getting to the Palestinian people, to Palestinian civilians who need it. And we will continue to work closely with the Government of Egypt, Government of Jordan, Government of Israel, and relevant NGO partners, including the United Nations, to ensure that that final step is happening and it’s getting to the places it needs to go.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ve asked several times about the right to defend one’s self for Palestinians, and out of this room we’ve heard that the U.S. does not exhibit any double – double standards. And today in the West Bank there – the Israelis’ occupation forces chased, beat, and threw off a roof a 32-year-old man – Palestinian man, Hassan Mansiya, near – in the Hebron district. Also, the Israeli forces attacked at least two schools with tear gas, two – inside and outside schools in the Hebron and Jenin districts, where students were, and teachers, and some of them experienced some suffocation. Since October 7th, we’ve – I mean, we’ve had, like, what is it, 95 minors that have been killed in the West Bank. I asked before: Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? I’m not talking about rogue individuals. I’m talking about as far as a legal authority to defend Palestinians. Do they – does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right and duty to defend themselves?MR PATEL: So look, I have not seen those reports that you outlined. I’m happy to look into them, and I have no doubt our partners in the IDF may be able to share more. What I can say is that actions like these, if true, they are destabilizing. They contribute to a deteriorating security situation, and they are not in the interest of Israel’s own security. And when we have seen actions like this, when we see actions from – we believe quite strongly that these kinds of activities take us away from a two-state solution, and they feed into further instability.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: That &#8212;QUESTION: But does – does the Palestinian Authority have the right to defend its citizens?MR PATEL: Absolutely it does. Absolutely it does.QUESTION: It does? Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up on the campus protests.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a question. The U.S. Government, everybody from President Biden on down to here at the podium has been quick to call out antisemitism at these protests, but there’s also been an enormous number of examples of Islamophobia and racism from counterprotesters. Why doesn’t the administration denounce that as well, and would you do that here?MR PATEL: I did. You can check the transcript. I did.QUESTION: Well, and let me ask you about Netanyahu’s – the news on Netanyahu today &#8212;MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: &#8212; where he said that even if there’s a hostage deal, they’re still going into Rafah.MR PATEL: Ryan, you’ve got to be on time. You’ve got to come to the briefing on time.QUESTION: Did you get asked about that this morning?MR PATEL: I spoke to that too. Come on, man.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today photos of pier in Gaza were published. My question: Will the Palestinian Authority, PA, be the one who will control this pier?MR PATEL: Sorry, you &#8212;QUESTION: The port.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Today I – there is photos of this port published. I wonder if the PA, the Palestinian Authority, will control this port in Gaza.MR PATEL: I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has a role in the maritime corridor, but I am happy to defer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department and USAID to speak to this process in a little bit more specificity.QUESTION: Don’t – just one – don’t you think this port will build over the Palestinian territories, and should Palestinian people have the authority over this port?MR PATEL: So broadly, when we are talking about the future of Gaza and the future of a two-state solution and ensuring that Gaza is no longer a launch pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, part of that for us, of course, includes a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority. But as it relates to this maritime corridor, I do not believe that they have a specific role. But that being said, my colleagues at the Pentagon and USAID may be in a better place to speak to some of the more logistical components of this.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I just wanted to ask about the Erez border crossing.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: It’s also reopening in the north weeks after POTUS’s call with Netanyahu. What should we read into the timing of this opening considering that Blinken is now there to request more aid, and also this ceasefire deal hangs in the balance?MR PATEL: I would not read anything into the timing of this beyond us just stressing, again, that all of these things need to happen as swiftly as possible. But we also fully understand that there may be steps that need to be taken in when factoring in vetting, safety, other things as it relates to crossings that are used for the inflow of aid. We are not naive to the fact that this is a process, but look, we have been clear that we need this to happen as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And I just want to touch on some of the other questions as well.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Was it the U.S.’s aim to try to beat the clock on a Rafah invasion by getting the ceasefire deal in place beforehand? And if so, have Netanyahu’s comments this morning altered that at all?MR PATEL: It’s not about beating any clock. We – if you go back and look at the history and trajectory of this conflict, there have been a number of instances in which we have been hoping, encouraging, working tirelessly for a deal that would release the hostages that we hope would be partnered with some kind of ceasefire. That has been our position for quite some time. And simultaneously, as it relates to Rafah, it has also been our position for quite some time that any kind of operation that does not address the sort of various components of humanitarian concern that we have would be unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Any comment on John Bass’ trip to Doha and Islamabad? Was the meeting with Taliban official in his schedule?MR PATEL: So, as you so noted, acting Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass is on travel to Doha and Islamabad. In Doha he’ll meet with senior Qatari officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and other shared security interests in the region, and in Islamabad we expect him to meet with senior Pakistani officials and discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as well.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Go ahead next. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know the State Department already talked about the Kurdistan Region’s local elections &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; some time ago, as it has been scheduled for June 10th. So now there’s a discussion that should be postponed for at least three months, so what’s your comment?MR PATEL: So we understand that President Barzani and various Iraqi authorities and other political parties are actively considering next steps. From our point of view, we would encourage them to schedule free, fair, and timely elections, and we hope that process takes place, but I don’t have anything to offer beyond that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on two separate topics.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: At the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, the President called on Putin to release RFE/RL journalist Alsu Kurmasheva. I was wondering if the State Department is following up her case into seeing whether she’s been – she can be identified as wrongfully detained.MR PATEL: So first, let me just say we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in the case of Alsu Kurmasheva, we remain deeply concerned about her detention in Russia. And to echo the President, we believe she should be released, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and other civil society actors.In terms of a wrongful detention designation, I’m just not going to get ahead of our process. There is a deliberative and fact-driven process underway. That process continues to be ongoing, and we constantly review circumstances surrounding detentions of U.S. nationals, so I don’t have anything to offer there.QUESTION: How often – can you tell us how often you may review cases?MR PATEL: I – we – I am not going to speak to the specifics of this process.QUESTION: Okay, another one on Burkina Faso.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Voice of America and BBC have been banned there. I was wondering if the State Department is doing anything in that regard.MR PATEL: So we are very alarmed that Burkina Faso’s Superior Council of Communication has suspended multiple independent outlets, including Voice of America and BBC, for covering the Human Rights Watch report about some recent massacres. You’ve heard the Secretary say, and including from this very podium, that far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, particularly against journalists and media organizations, for simply doing their jobs. Freedom of expression, particularly for media, is critical for accountable and transparent governance.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: You should allow more journalists as well, Mr. Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: I mean, one is – when you talk about free journalism, are you going to give a chance (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: You’re interrupting your colleague, Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: This is my third time and you have not given me a chance. Is this free journalism?MR PATEL: You’re – I’m happy to come to you – I’m happy to come to you after.QUESTION: Please.MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Can you please clear up – either validate or keep alive – some of the reports claiming that the U.S. has eased some of the sanctions on Russian banks, including central bank, to allow some energy-related operations? Why?MR PATEL: I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred. And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.QUESTION: So there is no shift at all in that policy?MR PATEL: There is no policy shift at all.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Poland, Poland today handed official request to United States to host nuclear weapons in Poland. Do you have any reaction?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment for you on that. I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that greater.QUESTION: Sure, thank you. And final topic on Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with both leaders over the weekend. Any reason to why he called this – any, like, intel or any concern did he want to convey? And separately on Azerbaijan and human rights, a portion of the discussion was about human rights, but hours after that call Azerbaijan arrested another civil society leader. So how much is it the reflection of functional relationship?MR PATEL: So first let me just say, Alex, it should come to no surprise to you that this is an area of the world that the Secretary himself is personally deeply engaged on. And over the course of his time as Secretary, he has had regular engagements at regular intervals with both of these countries. And our engagements with both of them are ongoing, and we continue to believe that a peace and – is possible here. And that’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.On the second question that you raised, we are deeply troubled by the continuing arrests of members of Azerbaijani civil society, most recently Anar Mammadli. And we urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Vedant, and thank you very much, State Department, for bearing with me these nine years. Just one question, and then if you’ll allow me, I’ll ask another question.How do you feel – when journalists here are friends with the same podium people from the U.S. since last two decades, and you guys – this administration since last two years – if a journalist doesn’t agree – agree with you, you just ignore them. I mean, this is the beauty of this newsroom. This is the beauty of this press room. Why you guys like – you guys not feel bad to be treating somebody like this? Like, what’s the reason?MR PATEL: I’m sorry. Who are we treating in what way?QUESTION: I’m talking about this gentleman right here. Since last two years &#8212;MR PATEL: Did something happen to you?QUESTION: Sir, I feel very ignored. I ask one question, and you pass me, you are &#8212;MR PATEL: First of all, it is never a guarantee that everyone gets a question every day. We try our best to get to everybody, but sometimes we’re dealing with the confines of time. And I will just say, Jalil, in my time up here and Matt’s time and Ned’s time, we have taken questions from you pretty regularly.QUESTION: I don’t agree. But anyway, thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: I just have a question about &#8212;MR PATEL: You just used your one question, so I’m going to move – I’m going to move on now. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir, I had a follow-up question on Kabul expansionism.MR PATEL: That’s fine.QUESTION: Under secretary is going there. The region has terrorism going on.MR PATEL: Then you should ask that question, Jalil.QUESTION: Half of the country is &#8212;MR PATEL: Then you should &#8212;QUESTION: Half of Afghanistan is under no education for girls. The under secretary is going. How do you feel talking to a nation where terrorism is once again growing up? Today in Kabul, six people were killed. Every week there is terrorism. Why is the under secretary holdings talks with the Taliban if the girls do not have education and what’s your interest there?MR PATEL: So let me just say a couple things. First, I will just – since you’ve gotten us way off topic, if you have a question, you should ask a question, not waste your colleagues’ time about other things.Secondly, I’m not aware of any travel to Afghanistan by any undersecretary, but let me just say that when it comes to our engagements with the Taliban, we engage when it is in the United States interest to do so. This is the best way to not just protect U.S. national interests but also support the Afghan people. Engagement allows us to speak directly with the Taliban, and it’s an opportunity for us to continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan including those who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. We’ll also use those opportunities to directly talk about the Taliban’s commitments to counterterrorism, and of course, as always, human rights is also on the agenda.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much.QUESTION: A quick one: Do you have anything on the talks between Türkiye and the U.S. – U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil? A Turkish energy minister said that they are interested in diversifying Türkiye’s national gas supplies. What is your comment on this? And was this a topic of discussion between the two countries?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any more specifics to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagement with Foreign Minister Fidan, but let me just say I’ve seen those public reports, and I’m not going to offer anything additional on potential commercial negotiations, but from our vantage point we would encourage any country to diversify its energy supply and curb dependence on Russian energy. And to just broaden the aperture a little bit, Türkiye has played a very important role as the host of the Southern Gas Corridor in helping diversify European energy supplies and European gas supplies away from dependence on Russia, and as the host of multiple LNG liquification facilities which have received a lot of American LNG since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine.QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Middle East?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Hamas and Fatah leaders meeting in Beijing at the invitation of China? What is your comment on dialogue between Hamas and Fatah?MR PATEL: So our message on this has been what it was since October 7th. If any country purports to have influence or relationships with Hamas, the message is quite clear: release every single hostage and it can no longer be business as usual. They should call on Hamas to lay down their arms, and that is the best and fastest way to get us where we need to be.Taka, go ahead.QUESTION: So the family of the Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea met State official this morning. Do you have any detail about the meeting? Who met the families? How do you describe the meeting?MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check if there’s any specific officials that we can share, but the U.S. stands with the long-suffering relatives of Japanese abductees, and we continue to urge the DPRK to right this historic wrong and provide full accounting of those that remain missing. And we don’t have any other meetings on this to announce at this time.QUESTION: Details?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check some more specifics but I don’t have anything for you at the – go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You talked about the Kurdistan Region’s election &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but I need a clarification on that. What do you mean when you say that you encourage them to schedule a free and fair election? Because it’s already been scheduled for June 10. Does the U.S. support rescheduling that election?MR PATEL: Our understanding is that President Barzani and various other authorities are actively considering next steps, and we will let that process play out before commenting further.QUESTION: Do you support rescheduling this election?MR PATEL: That’s not for us to decide. What we would encourage is for these elections to be scheduled and for them to be free, fair, and credible. But beyond that, our understanding is that President Barzani and various other entities are actively discussing additional next steps.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Pakistani ambassador in Washington, D.C., (inaudible) Masood Khan, recently talked about the importance of Pakistan-U.S. security cooperation and the need to bolster Pakistan’s defense capabilities due to regional challenges. Do you have any – something to tell us, what kind of strategy or initiative both of our countries are working on to enhance security cooperation?MR PATEL: Yeah. So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. And we support Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of its citizens in a manner that promotes the rule of law and protection of human rights. Our partnership with Pakistan on security issues includes, of course, a high-level counterterrorism dialogue, funding robust counterterrorism capacity, and building programs and supporting a series of U.S. and Pakistan military-to-military engagements.QUESTION: Sir, The Washington Post’s latest article revealed that Indian Prime Minister Modi inner circle, including spy chief Samant Goel and even the national security advisor, were aware of the assassination plot on a Sikh activist in New York. So how concerning is this for you?MR PATEL: So we continue to expect accountability from the Government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work, and we are regularly working with them and enquiring for additional updates. We’ll also continue to raise our concerns directly with the Indian Government at senior levels, but beyond that I’m not going to parse into this further and will defer to the Department of Justice.Julia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Sudan, I had a follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the UN Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s comments calling it a – the potential for a large-scale massacre. And she also said that the U.S. is appealing to countries, including the UAE, to stop support for the warring parties. Has any progress been made with the UAE and other countries, and what is the U.S. doing to try to prevent this catastrophe?MR PATEL: So to put it bluntly, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday, this – we certainly do not view this as conjecture, and we are seeing the possibility of history repeating itself in Darfur in the worst possible way. There are credible reports that the RSF and its allied militias have razed multiple villages west of El Fasher and are planning an imminent attack on El Fasher, putting 500,000 internally-displaced persons at risk on top of the 2 million Sudanese who call El Fasher home. We also know, as the ambassador said, that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts. And we’ve directly raised our concerns about reports of UAE support to the RSF with our Emirati partners, and we have made clear that the provision of arms to either side only deepens and prolongs the conflict.Go ahead, Daphne, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You said all – you said you’d take everybody’s questions.MR PATEL: That’s not what I said. I said I would get to as many people as I &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t even &#8212;MR PATEL: I said I’d get to as many as I can.QUESTION: That’s not what you said.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: The Philippines today said a coast guard ship and a fisheries vessel were damaged by water cannons used by Chinese coast guard ships. This comes right after Blinken’s trip to China. Do you have any comment on this, concerns?MR PATEL: So the repeated harassment of Philippine vessels near Scarborough Reef is detrimental to regional peace and stability, and our belief is that the Chinese coast guard installation of these barriers also endangers Philippine fisherfolk’s livelihoods and prevents them from exercising their legal rights to fish in those waters. These are rights that were set out in 2016 in a final and legally binding judgment in the Philippines-China arbitration brought to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and consistently – and this is something that the Secretary made clear on his travels as well – is that we urge the PRC to respect the navigational rights and freedoms guaranteed to all states under international law.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Burkina Faso																								China																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Japan																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Qatar																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								Sudan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Addressing Global Challenges, Fostering Partnerships Office of the SpokespersonThe text of the following statement was released by the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union.I. INTRODUCTIONAs the international community faces multiple crises we, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, renew our commitment to upholding the rule of law, humanitarian principles and international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, and to protecting human rights and dignity for all individuals.We reiterate the need to take collective action to preserve peace and stability and to address global challenges such as climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, global health, education, gender inequality, poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition, violent extremism and terrorism, information integrity and a digital transition that respects, protects, and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms.We affirm our commitment to free societies and democratic principles, where all persons can freely exercise their rights and freedoms. Human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.We reaffirm our commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda) and to re-energize efforts towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as multidimensional crises, and particularly the pandemic and ongoing major conflicts, have set back progress towards their achievement.We will continue to work in close cooperation with our partners and with relevant multilateral fora such as the G20. Global challenges require solidarity and a cohesive international response, looking for shared solutions for peace, stability, and development, leaving no one behind.II. FOSTERING PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MEDITERRANEAN AND AFRICAWe will continue to deepen the partnership with African countries and regional organizations, including the African union (AU). We welcome the AU participation in the G20 as a permanent member and reiterate our support for the G20 Compact with Africa. The G7-Africa partnership is guided by the objectives of the AU Agenda 2063, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement.The consequences of the Russian aggression and its weaponization of food supplies and energy resources have affected notably many vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa. In this perspective, Russia’s war is proving not just a war against Ukraine but against the world’s poorest and most vulnerable.We reiterate our strong partnership for just, green transitions to net zero emissions as core to sustainable development, and we are ready to inject new momentum into the pursuit of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Together with the entire international community and stakeholders beyond government, we need to urgently work in partnership to accelerate progress towards the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, consistent with the unanimous commitment reaffirmed at the UN General Assembly last September.Debt vulnerabilities are a significant challenge. We fully support the G20’s effort to improve the implementation of the “Common Framework” in a predictable, timely, orderly, and coordinated manner, providing clarity to participants. We recognize the importance of effective and long-term solutions, promoting coordination between official bilateral and private creditors. We call upon Multilateral Development Banks and development finance institutions to continue to play a key role to foster sustainable development through increased financing, policy advice and technical assistance for the benefit of developing countries, particularly the poorer and more fragile countries across the continent. In particular central to economic development is ensuring access to sustainable and resilient food systems, health care and health security, and clean, affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.We reiterate our commitment to supporting African governments as they address conditions leading to terrorism, violent extremism, and instability, while respecting human rights and the rule of law. Development and democracy are mutually reinforcing, and we underscore the importance of free and fair elections to meet the citizens’ needs and expectations.We are concerned about the activities of the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group and other emerging Russia-backed forces, which are producing a destabilizing impact, notably in North Africa, Central Africa, and the Sahel. We call for accountability of all those responsible for human rights abuses.1. LibyaWe will continue to help Libya put an end to its protracted internecine conflict, also fueled by foreign forces, fighters and mercenaries, in order to build a more peaceful and prosperous future and support its stability, independence, territorial integrity and national unity. The political stalemate leaves Libya extremely vulnerable to third state actors pursuing control over Libya’s security, politics and economy, sowing instability throughout the country and wider region.We therefore call on all Libyan political actors to engage in meaningful dialogue in order to break the current impasse and move towards a credible roadmap to free, fair and inclusive national presidential and parliamentary elections without delay. The international community must also be united in the pursuit of these goals.We take note with regret of the recent announcement by UN Special Representative of the Secretary General, Abdoulaye Bathily, regarding his decision to resign. We thank him for his dedicated service and renew our full support to the United Nations and the key role it continues to play in Libya. We call on the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint his successor without delay.2. SahelWe express our grave concern for the deterioration of the security situation in the Sahel, compounded by the backsliding of the principles of constitutional rule of law, democracy and good governance and regression in the regional cooperation frameworks.Such an increasingly precarious and unpredictable political scenario requires renewed efforts by all relevant actors and stakeholders in reconfiguring international and regional responses to the challenge of growing political tension, confrontation, and instability in the Sahel.We are also deeply concerned by the spread of terrorist threats and activities, leading to conflict and causing widespread misery and displacement of the civilian population. We are appalled by the grave human rights violations committed by multiple parties, including Russian proxies in the region.We look forward to strengthening further our cooperation with the African Union, regional organizations and the UN in fostering stability, security, good governance and development in the Sahel, preventing a “spill-over” of insecurity towards the Gulf of Guinea and North Africa, as well as irregular migration flows towards North Africa, Europe and the Western Hemisphere.We congratulate Mauritania on its taking over the rotating Presidency of the African Union and we commend its commitment to the rule of law, good governance, refugee inclusion and constitutional values. We stand ready to assist States of the Sahel in accelerating the pace of the transition towards the return of the constitutional order.3. Horn of AfricaWe reaffirm our strong commitment to promoting peace, security, and stability in the Horn of Africa. We continue to provide humanitarian support to those most affected by food insecurity, widespread poverty, armed violence, the impact of extreme weather events and displacement.We express our concern regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between Ethiopia and the Somaliland region of Somalia announced in January 2024. We encourage both the Ethiopian and the Federal Government of Somalia to keep all channels of dialogue open to prevent further escalation, working with regional partners, in the framework of the African Union and through bilateral contacts, in accordance with international law and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN Charter.4. SomaliaWe commend the important progress in the institutional, macroeconomic and security sector in Somalia. We encourage the Somali Authorities to continue to make meaningful progress in the fight against Al Shabaab and in the consolidation of the institutional framework, including completion of a transparent and inclusive constitutional reform process.The process of transitioning security responsibilities to the Somali security forces needs to be closely followed, especially in view of the termination of the mandate of the African Union Transitional Mission (ATMIS) in Somalia at the end of 2024. We welcome planning underway by Somalia and the African Union for a multinational mission to follow ATMIS to help maintain stability while Somalia continues to develop its security capabilities.5. EthiopiaWhile we welcome developments in the implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement between the Government of Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, we express concern for the persistent and violent tensions in many areas of the country, as well as reports of human rights violations and abuses, the severe economic crisis and widening food insecurityWe encourage further and lasting developments in the protection of human rights, protection of civilians, political dialogue to resolve tensions, reconciliation and national dialogue, transitional justice and accountability for crimes committed during the conflict.We call for a similar commitment by those involved in conflicts in other regions of Ethiopia to pursue peace through dialogue.We underscore the importance of delivering peace dividend quickly for conflict-affected populations through recovery and reconstruction support, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of ex-combatants, and implementation of durable solutions for Internally Displaced People (IDPs).6. SudanWe strongly condemn the ongoing fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, where the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate more than one year into the war. We especially note the impact of the crisis on women and girls, and condemn the ongoing atrocities being committed by both sides of the conflict, including using rape and other forms of gender-based violence including conflict-related sexual violence. We are concerned by the increasing numbers of displaced people.Obstruction of humanitarian access by the Sudanese Armed Forces and rapid Support Forces is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. We urge both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to agree and implement a lasting ceasefire without pre-conditions and to establish safe and stable humanitarian cross border and cross line access channels, including from multiple points of entry to the most devastated areas of Sudan. We urge all actors to return to negotiations and to engage in a national dialogue inclusive of women and the composite Sudanese civil society and aimed at re-establishing civilian and representative institutions. An active African role and the continued support of the international community remain essential to help Sudan to restore the democratic transition process.We commend the outcomes of the Paris Conference for Sudan and the Neighbouring countries during which over 2 billion Euros have been pledged to support civilian population in Sudan and those who sought refuge in neighbouring countries in 2024.7. Democratic Republic of the CongoWe strongly condemn the resumption of attacks by the March 23 Movement (M23) in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We are very concerned by the worsening of the humanitarian situation, and the increasing serious human rights violations and abuses the population is being subjected to. We also condemn all armed groups operating in the country. We demand the immediate cessation of hostilities and of any further advances by the M23 and its withdrawal from all occupied areas as agreed through the African Union-endorsed Luanda process. We demand all armed groups to cease hostilities, withdraw from the areas they are controlling and disarm.We expressed deep concern at the reports of the Group of Experts on the DRC on foreign military support for M23 and direct military interventions on DRC territory. We condemn any such support provided to M23 and any other armed group operating in the DRC and demand its cessation and the immediate withdrawal of any unauthorized foreign military presence from the DRC. We also condemn support, notably provided by military forces, to certain armed groups such as the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR), and demand the cessation of such support.We stress that any violations of the UN arms embargo is unacceptable and urge all States to stop any support to these armed groups.We remain committed to the Luanda and Nairobi processes to reach a negotiated diplomatic solution to the conflict. We encourage an effective Disarmament, Demobilization, Community Recovery, and Stabilization programme and the meaningful participation of women and youth in all their diversity. We also stand ready to work with the nations of the Great Lakes region to address the root causes of the cycles of violence in eastern DRC in a manner that takes into account the concerns and interests of the whole region, including by promoting accountability for all actors responsible for violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law.III. ADDRESSING IRREGULAR MIGRATION, FOSTERING HOPE AND OPPORTUNITYWe recognize that forced displacement and irregular migration have to be addressed in an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced manner, in a spirit of joint responsibility and commitment, and in accordance with international law and in full respect of human rights.We will support our partners in addressing the root causes of instability in Africa and other regions and countries of origin, while promoting a cycle of growth grounded in the huge potential of the Continent, particularly in view of the just and clean transition and growth in access to electricity, offering alternative solutions to irregular migration. Collectively, we will address migration drivers including through: better leveraging and coordinating our development and climate finance; supporting fragile and conflict afflicted states; and strengthening international capacity to address climate change, conflict, learning poverty and other drivers of migration. We are ready to build synergies among initiatives from all partners and institutions. We will also continue to support African countries hosting large number of displaced populations.We acknowledge that climate change is a risk multiplier already having a strong impact on human mobility. We see the need to further strengthen disaster risk reduction, adaptation, and resilience measures to counteract the drivers of involuntary displacement in the context of climate change.Human traffickers and people smugglers must be stopped from continuing their nefarious activities and we need to disrupt their business models. We recognize that women and girls are especially impacted by human trafficking, particularly trafficking for sexual exploitation. The UN and its Agencies have a role to play in this respect. Countries of origin, transit and destination must work together to stop migrant smuggling and human trafficking and uphold the dignity and worth of the human person – in line with the UN Charter.We will work towards reducing irregular migration and envisioning regular, safe and orderly migration on the basis of relevant national sovereign regulations. We are committed to find ways to better address challenges posed by irregular migration, within the framework of our international obligations.  We will enhance cooperation against migrant smuggling and human trafficking. In this respect, we acknowledge the “Rome Process” started in July 2023 with an International Conference on Migration and Development” with the dual objective of fighting human traffickers and smugglers and supporting economic development. We also acknowledge the “Mattei Plan for Africa” launched by Italy. We also recall the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and protection and the multilateral legal framework on migration and refugee protection. Legal migration pathways can contribute to economic growth and decent work in line with international standards in countries of origin and destination.We need to inject consistency and coherence in our investment in areas of shared priority for Africa, including food security, nutrition, sustainable rural development, energy transition, sustainable, inclusive, resilient, and quality infrastructure development, bridging digital divides, education, training and skilling, gender equality and good governance. Based on a mutually beneficial exchange, approaching issues on an equal footing, and ensuring alignment with Africa’s needs and priorities as identified by the African Union, African Governments and their peoples, we must step up efforts to achieve concrete sustainable development outcomes, contribute to the stabilization of areas of crisis, fight fundamentalism and address the root causes of irregular migration flows.IV. PROMOTING A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC, MANAGING ENGAGEMENT IN ASIAThe Indo-Pacific region is a key engine for global growth, with more than half of the world’s population.  We reiterate commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, based on the rule of law, which is inclusive, prosperous, secure, grounded on respect for international law, notably the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms, and human rights. We underscore that peace and stability of the region also contributes to prosperity and development of the entire international community. Developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.We reaffirm individual initiatives of the G7 members and welcome those of our partners, such as ASEAN, IORA, Australia, Republic of Korea, India and other South Asian as well as Pacific Island countries, to enhance their engagement in the region. We underscore our commitment to further strengthening our coordination among the G7. In this context, we reaffirm the importance of working together with all regional partners.We reaffirm our thorough support to ASEAN centrality and unity, as well as to initiatives aimed at fostering regional cooperation in line with the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific.We underscore our commitment to further strengthen our partnership with the Pacific Island countries, by supporting their needs and efforts in the implementation of the Pacific Islands Forum’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. We look forward to the 4th International Conference on Small Island Developing States under the theme “Charting the course towards resilient prosperity” (St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda 27th-30th May 2024). We will broaden our support to civil society, private sector, and academia’s plans for the promotion of a free and open Indo-Pacific.8. ChinaWe recognize the importance of constructive and stable relations with China.  We reaffirm the need to engage candidly with and express our concerns directly to China. China is a key interlocutor in addressing global challenges, and we stand ready to cooperate with China on areas of common interest.We reaffirm our interest in a balanced and reciprocal collaboration with China aimed at promoting global economic growth, with a view to enabling sustainable and fair economic relations and strengthening the international trading system. Our policy approaches are not designed to harm China, nor do we seek to thwart China’s economic progress and development. However, we are concerned that China’s non-market policies and practices are leading to harmful overcapacity that undermines our workers, industries, and economic resilience. A growing China that plays by international rules would be of global interest. We are not decoupling or turning inwards.We reiterate the importance of ensuring a level playing field and a transparent, predictable, and fair business environment. Respect for the rules-based multilateral trading system based on market principles needs to be the hallmark of our relations, to protect our workers and companies from unfair and non-market policies and practices, including forced technology transfer or illegitimate data disclosure, which distort the global economy and undermine fair competition. We will protect our workers and business communities from unfair practices, including those that lead to overcapacity, create supply chain vulnerabilities and increase exposure to economic coercion, as we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversification where necessary.We reaffirm the need to uphold the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety.  In this respect, we call on China to press Russia to stop its military aggression. We express our strong concern about transfers to Russia from business in China of dual-use materials and components for weapons and equipment for military production.We are seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas and reiterate our strong opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. We continue to oppose China’s dangerous use of coast guard and maritime militia in the South China Sea and its repeated obstruction of countries’ high seas freedom of navigation and we express serious concern about the increasing use of dangerous maneuvers and water cannons against Philippines vessels in this regard. There is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea, and we oppose China’s militarization, coercive and intimidation activities in the South China Sea. We re-emphasize the universal and unified character of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and reaffirm UNCLOS’s important role in setting out the legal framework that governs all activities in the oceans and the seas. We reiterate that the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal on July 12, 2016, is a significant milestone, which is legally binding upon the parties to those proceedings and a useful basis for peacefully resolving disputes between the parties.We restate the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as indispensable to security and prosperity for the whole international community and we call for peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. We support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations, including in the World Health Assembly and WHO technical meetings, as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is. There is no change in the basic position of the G7 members on Taiwan, including stated one China policies.We remain concerned about the human rights situation in China, including in Xinjiang and Tibet. We express our concerns about the deterioration of pluralism and civil and political rights in Hong Kong since the 2020 National Security Law. We reemphasize these concerns following the recent passage of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance under Article 23 of the Basic Law, which will further erode autonomy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong. The new law will make it harder to live, work and do business in Hong Kong and undermine the ability of Hong Kong people to maintain free and open exchanges with the wider world. We reiterate our call on China to uphold its commitments under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, which enshrine rights and freedoms and a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. Furthermore, we urge China and the Hong Kong authorities to act in accordance with their international commitments and applicable legal obligations.We call on China not to conduct or condone activities aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions, and to act in strict accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. We encourage China to uphold its commitments to act responsibly in cyber space.9. North KoreaWe reiterate our strong condemnation of North Korea’s escalatory development of its unlawful weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programmes. We further reiterate our call for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and demand that North Korea abandon all its nuclear weapons, existing nuclear programs, and any other WMD and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner in accordance with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We urge North Korea to return to, and fully comply with, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and IAEA safeguards and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). We reiterate that North Korea cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon state in accordance with the NPT. We urge North Korea not to conduct any further nuclear tests. We urge all UN member states to implement all relevant UNSCRs fully and effectively and demand Security Council members to follow through on their commitments. We urge North Korea to cease activities that generate revenue for its unlawful ballistic missile and WMD programmes, including malicious cyber activities.In this context, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, including North Korea’s export and Russia’s procurement of North Korean ballistic missiles in violation of UNSC resolutions, as well as Russia’s use of these missiles against Ukraine. We are also deeply concerned about the potential for any transfer of nuclear or ballistic missiles-related technology to North Korea, in violation of the relevant UNSC resolutions. Russia’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution to renew the mandate of the UNSCR 1718 Committee Panel of Experts makes it easier for North Korea to evade the UN sanctions that Russia had previously voted for. We urge Russia and North Korea to immediately cease all such activities and abide by relevant UNSCRs. We reiterate our commitment to counter sanctions evasion and strengthen enforcement. We will increase efforts to maintain the Panel of Experts.We strongly condemn North Korea’s systematic human rights violations and abuses and its choice to prioritize its unlawful weapons development programs over the welfare of the people in North Korea. We call upon North Korea to resolve the abductions issue immediately and to meaningfully engage with the UN human rights system. We take note of the progressive re-opening of North Korea’s borders and call upon North Korea to take this opportunity to re-engage with the international community including through the return of all diplomatic and humanitarian personnel to North Korea.We are disappointed by North Korea’s continued rejection of dialogue and call on North Korea to accept repeated offers of dialogue, in order to enhance regional peace and security.10. MyanmarWe reiterate our strong condemnation of the military coup in Myanmar and reaffirm our support and solidarity with the people of Myanmar in their quest for peace, freedom, and democracy. The continuing attacks by the military destroying civilian infrastructure (including homes, schools, places of worship and hospitals), the repeated and serious violations of human rights and the alarming humanitarian situation &#8211; which particularly affect those in most vulnerable situations, including children, women and members of minority religious and ethnic groups &#8211; are unacceptable. We also condemn the recent implementation of the 2010 conscription law by the military regime. The forced recruitment of young people can only lead to further violence and trigger a massive exodus to neighboring countries.We urge the Myanmar military to immediately cease any violence, release all prisoners arbitrarily detained &#8211; starting from the democratically elected leaders- and establish an inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders, in view of restoring the path towards a meaningful and durable democratic process. We also reiterate our call on the Myanmar military to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, to desist from any form of forced labour and to allow prompt, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all displaced persons and people in need.We continue to support ASEAN’s efforts to promote a credible and inclusive process to achieve the swift implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. We highlight the importance of a comprehensive implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2669 (2022) and support the UN’s further engagement in the crisis, including through the leadership of the newly appointed UN Special Envoy on Myanmar and through the designation of a Resident Coordinator in country. Accountability for serious crimes committed in Myanmar remains essential.We reiterate our call on all States to prevent or to cease the flow of arms and other dual-use materiel, including jet fuel, into Myanmar. We stress the need to create conditions for the voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable return of all Rohingya refugees and displaced persons and justice and accountability for atrocities committed against Rohingya and other ethnic communities.V. ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES11. Development Finance and InfrastructureWe reaffirm our commitment to promoting sustainable, resilient, inclusive, and quality infrastructure as a key element for achieving sustainable development by addressing the infrastructure investment gap in low- and middle-income countries. The G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment and initiatives such as the EU Global Gateway offer a framework we will use to promote our vision of sustainable and economically viable infrastructure, underpinned by transparent project selection, procurement and finance.We reaffirm our commitment to advancing high standards for quality infrastructure as a means to spur sustainable and inclusive economic development.We intend to work together to accelerate progress towards the commitment to mobilize up to 600 billion USD by 2027 by enhancing the strategic dimension of the Partnership for the Global Infrastructure and Investment  We propose to act in close cooperation with partner countries, multilateral development banks and development finance institutions, including through de-risking, co-financing initiatives and enhanced coordination mechanisms, including at country/regional level, to further promote the development of a pipeline of bankable projects in close cooperation with the private sector, as well as to reinforce project preparation.Infrastructure development should also encompass a wide range of initiatives (i.e. on regulatory frameworks, jobs market, energy access, training and research and health systems) to support partners in order to offer opportunities to the most marginalized and vulnerable and with a view to strengthening social cohesion and inclusion.We will promote a transformative shift towards quality investment, in key areas that drive inclusive and sustainable development and resilience, including food security, climate and clean energy, biodiversity and reducing pollution, connectivity including ICT and transport networks, global supply chain resilience, health and education, and mainstreaming gender equality. We will prioritize efforts to deepen partnerships with Africa and based on the continent’s investment needs, consistent with the goal of accelerating progress towards the SDGs, through concrete deliverables, such as ongoing work along the Lobito Corridor.  Given its global mandate, G7 countries will also continue to deploy investment while bringing forward the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment global strategy in other strategic regions, such as work on the Luzon Economic Corridor.Recognizing the insufficient progress towards the 2030 Agenda and the urgency to address the financing gaps in the context of a growing number of low-income countries and middle-income countries facing higher risk of debt distress and constrained fiscal space to invest in their own development and futures, we will work together with our partners and with international finance institutions to create the conditions to scale up long-term financing for the countries in need.  In that regard, we welcome the launch of infrastructure certification schemes, such as the Blue Dot Network and the Finance to Accelerate the Sustainable Transition Infrastructure initiatives, which aim to mobilize increased private investment in emerging markets. We will strive to enhance the development finance toolkit, to mobilize additional financing from international financial institutions, bilateral partners and the private sector to more effectively reduce poverty and protect the planet.12. Food Security and Nutrition SecurityWe express concern about rising food insecurity and malnutrition stemming from the combined impact of climate change, loss and degradation of ecosystems, the growing number of conflicts, inflationary pressures, and the reduced fiscal space in many developing economies. We are committed to addressing, with partners, the worsening hunger crisis affecting parts of Africa. Strengthening the resilience of agri-food systems is necessary to effectively address food insecurity and malnutrition. That makes internationally coordinated action more urgent than ever. Ensuring food and nutrition security remains a challenge for the international community and affected countries, especially in known hunger hotspots in Africa and beyond, that are vulnerable to climate and conflict-related shocks.We reaffirm our intention to increase investments to build more resilient and sustainable food systems, to help mitigate against future food shocks and diversify food supply chains. To that end, we reaffirm our commitment to contributing to sustainable and resilient food systems transformation, in the spirit of the Roadmap for Global Food Security-Call to Action and the UN Secretary General’s Call to Action for Accelerated Food Systems Transformation, issued at the UN Food Systems Summit +2 held in July 2023 in Rome. We recall the Hiroshima Action Statement for Resilient Global Food Security, issued by G7 Leaders and invited countries. We also reaffirm our support for the G20 Matera Declaration on Food Security, Nutrition and Food Systems and the G7 Global Alliance for Food Security. We acknowledge the importance of supporting fertilizer use efficiency and value chains, including local fertilizer production. The G7 is committed to the success of the next Nutrition for Growth Summit in 2025.We also reaffirm our commitment to work with the Rome-based agencies FAO, IFAD and WFP. We recognize the role of the Committee on World Food Security as an inclusive and multi-stakeholder platform to work together on food security and nutrition.In continuity with the UAE Leaders Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action, endorsed at the COP28 by 159 Countries, including all the G7, we will enhance our efforts to address the food security-climate change nexus in a coherent and pragmatic manner, including through initiatives like the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils (VACS).We stress the need for better coordination of international initiatives and projects aimed at countering food insecurity and malnutrition in order to maximize the delivery and impact of already existing resources. We continue to need innovative financial solutions for food systems, especially involving responsible private investment.13. Economic Resilience and Economic SecurityEconomic resilience and economic security are critical for the proper functioning of the G7 and wider global economies. We will foster cooperation in accordance with the G7 Leaders’ Statement on economic Security issued at Hiroshima last year. To this end, we remain committed to making global supply chains more resilient and reliable especially for critical products and technologies.We will continue to co-ordinate work on de-risking, diversification and reduction of critical dependencies and systemic vulnerabilities, actively engaging the private sector.We emphasize the importance of honoring international norms and obligations to safeguard global economic security and resilience and reaffirm our commitment to building global economic resilience and responding to harmful practices that undermine the rules-based multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core. We will continue working within the G7 and with trusted partners towards resilient supply chains, built in a transparent, diversified, secure, sustainable, trustworthy, and reliable manner.We reiterate our concern about increasing threats to economic security for all global economies, notably economic coercion, and comprehensive strategies that use non-market policies and practices, as well as other practices in the pursuit of market dominance that lead to harmful overcapacity and supply chain concentration, thereby creating vulnerabilities and dependencies. We remain committed to enhancing our coordination and cooperation within the G7, while at the same time engaging other interested international partners about joining our efforts. We will continue work, principally through the Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion to improve our assessment, preparedness, deterrence, and response to economic coercion, in accordance with our respective legal systems and in conformity with international law.We acknowledge the key role of semiconductors as a critical part of supply chain resilience and economic security. To that end, we welcome the establishment by the G7 Industry, Technology and Digital Ministers of a semiconductors Point of Contact (PoC) Group dedicated to facilitating information exchange and sharing best practices among G7 members.14. Climate, Energy Security and EnvironmentWe are facing the unprecedented triple global crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution that are mutually reinforcing and intrinsically linked, as well as an ongoing global energy crisis, health threats, and environmental damage, including those caused or exacerbated by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.The international community needs to come together and act decisively, irrespective of geographic or political divides, taking concrete steps collectively to achieve the global target to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and achieve global net zero (CHG) emissions by 2050.To this end, we reaffirm our commitment, and we reiterate the call on all countries to contribute to global efforts to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, sustainable and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science and to accelerate low and zero-emission technologies.We recognize the primary need to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050, while ensuring policies to diversify energy sources and supplies to address potential security risks to energy systems, in a manner consistent with our climate and sustainability goals.We are determined to promote energy efficiency as the “first fuel”, and fast-track clean, safe, and sustainable energy development and deployment, while reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Moreover, actions must be taken to increase access to electricity and clean cooking as well as to accelerate sustainable, just and inclusive clean energy transitions in emerging and developing countries and to continue efforts to swiftly implement the Just Energy Transition Partnerships.We are determined to promote affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy in Africa. With this objective, under the Italian Presidency we look forward to continuing discussions on how the G7 can concretely advance and contribute to Africa’s industrial advancement and to its sustainable, resilient, and inclusive growth.The connection between climate, environment and energy is critical to making progress towards our climate change and environmental goals while implementing economically sustainable, just, and rapid transitions. Seizing the opportunities presented by innovative technological solutions and the alignment of global financial flows to support the goals of the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be critical to ensuring prosperity and environmental sustainability, while simultaneously fostering development and poverty alleviation, especially in developing countries.We underline the G7 role in advancing implementation of the CMA5 global effort to triple renewable energy capacity globally and double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements, globally by 2030, considering national circumstances, and welcome the consensus reached at CMA5 calling on all Parties to contribute to its achievement.We need to play a key role in defining secure, sustainable, and affordable energy systems, ensuring just and inclusive clean energy transitions. We therefore commit to achieving concrete steps forward in strategic areas. Among these, we recognize the key role of renewables, including from sustainable biological origin, nuclear energy for those who opt to use it, including advanced and small modular reactors, energy efficiency, methane emissions reduction in line with the Global Methane Pledge, industrial de-carbonization, most innovative technologies such as renewable and zero-emission hydrogen, and carbon management technologies.  We will pursue secure, resilient, affordable and sustainable supply chains for critical minerals and raw materials, including through the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) and MSP Forum, and pursue implementation of the Five Point Plan for Critical Minerals Security adopted by G7 Climate Energy and Environment Ministers. We also underline the opportunities offered by circular economy, including recycling and resource efficiency, as well as innovative technologies. Investing in innovation should also help us in addressing the key topic of reducing GHG emissions in heavy-emitting sectors and promoting the development of a circular economy.Leveraging private sector financing as well as innovative financing mechanisms are important steps to support energy transitions in developing countries, increase resources for adaptation and resilience and enable actions for responding to loss and damage to assist developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, especially SIDS and LDCs.The transition to a net zero-emissions, sustainable, climate resilient and nature positive, pollution free and circular economy will necessarily need to involve all the members of society, to ensure just and inclusive transitions, leaving no one behind. Women, youth, and Indigenous Peoples s tend to bear the brunt of climate change-related disasters. In this context, we place particular emphasis on need to empower these societal sectors and include them in efforts to address climate change and environmental degradation. We highlight the importance of nature-based solutions in this context. Plastic pollution is a global problem that requires urgent attention. We look forward to an ambitious and effective global agreement to end plastic pollution.Biodiversity loss is an equally serious threat. Climate, biodiversity, and human health are interrelated and interdependent. We recall our commitment to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework fully and swiftly and to achieve each of its goals and targets, which is the landmark plan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. We also underline the G7 role in advancing implementation of the CMA5 global effort halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.We will work to mobilise nature finance from all relevant sources and to align financial and fiscal flows, as appropriate, including international development assistance, with the GBF. We also call on Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to increase and report nature finance by CBD COP16.  We welcome the Global Stocktake Decision’s recognition of the importance of nature for achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through halting, and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.Given the risk of a global water crisis and continued lack of universal access to water and sanitation, we call for stronger collaboration at multilateral level in line with the UNEA-6 Resolution on Water. We welcome the UN System-wide Strategy on Water and Sanitation and are committed to the implementation of the Water Action Agenda as a key outcome of the UN Water Conference 2023. We also call for prompt appointment of a UN Special Envoy on Water.15. Global HealthGlobal health is a pre-requisite for sustainable development. Building on the lessons learned during the COVID -19 pandemic, we will continue to promote global health, knowing that health emergencies are a global challenge that need a global response.We support a reform of the Global Health Architecture fostering a more coordinated approach, strengthening Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response (PPR) including sustainable financing for capacity strengthening and for health emergency response, especially through the Pandemic Fund. We recognize the importance and reiterate our commitment to reaching a successful, equitable outcome of the ongoing negotiations for a new WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic PPR and targeted amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005) by May 2024. Completing the negotiations in time is critical to leverage political attention, strengthen future pandemic responses and improve equity.We commit to redouble our efforts to advance universal health coverage, including by supporting countries to restore access to essential health services and reduce mortality rates to be better than pre-pandemic levels by 2025. We also reaffirm our commitment to invest in resilient health systems, primary health care service delivery, and a skilled health workforce &#8211; including through the WHO Academy &#8211; as essential to reclaiming lost ground due to COVID-19 and promoting Universal Health Coverage as essential elements of pandemic preparedness.We acknowledge that climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are   having a dramatic impact on global health and both noncommunicable and infectious disease threats. We are therefore addressing these challenges in a coherent and strategic manner, through the “One Health” approach that recognizes that the health of people is linked to the health of animals, plants and our shared environment.In this framework, we reaffirm that antimicrobial resistance is a key priority, and we will work closely for a successful upcoming UN High Level Meeting on AMR in September 2024.16. Gender EqualityWe reiterate our commitment to give a new impetus to gender equality. We recall the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome documents of its review conferences and confirm our determination to deliver on the 2030 Agenda relevant Sustainable Development Goals.We reaffirm the G7’s continued global leadership on gender equality and the promotion and protection of the rights of women and girls in all their diversity as well as LGBTQIA+ persons. We express our strong concern over the global rollback of all women’s and girls’ rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the disproportionate impact of conflict and crisis on them.Gender equality and women’s empowerment is a fundamental pre-requisite to eradicate poverty, to stimulate prosperity and sustainable and inclusive growth, and to build peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.  We recognize that unpaid care and domestic work are major obstacles to the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women and negatively impact women’s economic empowerment by impairing their ability to work full-time or in leadership positions.  We reaffirm the significant value of the World Bank Invest in Childcare initiative and aim by 2035 to support 200 million more women to join the workforce by investing in efforts to close the global childcare gap.We must pursue gender equality as a cross cutting priority to promote and protect the rights of women and girls and members of minority groups, including their ability to exercise their human rights, by ensuring freedom from all forms of discrimination and gender-based violence.  We need to strengthen their economic security and empowerment by increasing and addressing barriers to their participation and building their resilience against the impacts of climate change, including by advancing their access to jobs in green and blue industries critical to our future and the future of our planet. We will promote comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR, including at the UN General Assembly and Summit of the Future.Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflicts and crises which can exacerbate existing gender inequalities and expose women and girls, to heightened risks of violence, exploitation, and discrimination. The involvement of women and girls in all areas related to the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts as well as disaster risk reduction is crucial to creating and ensuring sustainable and inclusive peace and address the root causes of conflicts. In line with UNSCR 1325 and subsequent Resolutions on Women Peace and Security (WPS), we underscore the importance of women’s full, equal, and meaningful participation and leadership in all areas of policy decision-making spaces and tangible implementation, and through women’s civil society organizations, non-government partners, and throughout the political, security and development spheres. We remain committed to protecting women and girls from sexual and gender-based violence before, during, and after conflicts, ensuring accountability for perpetrators, and providing support and services to survivors.17. Disaster and Risk ReductionWe reaffirm our commitment to strengthen and accelerate the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the &#8220;Early Warning for All&#8221; Initiative by scaling up international cooperation.We acknowledge the interrelated causes and effects of disasters, particularly climate change-induced disasters, on different aspects, including peace and stability, local, regional, and international security, health, education, gender equality, and vulnerability. We renew our commitment to act ahead of disasters by working across the Humanitarian, Development Peace Nexus. Our aim is to reduce risks, anticipate and prepare for disasters, minimize the impacts of disasters on communities and infrastructure in order not to hamper development progress.We stress the importance of the outcome of COP28 in terms of operationalizing new funding arrangements to respond to loss and damage, including the fund. We welcome the pledges to the fund that have already been made and we encourage further support, to be provided on a voluntary basis and from a wide variety of funding sources. This is part of our wider commitment to assist those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.19. Global GovernanceWe reiterate the significance of maintaining and strengthening the free and open international order based on the rule of law, respecting the UN Charter, and the paramount importance of international and multilateral cooperation in promoting peace, stability, and prosperity. We share the UN Secretary General’s ambition for inclusive, networked, and effective multilateralism, as outlined in the “Our Common Agenda” Report. We look forward to the UN Summit of the Future as an opportunity to accelerate these efforts, to tackle global challenges and accelerate progress on the SDGs.To restore a sense of common purpose among UN Members States and to make international and multilateral cooperation stronger, more effective, more inclusive, more democratic, more efficient and more transparent, we commit to actively contribute to the Summit of the Future as an opportunity to foster dialogue and to find shared solutions to common problems. Human rights as one of the founding pillars of the UN system will be our common compass throughout the Pact for the Future. We welcome the latest report of the UN Secretary General on human security. We are committed to working with all UN Member States to strengthen the roles of the UNSG as well as the UNGA. We also recommit to the reform of the UNSC.We reaffirm the need for strengthened international financial institutions and underscore the role of multilateral developments banks (MDBs) in the SDGs achievement, including in crisis affected contexts. We support the ongoing efforts for MDBs reform, including the World Bank Group (WBG) evolution roadmap, to better address global challenges. In this respect, we look forward to the WBG and International Monetary Fund annual meetings.We stress the key role of MDBs in addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and fragility and conflict, which are critical to achieving poverty reduction and sustainable development that is inclusive and resilient.19. Conflict Prevention and Management, Support to UN Peace OperationsWe renew our commitment to strengthening peacebuilding and conflict prevention efforts to address increasingly complex and interconnected security challenges. We need to build resilient societies, uphold human rights, support good governance, and invest in people to achieve sustainable peace. We condemn sexual and gender-based violence, especially when related to armed conflict situations.We highly value the role of the UN and support an integrated approach to peacebuilding and peacekeeping. We support the Peacebuilding Commission in its role as a convener of relevant stakeholders and an advisory body to other UN organs and we support the Peacebuilding Fund as a critical tool to help to ensure adequate financing for conflict prevention and peacebuilding.We reaffirm that the UN peacekeeping operations and special political missions are valuable tools to prevent escalation and the recurrence of conflicts and to protect civilians where mandated to do so.We further reaffirm our general support for the UN Secretary General’s ‘’New Agenda for Peace’’, “Action for Peacekeeping” and “Action for Peacekeeping Plus” to reform and strengthen such operations, based on a conflict prevention approach to crises. We will enhance capabilities and work to ensure the safety and security of those deployed, for example through the UN Triangular Partnership Programme.We underscore the importance of strengthening the global implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS), Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) and Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) agendas.20. A Global Resilient Cyberspace, Artificial IntelligenceWe reiterate our commitment to an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure cyberspace. We highly value the role of the Ise-Shima Cyber Group to define common ground.While relying on the leadership of governments and international organizations, we recognize the importance of the multistakeholder model, with the invaluable contribution of the private sector in promoting technological development and of civil society in advancing a common understanding of threats and providing solutions to improve cybersecurity.As the international community is increasingly confronted with disruptive activities carried out through Information and Communications Technology (ICT) systems, we reiterate that international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, apply in cyberspace. We call for the full implementation of existing norms of responsible State behavior in cyberspace, and we encourage States to deepen their understanding of how international law applies to cyberspace.We condemn malicious cyber activity, and we will continue to work together at the national level and in multilateral fora to increase accountability in cyberspace. We will increase our cooperation against malicious cyber activities, including state-sponsored ones. We are determined to protect our democratic systems and critical infrastructures from malicious cyber threats. We express our concern for the increasing number of ransomware attacks , particularly  targeting hospitals and healthcare facilities, and in this regard we recall relevant norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, which emphasize states’ commitment to not knowingly allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful acts using ICT and to respond to appropriate requests to mitigate malicious ICT activity emanating from their territory aimed at  the critical infrastructure of another state.  We welcome significant international initiatives, such as the Counter Ransomware Initiative and the Pall Mall Process, which contribute to increase awareness and improve oversight coordination.We urge countries to enact legislation in line with the provisions of the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe (Budapest Convention) and engage in accession to the treaty. We also urge countries to fully utilize the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime as a tool to combat cybercrime.We call on the international community to be guided by the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace to reduce risks to international peace and stability and make cyberspace a less contested domain. We underline the importance of confidence building measures, international cooperation, and capacity building. We affirm our support for the “Programme of action to advance responsible State behavior in the use of ICTs in the context of international security”, as the permanent and action-oriented mechanism to hold discussions on cybersecurity at the UN from 2025 onward.We reaffirm the G7 support to Ukraine’s cyber resilience, and we welcome multilateral initiatives aimed at providing assistance, such as the Tallinn Mechanism.We will continue to coordinate and, where possible, unite our efforts to assist countries to improve their capacity to address the multiple challenges of cybersecurity and resilience. Exchanging information on respective national projects may help identify best practices. We will be inspired by a demand driven approach and aim to fully integrate cybersecurity into digital development, as highlighted by the Accra Call for Cyber Resilient Development. To this end, we will continue to cooperate where it is relevant with International Financial Institutions, for instance the World Bank, and the private sector.Malicious cyber activities are disrupting critical services in G7 countries – including hospitals, energy companies and water companies – and costing our economies billions of dollars in disruptions. We commit to taking concrete steps to improve our collective cyber resilience.Considering the key and complementary role played by high-level policy makers and the National Agencies for Cybersecurity in ensuring a safe cyberspace and in fostering international collaboration at a policy and technical level, we also welcome the first meeting at G7 level, scheduled in Rome on 16-17 May, and we look forward to the outcome of their discussions.  We resolve to keep analyzing the multifaceted applications of artificial intelligence and other new and emerging technologies, in such a way as to strike an effective balance between the advantageous uses for people and the need to mitigate the potential negative impacts in certain domains, including cyberspace. With this regard, we acknowledge the importance of advancing our efforts to ensure safe, secure and trustworthy AI, which is human-centric and human rights-based, including through advancing the outcomes of the Hiroshima AI Process, and foster interoperability between AI governance frameworks to support our common vision.As new technologies are defining the future of our societies, we endorse the UN General Assembly resolution “Seizing the Opportunities for Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Systems for Sustainable Development” that was adopted by consensus and co-sponsored by 123 countries. We will also endeavor to provide contributions to the Global Digital Compact and  WSIS+20 Review and the UN Pact for the Future, in order to protect an open, free, secure and inclusive Internet for future generations, governed through multi-stakeholder processes, and by protecting the ability  for all to share information and communicate freely and securely, making sure the voices of younger generations, emerging economies and developing countries are properly heard.We recognize the nexus between AI and cybersecurity, and we commit to countering the risks posed to cybersecurity by AI. We also underscore the importance of ensuring the cybersecurity of AI systems and note the publication of the Guidelines for secure AI system development.21. Countering hybrid threats, including foreign information manipulation and interferenceMalign foreign influence operations, including malicious cyber activities, and foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), are a growing challenge to democratic societies around the world, threatening to undermine democratic values, human rights, governmental processes, political stability, and international partnerships. These operations aim at misleading and deceiving our citizens, interfering in our democratic processes, destabilizing our governments and democratic institutions, and undermining our shared values, creating, and exploiting cultural and societal frictions, as well as negatively affecting our ability to conduct foreign and security policy. FIMI threatens to destabilize the very fabric of our rules-based international system and is exacerbated by the exploitation of emerging technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI).We are committed to addressing the potential risk of the misuse of new technologies for purposes of disinformation, and the role of AI in FIMI, especially in the context of forthcoming elections.AI has the potential to strengthen democracy by advancing resilience, openness, civic engagement and participation, and access to government services and information. But AI can also be used as a tool to undermine democracy, including through voter suppression, information manipulation and curtailment of civic engagement. We are concerned with the potential for authoritarian states and non-state actors to misuse current and emerging technologies to undermine democracy and confidence in elections and to erode the information environment.FIMI negatively affects the ability of citizens to take rational, informed decisions, which lies at the very heart of our democratic institutions and aims at undermining confidence in democratic governments and societies. Disinformation can be used to polarize society; it often supports violent extremist activities and is fuelled by malicious foreign players. Online disinformation campaigns are being widely used by a range of malign actors to create or exacerbate tensions.State and non-state actors are increasingly adopting hybrid tactics, also through their proxies. In particular, Russia, since beginning its war of aggression against Ukraine, has been augmenting military efforts on the ground with hybrid tactics, including cyberattacks and foreign information manipulation and interference. We condemn the widespread use of FIMI and AI by the Russian Government and its proxies to support its war of aggression against Ukraine and fuel further tensions globally. Building our resolve to promote information resilience, we will enhance coordination to establish a common operating picture and develop coordinated responses to information manipulation. A whole-of-society and whole-of-government effort is required to combat FIMI and foster information integrity.We are committed to protecting our information environment and democratic values against any attempt of foreign manipulation. We commit to championing free and independent media at home and around the world and promote pluralism and freedom of expression. Together we seek to strengthen public resilience to and awareness about FIMI, through education, including digital, media and information literacy initiatives and awareness-raising campaigns, also addressing gendered disinformation.We plan to strengthen our coordinated effort to better prevent, detect, respond to, and mitigate FIMI threats, addressing the impact of hybrid threats at the earliest stage possible. As billions of citizens will cast their ballots globally in 2024, the protection of free and fair elections from foreign interference is a central focus of the G7 Agenda.We also call on tech companies, in particular social media platforms, to intensify their efforts to prevent and counter FIMI campaigns and to reduce the potential abuse of AI technology for this purpose, also by increasing their transparency.Through the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) we are strengthening our coordination to identify and respond to diverse and evolving threats to our democracies. We are determined to intensify our efforts, to protect our democratic systems and open societies from foreign information manipulation and interference, including through sharing information and analysis, and identifying opportunities for coordinated response.22. Digital and Transnational RepressionAdvances in surveillance technology, including AI and commercial spyware, can enable foreign governments and their proxies to monitor, track, and target individuals more effectively and invasively. We are committed to countering the misuse of technology to target human rights defenders, journalists, perceived political opponents, and other civil society members.Transnational repression (TNR), which involves reaching across state borders to intimidate, silence, attack, and/or murder dissidents, human rights activists, and others for peacefully exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, has a detrimental impact to free speech, freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms. It is one of the most harmful manifestations of authoritarian governments that aims to export repressive forms of governance extraterritorially.  We strongly condemn the targeting of activists, critics and journalists in this respect.23. Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Outer SpaceWe remain firmly committed to uphold the international non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. We intend to maintain and strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation efforts for a more secure, stable, and safer world and endorse the statement of the G7 Non-Proliferation Directors’ Group.We are greatly concerned by Russia’s continuing war of aggression against Ukraine and its irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and actions, North Korea’s and Iran’s continued advancement of nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. These developments pose serious challenges for international peace and security and require our united resolve in defense of the global disarmament and non-proliferation regimes.Recalling the G7 Leaders’ Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament, we reaffirm our commitment to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all, achieved through a realistic, pragmatic, and responsible approach.In this spirit, we remain resolved to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and advance the NPT’s implementation across all three of its mutually reinforcing pillars. We reaffirm the centrality of the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology.We underline the urgent need to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force and to provide sufficient resources to ensure the continued operation and the long-term sustainability of all elements of the CTBT verification system. Pending the entry into force of the Treaty, we call on all states that have not yet done so to declare new or maintain existing moratoriums on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions. We deeply regret Russia&#8217;s withdrawal of its ratification of the Treaty and we are gravely concerned by Russian statements with respect to nuclear explosive testing. We urge Moscow to continue to adhere to its moratorium on nuclear tests.We call for the immediate commencement of long-overdue negotiations of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)  while urging all states that have not yet done so to declare and maintain voluntary moratoria on the production of such material.We adhere to the highest standards of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation. We underscore the IAEA&#8217;s crucial role in upholding the international non-proliferation architecture, enhancing nuclear safety and security, and safeguards, and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear technology for the benefit of all Member States. We recall the G7 Leaders’ commitment to evaluate measures to reduce reliance on civil nuclear-related goods from Russia and to assist countries seeking to diversify their supplies. We support Japan’s safe, transparent and science-based process to responsibly manage the discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing System treated water and in proactively coordinating with scientists and partners as well as the IAEA.The G7 is committed to working with all States to further identify and implement measures to minimize the risk of nuclear weapons use and to strengthen arms control. We recall the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States issued on January 3, 2022, on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races, and reaffirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. We call on Russia to recommit – in words and deeds – to the principles enshrined in that Statement. We welcome the transparency of G7 nuclear-weapon States in providing data on their nuclear forces and the objective size of their nuclear arsenals. We call on others that have not yet done so to follow suit.We reiterate our deep regret over Russia’s purported suspension of the New START Treaty and we call on Russia to return to its full implementation and to engage with the U.S. on reducing nuclear risks. We are also concerned about China’s ongoing and accelerating expansion of its nuclear arsenal, and development of increasingly sophisticated delivery systems, without transparency – including providing data and objective size of its nuclear arsenal &#8211; or good faith arms control and risk reductions measures. The G7 urges China to engage in concrete strategic risk reduction discussions with the U.S. to promote stability through greater transparency of China’s nuclear weapon policies, plans, and capabilities.We underscore the importance of disarmament and non-proliferation education, while encouraging other leaders, youth and others to also visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We recognize the important role that f conventional arms control, confidence-building measures and regional risk reduction have in reducing the risk of armed escalation or miscalculation, improving trust and transparency, and promoting strategic stability between states.Conventional weapons continue to be used for regional coercion, raising international tensions, and in acts of military aggression that have resulted in disproportionate civilian casualties.  This highlights the urgency of implementation agreements and commitments relating to conventional arms control and disarmament that take into account humanitarian factors.Reaffirming our strong commitment to effective multilateral action against the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, we underline the need for the universalization and full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).We will actively seek to advance efforts in the working group on the strengthening of the BTWC to examine and develop concrete measures to enhance the implementation of the Convention.We recognize the high priority of addressing biological threats worldwide as an utmost priority. With rapidly advancing technology and more acute biological risks, it is crucial to ensure that biological research, development, and innovation are conducted in a safe, secure, responsible, transparent, and sustainable manner. Strengthening domestic measures, engaging international organizations, academia, and the private sector remains paramount to promote and establish effective regulatory biosafety and biosecurity measures for the life sciences and global health.We reaffirm the key importance of addressing biosecurity challenges in the African continent, strengthening preparedness, and empowering the African scientific community, involving women and youth. We recognize the important progress made through the Signature Initiative to Mitigate Biological Threats in Africa (SIMBA), a flagship effort pf the G7-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, to strengthen biosafety and biosecurity, national frameworks, surveillance and epidemic intelligence and non-proliferation capacities in Africa.In this overall effort, we will work together across the G7, the G7-led 31-member Global Partnership against the spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, the BTWC, the WHO and other appropriate international fora to raise the bar globally on biosafety and biosecurity.We commit to maintaining and updating export controls on materials, technology and research that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including through multilateral export control regimes and in cooperation with all responsible international actors.We reaffirm the key role of the G7 Global Partnership in addressing threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and CBRN materials and supporting vulnerable countries around the world in to build security capacity to better mitigate all manner of CBRN threats. We welcome the launch of the Global Partnership’s new initiative to counter WMD disinformation.Working with partners, we e will continue to assess the risks posed by exports of rapidly advancing dual-use technologies.  Where necessary and according to our respective legal frameworks, we will cooperate and promote efforts to implement export controls to address risks to international security.We celebrate in 2024 the tenth anniversary of the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification (IPNDV), in which all G7 members participate. The development of realistic processes and technologies by IPNDV will help ensure future agreements contain robust verification provisions.Space-related services, data and activities are increasingly key for the functioning of our economies and the implementation of public policies for the welfare of our citizens. However, we see globally an intensification of threats and the development of capabilities directed at disrupting the peaceful use of space.We reiterate the importance of upholding the existing legal framework for activities in outer space, notably the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”). We remain committed to fostering international cooperation, transparency, and confidence-building measures to promote responsible behavior with the goal of improving space security for all states. In parallel, we will also remain vigilant and invest in the resilience of space-related services against potentially hostile activities.We affirm the obligation of all States Parties to fully comply with the Outer Space Treaty, including not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.24. Countering terrorism and transnational crimeWe condemn terrorism in all its forms, and we reiterate our determination to protect freedom and security in our societies, upholding democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights &#8211; including the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy &#8211; freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.Terrorist networks know no borders and countering terrorism requires a strong collective and internationally aligned approach that includes combating the financing of terrorism and terrorist propaganda. We need to recognize and tackle new threats emanating from malign actors’ use of emerging technologies, such as drones and artificial intelligence, while the risk of chemical, biological, and radiological attacks remain a serious threat. The potential use of technologies to counter terrorism and violent extremism must be recognized as well.Countering terrorism needs a holistic approach, aimed also at preventing violent extremism. It is imperative that we prevent radicalization to violence online and offline, in prison as well as in societies, through work with civil society, women-led organizations, local leaders and communities. We should work to promote rehabilitation and reintegration efforts for former terrorists in order to reintegrate them back into society with a reduced risk of recidivism. We intend to step up information sharing and international cooperation, promoting capacity building domestically and with partners, including in border management. All our efforts are based on respect for human rights and the principles of the rule of law.Organized crime is also a major threat to our societies and citizens and also knows no borders. Organized crime can take advantage of the insecurity, instability and conflicts caused by terrorism and it can also be a way that terrorist groups support their activities. Terrorism can leverage organized crime, too. Human trafficking, arms smuggling, drug trafficking, crimes that affect the environment, trafficking of cultural property, money laundering and corruption can find a fertile ground when exploiting war and conflicts. Capacity building in justice and security measures to counter the illicit economy can help to foster inclusive and peaceful societies.We reaffirm our commitment to fight organized crime and its illegal profits, focusing on new risks such as cybercrime. Trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants have become major sources of income for organized crime, together with drug trafficking. We are firmly committed to stop the criminal exploitation of vulnerable peoples, breaking the business model of organized criminal groups.We also reaffirm our commitment to fight against the illicit production and distribution of synthetic drugs including fentanyl. Trafficking of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic drugs props up large, adaptable, and resilient transnational criminal organizations that operate across the globe – with the financial means and capacity to corrupt society, undermine governance, and weaken government institutions around the world.  Together, we reaffirm our commitment to countering the production, distribution, and sale of illicit narcotics; to sharing threat information and engaging in joint investigations and enforcement efforts; to scheduling precursor chemicals and other drugs, in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations and other international entities; to collectively coordinating efforts with key international partners, especially with countries where synthetic drugs  are produced; to participating in multilateral fora, such as the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, that unite countries and key institutions in fighting the scourge of deadly drugs; and to advancing public health interventions and services to those who need it.  Individually and collectively, we will crack down on the global criminal networks that fuel overdose deaths, disrupt the illicit financial mechanisms that support these networks; seize deadly drugs before they enter our communities; and deliver life-saving medication and care. We are ready to work with other governments to tackle these transnational challenges and to support the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.We welcome the valuable input of the G7 Roma-Lyon Group’s work on preventing and combating terrorism and transnational organized crime.25. Fight against CorruptionWe recognize that corruption and related illicit finance and proceeds of crime drain public resources, can often fuel organized crime and undermine democratic governance. Corruption and illicit finance also undermine progress across all the Sustainable Development Goals.We reaffirm the fundamental role that the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and its supporting bodies play in the global fight against corruption. We will strive to further support and enhance the effectiveness of its Implementation Review Mechanism, especially with a view to its next review phase.We also reaffirm our commitment to timely and effective implementation of the FATF standards on transparency of beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements, underscoring the importance of accountability tools that will deny corrupt actors access to our territories and our financial systems.We also recognize the challenges faced by some developing countries in meeting international standards designed to combat corruption and illicit finance, and we encourage the international financial institutions to coordinate and increase their efforts to support countries in their efforts across their operations, particularly in fragile and conflict affected countries.26. Threats to maritime securityWe reiterate our commitment to promoting a cooperative system of international governance for the ocean and seas and to maintaining the rules-based maritime order based on international law, in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms and human rights. In this context, we recognize the importance of the role of international courts and tribunals including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.We firmly reiterate our condemnation for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, terrorism and transnational organized crime in the maritime domain, trafficking of human beings, smuggling of migrants, trafficking of weapons and narcotics, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and other illegal maritime activities. We reaffirm the importance of national and regional ownership in pursuing the fight against illegal activities at sea.V1.  TACKLING REGIONAL ISSUES27. Western BalkansWe reaffirm our shared commitment to the security, economic prosperity, and European perspective of the six Western Balkans countries as a crucial investment for peace and stability. We emphasize the importance of advancing the necessary internal reforms, particularly on rule of law, including tackling organized crime, illicit finance, and corruption.We fully support further progress on regional cooperation and integration, including by implementing the Common Regional Market, and we encourage local political elites to make decisive progress on regional reconciliation. To this aim, we call on Kosovo and Serbia to implement without further delay the Agreement on the Path to Normalization and its Implementation Annex adopted in 2023. We urge both sides to engage constructively in the framework of the EU-facilitated dialogue, refraining from provocations, inflammatory rhetoric, and uncoordinated actions.We firmly reject any attempt from internal or external actors to undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity and multiethnic character of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We fully support the executive mandate of the EUFOR ALTHEA operation to support the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in maintaining a safe and secure environment in the country.We urge all parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to put aside divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, to avoid any act that could destabilize the country and to focus on internal reforms that would move the country closer to realizing its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.We welcome the European Council’s decision in March 2024 to open negotiations for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the European Union.  We support the mandate of High Representative Christian Schmidt.28. South CaucasusWe urge Armenia and Azerbaijan to remain fully committed to the peace process to achieve a dignified and durable peace based on the principles of non-use of force, respect for sovereignty, the inviolability of borders, and territorial integrity. We recall the Joint Statement issued by the sides on December 7th, 2023, and encourage them to uphold that spirit of cooperation in their future interactions. Further escalation would be unacceptable.We call on Azerbaijan to fully comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law and encourage appropriate steps to ensure the safe, dignified, and sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons wishing to come back to their homes.The G7 and its members are ready to facilitate further constructive contacts at all levels, notably within the established negotiating frameworks provided by the EU and the USA, whose enduring efforts we commend.We reiterate the importance of the commitment to the Alma Ata 1991 Declaration through which Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We encourage greater regional cooperation and the re-opening of all borders, including the border between Armenia and Türkiye.29. Central Asian countriesWe remain resolved to support the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and the right of self-determination of the Central Asian countries.We are committed to enhancing our cooperation with the Central Asian countries to tackle regional challenges, including the consequences of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the enduring impact of the situation in Afghanistan, the regional terrorist threat, as well as managing water resources and climate change and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.We encourage the further strengthening of regional cooperation, especially in the field of connectivity and infrastructure, including the Middle Corridor, to improve ease of trade between the Central Asian countries, bolster global supply chains, foster trade, forge investment and energy links, provide economic diversification and enhance resilience, while upholding labor rights and environmental protection.We will continue to support the implementation of the socio-economic and political reforms announced in the Central Asian countries. Throughout the region, we support the expansion of civic and political participation, the strengthening of the rule of law, and the safeguarding of human rights.30. AfghanistanWe remain committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan. We condemn the continued and systemic abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Taliban, notably of the political, economic and social rights of women and girls, as well as the rights of members of ethnic and religious minorities. We deeply regret that the Taliban has taken no serious step to initiate an inclusive political process with fellow Afghans regarding the future of the country. Peace and stability in Afghanistan will require the establishment of an inclusive and representative political process which allows Afghanistan to fulfill its international obligations and includes full, equal, safe, and meaningful participation of Afghan women, upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms.We intend to remain vigilant against the risk of Afghanistan serving as a base for hosting or exporting terrorism to other countries.The safe and secure departure of all Afghans wishing to leave the country must be guaranteed, as well as humanitarian access and the possibility to effectively provide humanitarian aid.We support the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary General, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan.We are committed to the swift appointment of a UN Special Envoy in line with the recommendations of the UN’s Independent Assessment and as mandated by Security Council Resolution 2721.VII. COOPERATION WITH LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANStronger cooperation with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean is of paramount importance as we have common values and shared interests. We commit to further partner with the Region to address global challenges, including by protecting the international system based on international cooperation and international law, tackling natural disasters and climate change, countering transnational organized crime, and promoting trade and investments aimed at improving socio-economic resilience.31. HaitiWe express our solidarity to the Haitian population, which is suffering from unprecedented levels of gang violence. We reiterate our support to the ongoing international efforts aimed at strengthening public institutions and law enforcement, as well as combating criminal gangs, whose illegal activities have led to a marked deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation of the country.We encourage the international community to scale up its humanitarian support to the Haitian population. We note the urgent need to protect women and children in Haiti, who are suffering disproportionately from the recent and rapid escalation in violence.We welcome UNSCR 2699, authorizing the deployment of a Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission, in close cooperation and coordination with the Government of Haiti, to support the efforts of the Haitian National Police to re-establish security in Haiti and build security conditions conducive to holding free and fair elections. We commend the Government of Kenya for its readiness to lead the mission. Every effort should be made to expeditiously provide robust financial support to the mission so that it may deploy as soon as possible.  The people of Haiti cannot wait.We also welcome UNSCR 2700, which renews the sanctions regime for Haiti for an additional year. The sanctions regime promotes accountability by extending the territorial arms embargo and ability to sanction individuals and entities who are responsible for, or complicit in, actions that threaten the peace and security in Haiti.We commend the outcome of the CARICOM Summit held in Kingston, Jamaica, on March 11 and the commitment taken by Haitian stakeholders to implement an inclusive transitional governance arrangement.We support the ongoing efforts of the UN Integrated Office in Haiti and call on the political actors to bridge their differences and commit in a forward-looking, transparent, and fair national dialogue, which is essential to stabilize the Country.We reiterate the importance that the process to find lasting solutions to the ongoing security and humanitarian crisis be Haitian-led and owned.32. NicaraguaWe call on the Nicaraguan government to end its human rights violations as well as widespread repression and related violations and abuses against civil society, Indigenous Peoples, academics, students, the independent press, and political and religious actors.We urge authorities to release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners and abide by their international obligations. We condemn the closure of CSOs and the systematic attacks on religious institutions and organizations, including the Catholic Church and its ministers, many of whom have been arrested and then sent into exile, along with hundreds of political actors and civil society members – and moved to strip them of their citizenship.  We call on the Government to restore their citizenship under international conventions.We further call on the Nicaraguan Government to hold free and fair elections, allowing the members of the opposition to exercise their rights to the freedom of assembly, and to free speech.33. VenezuelaWe are deeply concerned about the ongoing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. We call on Venezuela to swiftly implement the Barbados Agreements of October 2023, with particular regard to electoral guarantees, and the deployment of international electoral observations missions in order to ensure free and fair elections.We are deeply worried by the recent decisions to prevent members of the opposition from exercising their core political rights and the continued detention and harassment of opposition members. We call for the immediate release of political prisoners still detained.We follow closely developments between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region and we demand Venezuela to refrain from destabilizing initiatives. The matter must be resolved in line with international law.
- Department Press Briefing – April 17, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 17, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 17, 2024																																																					April 17, 2024																																																								1:11 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. How’s everyone doing? Such a wonderful Wednesday. I don’t actually have anything off the top, Matt, so if you want to go ahead and kick us off.QUESTION: Sure. In Capri, is the Secretary &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah. Do you wish you were there?QUESTION: I do wish I was there, but I’m not.MR PATEL: Yeah, same all of us. We can all pretend to be in Capri. We’re here at the Daily Press Briefing instead.QUESTION: Does the Secretary, while he is there, plan to have any Mideast – other than the one group meeting with the G7 that’s about the Middle East, does he have any bilateral plans?MR PATEL: I don’t have any additional meetings to preview or get ahead of, Matt. But a veteran like yourself, who I’m sure has been to many G7 meetings, knows that many important diplomatic conversations happen on the margins, and our G7 partners continue to be important allies and partners when it comes to a lot of our goals when it comes to the conflict in Gaza right now – namely, continuing to press for additional humanitarian aid, doing everything we can to continue to secure the release of hostages, and also, in light of the events over this past weekend, continuing to support Israel’s security and self-defense. So I suspect there will be additional conversations on those topics but I don’t have anything to preview or get ahead of.QUESTION: Okay. And can you bring us up to speed on his – did he have any additional calls on the way?MR PATEL: No other – no additional calls to read out, no.QUESTION: There are not? Okay. And then lastly, what’s your latest understanding from the Israelis about what they intend or not intend to do?MR PATEL: So look, Matt, again I don’t have any updates or anything to offer on that. Ultimately, this is a decision for Israel to make. It’s their own decision. But we continue to be engaged with Israeli officials and members of the Israeli Government. To everyone, though, we continue to emphasize the importance of avoiding further escalation, and we’re working with partners in the region and around the world to continue to create a unified diplomatic response to Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay. Then, sorry, I said that the last one was the last one, but this really is the last one. Is – you’ve seen that both David Cameron and Baerbock, the German and British foreign ministers, were in Israel ahead of the Capri meeting.MR PATEL: Right.QUESTION: The Secretary has no plans to follow suit?MR PATEL: I have no travel updates to offer or preview at the moment.Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: David Cameron said it was clear Israel had made a decision to respond to the Iranian attack. Have you gotten a similar message?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the specifics on our diplomatic engagements with Israeli officials. What I can just say is that, again, these decisions are for Israel to make as a sovereign democratic country. We continue to be closely engaged with Israeli officials, but we also continue to stress the importance of further &#8212; escalation. The United States certainly isn’t interested in getting into an all-out conflict with the Iranian regime. But we’ll continue to work closely with partners and allies in the region, as you saw the Secretary do over the course of this past weekend and with the number of counterparts he spoke to about creating a unified diplomatic response to what we believe is Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior.QUESTION: What contingency plans does the U.S. have to contain the aftermath of any attack should Israel choose to attack?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals or speculate. What I can say, though, is that since October 7th, since the events of this past weekend, we have remained closely lashed up with partners and allies when it comes to events that unfold. This past weekend alone you all saw the call or readouts that went out, and Matt spoke to this a little bit on Monday. You saw the Secretary speak to his counterparts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt. He’s spoken to Israeli officials as well, and we’ll continue to have those high-level diplomatic engagements.QUESTION: Okay. And I’m sorry, I’ve just got two more.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The UN Security Council looks set to go on Friday on a Palestinian request for full UN membership. Diplomats tell us the resolution has the support of at least nine members. Does the U.S. plan to veto this?MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our UN vote. Broadly, though, Daphne, you know that the United States remains committed to a two-state solution, and we believe that the only comprehensive and realistic path to that is through lasting peace and through direct negotiations between the parties. But broadly, we’ll continue to remain engaged with colleagues on the Security Council and on any resolution that may or may not come forward.QUESTION: And then UNRWA has said that some of its staff members and other people detained by Israeli forces in Gaza were subjected to ill treatment, including severe beatings and being forced to strip naked. Have you been in touch with the Israeli Government on this? And what’s been their response if you have?MR PATEL: So we are aware of this recent report that the UN put out highlighting some of these allegations of extensive human rights abuses. We’re deeply concerned by these reports and will continue to press and engage directly with our Israeli partners on the need for a full investigation into these allegations, and accountability for any perpetrators. But beyond that, I don’t have any specific conversations to read out. We of course are in touch with our Israeli partners all the time.But broadly, though, we continue to call on all parties in the region, call on Israel, to do more to protect humanitarian aid workers, to improve deconfliction mechanisms, and to pursue full accountability for incidents of harm against aid workers.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Jenny.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on those deconfliction mechanisms, this coordination response? Is that fully stood up (inaudible)?MR PATEL: That is something our partners in the IDF can speak to. I don’t have any updates.QUESTION: And then do you have any updates on any of their other commitments and whether the U.S. has made any assessments on whether that’s sufficient to change U.S. policy?MR PATEL: So look, Jenny. Let me just first state broadly that we are encouraged by reports of increased assistance flowing into northern Gaza, bakeries reopening there, and other steps that we’re seeing of positive collaboration between partners and Israeli authorities that demonstrate the executions of some commitments that our partners in Israel have outlined. But – and I want to stress this – certainly we continue to believe that there is still a need for sustained, significant, multisectoral humanitarian assistance. We think it’s crucial, and more must be done. And as military operations continue, Israel needs to take all feasible steps to minimize civilian harm.So we’ll continue to press these things, but some metrics that you asked for – we have seen openings of northern crossings and seeing the maximization of routes from Jordan. We have also seen Erez reopened on April 14th, which allowed a number of trucks entering daily. We expect some further enhancements there as well. But again, I want to stress that while these are positive steps in the right direction, more absolutely needs to be done. There is – the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and that is why we are continuing to pursue an approach when it comes to humanitarian aid that includes bolstering and supporting and continuing to push for additional land convoy movements.You saw earlier in March us conduct a number of air drop operations. You’ve seen the Jordanians and others do similar things. And in the State of the Union, the President spoke about the maritime corridor as well. These are all things that we think need to be pursued aggressively given the dire situation, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: And any updates on Rafah?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on any conversations or anything.Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, just a follow-up on your statement earlier about the – your efforts to have a unified response – diplomatic response to Iran’s attack between you and your partners and allies.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is this designed to negate the need for Israel to respond militarily, or regardless of that?MR PATEL: So Israel is going to make its own decisions and its own determinations as a sovereign country. Irregardless of what transpires in that department, we continue to believe that it is important to hold the Iranian regime accountable for what we think is reckless, malign, and destabilizing behavior. You saw National Security Advisor Sullivan speak a little bit to this yesterday, and so we’ll continue to work directly through our systems, multilaterally through forums like the G7 that Matt was alluding to, the UN, and others on ways that we will hold the Iranian regime accountable.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On Thursday, April 11th, the State Department Spokesman Mr. Miller said the Biden administration fully supports the rights of the Israeli people. And for our audience, could you explain a disconnect between the Biden administration’s words and behavior, how on one hand that you can say you fully support the rights of the Israeli people, and on the other hand not fully support the rights of the Israeli people to defend themselves as they see fit? And I have a follow-up.MR PATEL: Do you have a specific example of how we are not encouraging them to defend themselves?QUESTION: Also specifically about not allowing them – or the issue of a counterattack against Iran. And not allowing them to easily go into Rafah to take care of Hamas, delaying this. Israel could have been into Rafah a long time ago. So the audience is really concerned about the disconnect about – that they see the Biden administration preventing Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Doc &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; from going into Rafah with these operations and &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; I’m going to interrupt you a little bit. I think you are in a – frankly, in a misleading way conflating two very different issues. One, in the context of Israel defending itself against attacks from Iran, we believe that they have every right to do that, and they should. And you saw the United States echo, underscore that commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense this past weekend. And that is a commitment we believe is unwavering and it is ironclad, and we will continue to feel and believe strongly in Israel’s ability to defend itself, in its ability to feel secure in its region.But separate from that, in this conversation of Rafah, it is important again that we underline when we’re talking about Rafah, we are talking about more than a million people seeking refuge. We are talking about a region that is – continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and it continues to be an access point of safe departure for foreign nationals.So yes, we believe very strongly that any military operation in Rafah or in the Rafah region should require significant serious planning that addresses these three major areas of concern. That continues to be something we feel strongly about.QUESTION: Along that, our audience (inaudible) are concerned about the pressure on Israel to accept the two-state solution that you were talking about. And so what is your response to our audience that really believes that is a way of hurting Israel when many Israeli people do not support a two-state solution, the idea of sharing their land with terrorists – specifically with Gaza, with Hamas – that Hamas blew their opportunity to really have a peaceful area there and so forth?MR PATEL: Well, I hope you’re not – I really sincerely hope you’re not making the claim that all Palestinian people are terrorists &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, no.MR PATEL: &#8212; because that certainly is not the case. And quite respectfully, I’m less interested in what your audience is interested in and more what we think is good policy and what we think is beneficial to peace and security in the region, and that, we have long felt continues to be a two-state solution. That has been our dire belief prior to the events of October 7th, and it will continue to be so. We think that that is the only credible path forward that assures equal measures of peace and security for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Well, along with that, what do you say to those people that feel pressured to accept that?MR PATEL: I’m going to move around. You’ve gotten three questions already. Will, you’ve your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry, (inaudible). Do you have any update on the investigation into what Israel actually hit in Damascus on April 1st?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on the status of that facility or anything like that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So you support a two-state solution. But it seems you’re also oppose Palestine’s membership at the UN? Do you think this is contradictory?MR PATEL: I don’t think these things are contradictory at all. Again, as it relates to the United Nations, I’m not going to preview our vote. And as I said, we’re continuing to engage with our partners on the Security Council. We remain unwaveringly committed to a two-state solution and continue to feel that the only path forward is a comprehensive lasting peace, is going to be through direct negotiations between the parties. And that continues to be what we think is the best path forward.QUESTION: And when you say a two-state solution, is it like a – is it a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital? What is your understanding of the two-state solution?MR PATEL: So I don’t have a change in definition of how we have been talking about a two-state solution. We’ve been talking about this as a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and of course, the state of Israel, with the boundaries bounded by 1967, I believe mutually agreed upon land swaps as well, with the status of Jerusalem being a final-status negotiation issue.QUESTION: Just one more on Türkiye.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any readout of &#8212;MR PATEL: On Türkiye, you just said?QUESTION: On Türkiye, yeah.MR PATEL: Yeah. Okay.QUESTION: Any readout of Under Secretary John Bass’ travel to Türkiye?MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t, but I’m happy to check and see if we’ve got any additional information there. I know, just to say broadly, Türkiye has been an important partner of ours in a number of key lines of efforts acting Under Secretary Bass – as you all know, used to be ambassador to Türkiye. So he has a lot of deep and close relationships there. I have no doubt that he’s engaging on some important issues, whether it relates to peace and stability in the Middle East but also continuing to engage with our partners in Türkiye on issues relating to NATO and Ukraine.Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions. I have one on Haiti and one on &#8212;MR PATEL: Can we stay in the region and I can try to come back to you?QUESTION: Yeah, I have one for – I have one for the West Bank as well.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: I keep asking this question and trying to rephrase it in regards to the Palestinian Authority. Within the jurisdiction of Area A, does the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian law enforcement have the right to arrest settlers that are attacking Palestinian homes or Palestinians?MR PATEL: That’ll be – that’s a question I would better refer you to the PA and officials within COGAT. I don’t want to get into the specifics of jurisdiction and that level of detail from up here.Go ahead, Jacob.QUESTION: Earlier today, Israel’s COGAT published footage of what it said are contents of 700 trucks worth of humanitarian aid that is sitting on the Gaza side of Kerem Shalom crossing waiting to be delivered. COGAT said it has scaled up its capabilities over the past several weeks, but that the UN has failed to deliver its job in delivering aid. Ambassador Satterfield said last week that the biggest obstacle at this point is UN international agencies bringing more trucks into Gaza in order to distribute the aid. So where does this stand? The U.S. regularly does urge Israel to boost its aid efforts, but are you willing to call on the UN also to improve its capabilities to deliver this aid that’s piling up on the Gaza side of the border.MR PATEL: Look, broadly, the distribution of aid within Gaza continues to be something that we’re working closely on with partners in the UN and partners in other additional humanitarian organizations. That’s something we’re going to continue to work with them closely on because it’s a priority. I don’t have any updates to offer on immediate steps that have been taken publicly, but we think that that’s an important thing that needs to be addressed, and we’ll work closely continuing with the UN.Go ahead.QUESTION: So related to that &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Biden has ordered this pier and it’s going to be set up in the next couple of weeks. Is the State Department confident that you’re going to find the aid groups willing to unload that gear and that – those aid supplies and distribute it?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the process here, but look, when it comes to the distribution of aid within Gaza, we have found partners who have been willing to engage, willing to play a role in the disseminating of that aid, particularly – as Jacob was speaking to – making sure that that aid gets from places like warehouses to its end points within Gaza, and have no doubt that we will continue to be able to find partners to cooperate with when it comes to the maritime corridor. But I don’t want to get ahead of this process.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, do you have any comments on the escalation of fighting between Hizballah and Israel? And do you expect this conflict to be broadened?MR PATEL: We would hope and encourage not, Michel. At every corner, we have stressed our strong desire and importance of making sure that this conflict isn’t widened. We’ve made that clear to our partners in Israel and to other regional interlocutors, and we’ll continue to do so.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: On the region or anything &#8212;QUESTION: If we can switch to &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me stay on the region before I move away.Sam, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. Euro-Med Monitor, human rights monitor, reports that Israel is using drones to lure residents and then shoot them. They explain the sounds of women screaming and babies crying were heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday. When some of the residents went out to investigate and tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli – quadcopter drones. The sounds they heard were in fact records played by the Israeli drones with the intent of forcing the camp residents out into the streets where they could be easily targeted by snipers and other weaponry.MR PATEL: I have not – I have not seen that report, Sam, so I’m not going to comment on it. But broadly – not relating to this particular circumstance at all – because, again, I haven’t seen the report and I’m not sure if it’s accurate or verifiable – at every conversation that we have with our partners in Israel, we continue to stress the moral and strategic imperative that they have to work on deconfliction mechanisms and to ensure that civilian harm is minimized in every which-way possible. And we’ll continue to stress that every way we can.Go ahead.QUESTION: Will you look at this report?MR PATEL: I’m sure we’ll look at this report, Sam. I don’t have any comment for it – on it right now.QUESTION: Do you recognize &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; the Geneva Conventions as applying in this instance?MR PATEL: I’ve answered your question, Sam.QUESTION: No, you haven’t.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: You’ve evaded it, and your colleague deceitfully responded to it. Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: It’s a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions as applying to Gaza?MR PATEL: When you interrupt me that’s not – it’s not a matter of &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not interrupting you. I’m asking for a simple &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to take additional questions.QUESTION: &#8212; simple answer to a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead. You got two questions. I’m &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s totally – no, I didn’t get two questions.MR PATEL: You did. You &#8212;QUESTION: No.MR PATEL: You asked a question about your report &#8212;QUESTION: I asked a question and you didn’t (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; and you asked a follow-up. Please go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’re not – you’re refusing to answer it.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Gaza or not?MR PATEL: Go &#8212;QUESTION: Apply to everywhere on the planet except for the Palestinians; isn’t that right?MR PATEL: We continue &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t that U.S. policy?MR PATEL: &#8212; to stress everywhere – at everywhere that international humanitarian law &#8212;QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: &#8212; needs to be abided by and respected.Go ahead.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: You are now interrupting your colleague. Go ahead.QUESTION: No, I’m interrupting you – I’m not interrupting you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: I’m insisting on an answer to a critical question.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the sanctions &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, so you’re deceiving the American public?QUESTION: &#8212; against Iran. I’d like to ask about the sanctions against Iran.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just broadly speaking, what impact do you think they’ll have? And then I’m just curious – given all of Iran’s bad actions in the past, I was almost surprised that there was room left for any new sanctions. Why is there room left for more sanctions?MR PATEL: So it’s important to take a step back and talk about our sanctions and export controls on Iran in a little bit of a wider context going back to the onset of this administration. It’s important to remember that we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran. Rather, we continue to increase pressure, and our extensive sanctions on Iran remain in place, and we continue to enforce them. And over the last three years, we have actually sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities connected to the full range of Iran’s problematic and dangerous behavior, touching the areas of UAV and missile proliferation, terrorism, terrorist financing, and other forms of illicit trade and human rights abuses.But this is something that we are also going to continue to work closely with our allies and partners, including at the G7, on ways that we can continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime. We believe that our sanctions are effective. They are a way to continue to isolate countries and to exert pressure on them as it relates to their behavior.QUESTION: And the impact on the new sanctions?MR PATEL: Look, I’m not going to preview any additional actions from here, but we continue to believe that should there even additionally be new sanctions that, that continues to be a lever at our disposal to continue to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions.QUESTION: So Vedant, it’s just not true that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran. I went through this with Matt the other day. Shortly after this administration came into office, you did lift restrictions on – sanctions on Iranian diplomats travel inside – when they go to the UN.MR PATEL: I think your colleague was speaking about sanctions in the context of designating entities and individuals connected to the Iranian regime, not necessarily parameters that exist around diplomats in the United States.QUESTION: And that &#8212;MR PATEL: I take your point, Matt. But I think &#8212;QUESTION: And then &#8212;MR PATEL: I think that &#8212;QUESTION: Well, so – but it’s not then true to say that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran, because you have.MR PATEL: I &#8212;QUESTION: And then secondly, you have also – you also allowed several UN sanctions to expire. Now, you guys can put as many sanctions as you want in place against Iran, but they don’t have any impact outside of the U.S. jurisdiction; it doesn’t – there’s no requirement for other countries to follow suit, even when they involve secondary sanctions. So the arms embargo and the missile sanctions from the UN were allowed – they were allowed to expire, correct?MR PATEL: That is – that is – are you talking about the ones in – from August 2020?QUESTION: That were in the JCPOA.MR PATEL: Yeah, correct.QUESTION: They – right. So they expired.MR PATEL: That is correct.QUESTION: So those sanctions, the international sanctions, the UN sanctions, the one that the entire world, everyone in the world is supposed to follow, were in fact lifted. They expired. Correct?MR PATEL: Well, I think there’s a difference between lifting and expiring, but sure, Matt. There is; there’s a technical difference.QUESTION: What?MR PATEL: There is a technical difference between sanctions expiring or sunsetting versus actively making the policy decision to lift certain sanctions.QUESTION: The point is that you could have made an active policy decision on snapback, which would have kept those sanctions in place.MR PATEL: And that is a – that’s a mechanism, the snapback mechanism hasn’t expired, Matt. And it remains in place and it’s an available option.QUESTION: But it hasn’t been used. And in fact, those two things &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview actions from here.QUESTION: Those two things expired. In other words, you allowed them to be lifted, to expire. So it’s a bit disingenuous to say expiring isn’t the same as lifting.MR PATEL: I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. I don’t think – as I said, snapback is a mechanism that &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; continues to remain in place. And again, I think your colleague was referring to sanctions and restrictions in the context of – in the economic sense, not travel restrictions we may have on diplomats, which &#8212;QUESTION: That’s fine, but the way you answered his question &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; Matt touched on a little bit yesterday.QUESTION: &#8212; is we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran, and that’s not true.MR PATEL: Well, we can agree to disagree.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant – shift into a different region, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure. Anything else in the region before we totally shift away?QUESTION: Yeah, in the region.MR PATEL: Are you sure on the region?QUESTION: Yes, yes.MR PATEL: You positive?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Yeah, my question is – sorry – so my question is that there was any – was there any conversation between U.S. diplomats and Chinese diplomats or Russian diplomats about the conflicts between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: Well, you saw the Secretary had a phone conversation with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on the tail end of last week in which – Matt spoke a little bit about this last week as well – in which we continued to stress with them through their means of communicating with the Iranian regime that no one was interested in seeing this conflict escalate. And we’ll continue to have those conversations with appropriate interlocutors.QUESTION: How about Russia?MR PATEL: I don’t have any conversations to read out.QUESTION: A follow-up, sorry. So there are reports – Wall Street Journal reported that the Iranian regime has evacuated their bases in Syria. So is there an indication that Israeli Government might attack some targets outside Iran?MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment on what our partners in Israel may or may not do.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So Benjamin Netanyahu testified to the U.S. Congress in 2002 – this is before we invaded Iraq – and he said, quote, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam Hussein is seeking, and is working, and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons.” He then went on to say he was hiding nuclear facilities underground. We now know this was a lie, one that many U.S. servicemembers and innocent Iraqis paid the price for. Netanyahu in that same congressional hearing goes on to say, “Obviously, we would like to see&#8230;regime change – at least, I would&#8230;in Iran&#8230;The question now is&#8230;what is the best  to proceed.  not a question of whether  like to see regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.”So my two questions for you are, one, how can we trust somebody who goaded our country into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? And two, given this weekend’s events, why are we confident he won’t do the same thing with Iran given he’s been calling for us to enact regime change in that country for 20 years?MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but – so let me just say a couple things. First, as it relates to Prime Minister Netanyahu, this is somebody who the President has a close working relationship with. It’s something – someone that the Secretary has a close working relationship with. But broadly, beyond any immediate official or individual in the Israeli Government, our partnership, our relationship with Israel, our commitment to its self-defense and our commitment to its security, transcends any government in Israel. It transcends any government in the United States, and it’s a relationship that has pursued and persisted over the course of the – of various political parties and presidents.Number two, as it relates to the Iranian regime, let me just be clear and unequivocal about this: We condemn in the strongest terms its reckless and irresponsible attacks from over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay, but you – one individual, Netanyahu, is the head of the entire Israeli Government. And when – you might condemn those, but there’s a difference between condemning those actions and the U.S. getting roped into a war with Iran.MR PATEL: The United States is not interested in entering an all-out conflict with Iran. We’ve been incredibly clear about that.Go &#8212;QUESTION: Even if they strike Israel?MR PATEL: We have been very clear about our commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense. We’ve also been clear that we will not be participating in any offensive operation, but our commitment to its security and self-defense has – is ironclad.QUESTION: If I may ask on Georgia?MR PATEL: On Jordan?QUESTION: Georgia?MR PATEL: Georgia? Okay, I’m going to – people are – Michel, do you have anything on the region before we move away?QUESTION: Any role that Russia is playing between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: That’s a question for the Russian Federation. I’m not &#8212;QUESTION: But are you aware of that?MR PATEL: I’m not – none that I can speak of or that I’m aware of.QUESTION: Region?MR PATEL: Go ahead. You already got a bunch of questions. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Ukraine, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Russian missiles hit a hospital in Chernihiv this morning. They killed more than – actually 15, almost, and more than 60 were injured. What does it tell you about the state of play on the ground? And how under stress do you think the Ukrainian military is?MR PATEL: This is, Alex, another example of a horrific Russian missile attack, this time on downtown Chernihiv in northern Ukraine, which is only about a two-hour drive from the capital, Kyiv. Approximately 16 people were killed, more than 600 injured, including children, and missiles destroyed residential buildings, a hospital. The images from these attacks are horrifying, but it also, Alex, beyond – to take a step back from the immediate, it underscores the need of passing the national security supplemental. Our support for our Ukrainian partners we believe can continue to make a difference in this conflict. It can save lives, but the House of Representatives needs to act now.QUESTION: Thank you. Staying to – in Russia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There are reports that Russians are – they have started moving their forces/troublemakers, if you want, out of Azerbaijan and to be deployed in Ukraine. What do you know? And what do you think about its implications in both the South Caucasus and &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Alex, as you know, we were not party to the negotiated trilateral arrangement that ended the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 and established Russian troops in that region. Frankly, we’ve not seen anything to indicate that Russia’s military was contributing to a more peaceful and stable South Caucasus region, and the events in Nagorno-Karabakh over the course of this past fall are pretty indicative of that point, and it’s another highlight or example of how Russia is not a trustworthy ally or partner.But beyond that, we strongly support efforts by Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a durable and dignified peace, and we stand ready to continue to help facilitate this process.Ben, go ahead. I’m going to work the room, Alex.QUESTION: Please come back to me later on.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. If I could follow up on a question that was asked yesterday about China supporting Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: Matt said the U.S. is very concerned, that this would be on the G7 agenda, but I was wondering if you could provide any more detail, particularly what the U.S. is doing in response to Chinese support for Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, Ben. So let me say a couple things on that. We believe that the PRC is supporting Russia’s war effort, and it’s doing so by helping ramp up its defense production. Specifically, the PRC is providing Russia with significant quantities of machine tools, microelectronics, optics, UAVs and cruise missile technology, and nitrocellulose, which Russia uses to make propellants for weapons. Together, we think that these materials are filling critical gaps in Russia’s defense production cycle, helping revitalize Russia’s defense industrial base, which had otherwise suffered significant setbacks due to sanctions and export controls from the United States, from our partners and allies.This kind of support is actively enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine, and it poses a significant threat to European security. We’ve raised these concerns with the PRC through diplomatic channels, including through recent conversations at the leaders level, and we’ve been briefing our allies and partners on our concerns over the past few weeks. And we issued an executive order targeting third-country banks that facilitate support to the Russian defense industrial base, we’ve sanctioned relevant firms in the PRC, and are prepared to take further steps as necessary. Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. A few humanist questions – international, yes.MR PATEL: Let’s keep it to less than a few. We’ve got a couple other people who have their hands up.QUESTION: I will stop – I’ll stop whenever you tell me to.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: My first question is about these two gentlemen. One of them is very dear to America, and he has my last name as well. His name is Dr. Shakil Afridi. I feel like because of lack of diplomatic courage the Pakistani ambassador has in Washington D.C., the guy has spent 15 years over there. Pakistani lady in the U.S., Aafia Siddiqui, has spent 25 years. I had a father who spent nine and a half years on a fake case. I just personally have sympathies with these prisoners who have spent – and internationally – so, like, keep the – U.S. policy aside, just from humanitarian point of view, why can’t these two people be exchanged?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer on this. This seems like an internal judicial matter as it relates to Pakistan’s justice system, so would defer to them to speak to that.QUESTION: But the U.S. justice system – the U.S. justice system can get that Shakil Afridi guy here. He has spent 15 years – life imprisonment is (inaudible) years in Pakistan, so the guy has spent his life in &#8212;MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay. One more question, sir. A girl from Utah, Crystal Bayat, even tweeted this today. I have raised this issue here a gazillion times. You have half of the population of country of Afghanistan, where girls since the U.S. withdrawal are without education. Why did you not just leave them in front of the vultures to be eaten? Today a girl was sold for $3,500 to a 60-year-old man. If the U.S. has taken – at least I know these steps cannot be stopped at the moment, but for future of girls, for the ones that are going to come in future, what has the U.S. done &#8212;MR PATEL: So if &#8212;QUESTION: What has the U.S. done in these last three years since its withdrawal?MR PATEL: Equal rights for Afghan women and girls continues to be a key tenet of our Afghanistan policy, and we continue to reiterate regularly, through relevant channels, with the Taliban that their self-stated goal of legitimacy can only be achieved – and will likely be impossible to achieve if half of their population is being left out of participating in its society, participating in its economy. It continues to be a key factor of our approach to Afghanistan policy, and it’s something that we’ll continue to work towards.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Just last one about journalism.MR PATEL: No, I’m going to work the room. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just journalism. You’ll like this one (inaudible). You’ll like this one.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’ll like this one. Journalists becoming – today &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay. If you ask a question, though, you do this, like, wind-up thing –QUESTION: Yes. Today Time Magazine has – today Time Magazine has a journalist, Palestinian journalist, as 100 more influential people. No country in the world protects and talk about journalists like the U.S. We have a Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif, got killed, and we still don’t know who killed him. It’s been two years now. Can the U.S. – can you personally take some interest in the case, or at least let us finally know who killed the guy?MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly that we believe strongly that journalism is integral to our society and journalists do important work, and especially in active conflict zones they – every step possible needs to be taken for them to be protected. But I don’t have much else on that circumstance that you laid out.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Daphne, you had your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So we’ve seen on social media that the U.S. embassy received a letter from Chad’s government requesting troop withdrawal. Can you confirm this?MR PATEL: The U.S. embassy in Chad? I’m happy to check on that. I’ve not seen that since I came out, but we’re happy to check with the team and see if there’s anything to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And, sorry &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Really quick, yea. Vote counting is set to begin tomorrow in the Solomon Islands for parliamentary election, the first since the prime minister struck a security pact with China in 2022. Do you have any indication yet on how these elections have been conducted?MR PATEL: I don’t have an assessment to offer yet, and I think we will let the process play out before we have any assessment to offer. Goyal, go ahead. I’ll come to you, then I’ll come to you, and then we will wrap. Go ahead, Goyal.QUESTION: Yes, sir. Two questions, please, different two questions. One, as far as the United Nations are concerned, does the U.S. or the Secretary have faith and trust in the UN? Because recently, Mr. Elon Musk said that there is no meaning of having UN without India’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.MR PATEL: So the President has spoken about this before in his remarks to the UN General Assembly. The Secretary has alluded to this as well. We certainly support reforms to the UN institution, including the Security Council, to make it reflective of the 21st century world that we live in. I don’t have any specifics to offer on what those steps are, but certainly we recognize that there is need for reform. But I will leave it at that for now. Go ahead.QUESTION: And second, sir – please, I’m sorry.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: As far as this UN-IMF and World Bank meetings are concerned in Washington, D.C., how does the U.S. diplomacy’s affecting around the globe with the other countries? Because poor people are getting more poorer and also their aids they get from the World Bank and IMF not reaching the needy people around the globe, and because it goes to the corrupt politicians or the military people. How can you – you think it can be worked for those needy around the globe?MR PATEL: There are a number of countries that are engaging directly with the IMF as it relates to the economies within their own systems. In those instances, we believe it’s appropriate to be engaging with the IMF. I don’t have any specifics to offer beyond that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Let me come to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday Haiti’s Government named the members of the transitional council set to take power at some point.MR PATEL: Uh-huh, yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on this? And do you think that they can restore security in Haiti?MR PATEL: Well, we welcome the announcement of the establishment of the transitional presidential council, and we commend stakeholders in Haiti for moving toward democratic governance through free and fair elections. A lot of work lies ahead, specifically, naming an interim prime minister, but we are committed to work with members of this council, CARICOM, as well as other appropriate regional partners to improve the lives of all Haitians.Go ahead.QUESTION: The House has scheduled a vote on foreign aid for Saturday; that includes aid to Ukraine, which has been long delayed. You talk a little about the importance of that aid coming through for Ukraine. But tell us: How much damage has been done by the lengthy delay in Congress to the Ukrainian war effort? Because the Russians have made significant advances over the past several months.MR PATEL: Well, Alex raised this issue and opened up this topic by talking about a missile attack from the Russians. So it certainly would not be hyperbole to say that every day matters, and the House, we believe, needs to act this week to support Ukraine and Israel as they respectively defend against Putin and the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime. And so this is something that we need Congress to provide urgently.There is also, when we’re talking about the national security supplemental, talking about things like humanitarian assistance and efforts to strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific – these are all things that are of vital importance to the – our foreign policy and the national security interests of the American people. You had a question on Georgia. Go ahead.QUESTION: We witnessed a horrific violence in Georgia yesterday by the riot police against peaceful protests, journalists and opposition leaders. Today another protest is taking place against the Russia law, and there is an expectation that police will – and government will use force again. What message do you have for Georgia and Georgian people?MR PATEL: You’re speaking about the protests around the draft law? Yeah. So we remain deeply concerned that this draft legislation, if enacted, could stigmatize civil society organizations working to improve the lives of Georgians citizens and media organizations operating within the – within Georgia to provide information to Georgian citizens. We think that civil society, journalism, media organizations, are cornerstones to any democratic society. And we urge the Georgian Government to heed warnings that this bill is not in line with the European Union’s norms and values, and it certainly would negatively impact Georgia’s progress on its EU path.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;QUESTION: Just very quickly. Just very quickly.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) passed the first hearing today with 83 votes. And you’re – just repeated some – same thing that Matt told us previously, that you would hope that it will not go forward.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So I understand there were meetings between the U.S. ambassador and Western ambassadors and the Russian prime minister. Is diplomacy – your efforts diplomatically – is dead here, or is it just another bump on the road?MR PATEL: We never think diplomacy is dead, Alex. So again, we will continue to urge and reiterate the – with the Georgian Government our dire concerns of this kind of legislation, and heed the warnings that this kind of legislative – this kind of legislation, sorry, is not in line with the EU’s norms and values, which would certainly negatively impact Georgia’s stated goal to eventually become party to the European Union.QUESTION: But they also pushed an amendment of tax law today, a separate process, that will allow them to transfer the frozen – their assets from abroad. Clearly, they’re preparing for hedging – they’re trying to avoid sanctions, potential sanctions, here. Aren’t you too late to use the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this other piece of legislation, Alex, but I’m happy to check for you.Matt.QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I just want to go back to something that was raised a little bit earlier. Can you ask – can you find out from L or from whomever if the United States believes that the Geneva Conventions apply universally – in other words, to everywhere on the planet as – and also the same question on the Vienna Conventions? And obviously, the question before was about whether Geneva Conventions apply in Gaza, but then specifically it would be whether the Vienna Convention applies in Syria. Or are there – or do you – does the administration think that there are certain exemptions to these conventions? That’s &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: I don’t expect you to have an answer, but maybe you could &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Matt, let me just – let me close out by saying that I will echo again what I – when I – when responding to your colleague that it is our sincere belief that international humanitarian law needs to be abided by everywhere. And that continues to be the policy we’ll pursue.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Alright, thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)# # #60 ↑						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Chad																								China																								Georgia																								Haiti																								Iran																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Solomon Islands																								Ukraine
- Afghanistan HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Afghanistan				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: Afghanistan																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																											i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	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																																																																											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																																																																																	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				The United States has not decided whether to recognize the Taliban or any other entity as the government of Afghanistan or as part of such a government. All references to “the pre-August 2021 government” refer to the Republic-era government of Afghanistan. References to the Taliban in this report do not denote or imply that the United States recognizes the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan.There was significant deterioration in women’s rights during the year due to edicts that further restricted access to education and employment, with a net result that women were increasingly confined to domestic roles. No decree or directive pertaining to women and girls’ education, or work, was reversed or softened. The Taliban did not purport to formally change existing laws as legislated by the Republic-era government; however, they promulgated edicts that contradicted those laws and were inconsistent with Afghanistan’s obligations under international conventions.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: killings; severe physical abuse; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; unjust detentions and abductions, including disappearances; serious problems with independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses of a relative; serious abuses in a conflict, including widespread civilian deaths or harm, disappearances and abductions, and severe physical abuse; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by the Taliban; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including detentions of and violence against journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; restrictions on religious freedom; restrictions on freedom of movement and residence and on the right to leave the country; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious corruption; serious restrictions on and harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic and intimate partner violence, sexual violence, child, early, and forced marriage, and other harmful practices; substantial barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of ethnic and religious minority groups (Hazara, Sikh, Shia, Salafi, Ahmadi, Hindu, and Christian groups); trafficking in persons, including forced labor; existence and enforcement of laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct; crimes involving violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; significant restrictions on workers’ freedom of association; and the existence of the worst forms of child labor.There was widespread disregard for the rule of law and official impunity for those responsible for human rights abuses. The Taliban and ISIS-K reportedly engaged in child recruitment and used child soldiers younger than 12 during the year. Armed groups threatened, robbed, kidnapped, and attacked foreigners, medical and nongovernmental organization workers, and other civilians. Members of the Taliban reportedly killed persons in retaliation for their association with the pre-August 2021 government.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were numerous reports that Taliban and ISIS-K members committed arbitrary and unlawful killings, many as retaliation against officials associated with the pre-August 2021 government, according to reports published by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, and multiple human rights groups. ISIS-K targeted the Taliban in an effort to undermine stability in the country. ISIS-K also disproportionately targeted Hazara community members who were predominantly followers of the Shia branch of Islam.In its report, A barrier to securing peace:  HR violations against former government officials &amp; former armed force members, UNAMA documented at least 800 human rights violations against former government officials and members of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) between the Taliban takeover in August 2021 and June 30. The report focused on killings, enforced disappearances, unjust arrests and detentions, severe physical abuse and ill-treatment, and threats experienced by former government officials and ANDSF members. Cases were only included in overall figures where UNAMA obtained multiple credible reports that a member or members of the Taliban were responsible for the incident.There were credible reports that Taliban security personnel arbitrarily killed civilians in Panjshir and Baghlan provinces, allegedly as collective punishment against communities where the National Resistance Front (NRF) armed opposition group was active. UNAMA also recorded cases in which former government officials were arrested or detained on accusations of affiliation with the NRF. In many of these instances, relatives or victims themselves said that the allegations were false and that the primary reason for their arrest was their affiliation with the pre-August 2021 government.On January 12, the Taliban reportedly raided the houses of two well-known tribal elders, Pahlwan Yasin, and a civilian known as Farid, in Baghlan’s Khost District and arrested both under charges of having association and collaboration with the NRF. The Taliban reportedly shot and killed both men after torturing them.The Taliban did not publicize efforts to hold its “police” or militia accountable for these abuses despite the Taliban’s commitment issued in August 2021, and repeated publicly numerous times during the year, to a “general amnesty” for former government officials and members of the ANDSF.																																				b. Disappearance										The Taliban were responsible for enforced disappearances. UNAMA documented at least 14 instances of enforced disappearance of former government officials and ANDSF members. On 2 October 2021, Alia Azizi, former head of the Women’s Prison in Herat Province, did not return home from work and as of August her whereabouts remained unknown. Despite reportedly initiating an investigation into her disappearance, the Taliban had not publicly released any information regarding her whereabouts. In January, Taliban personnel returned the dead body of a former Afghan National Army member whom Taliban security forces had arrested from his home in Kabul three months earlier. His family had no knowledge of his whereabouts and no contact with him following his arrest.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										Although the 2004 constitution prohibited such practices, there were numerous reports of severe physical abuse attributed to the Taliban and ISIS-K. UNAMA reported that punishments carried out by the Taliban included beatings, floggings, stonings, amputations, and executions.In its September report on the treatment of detainees in the country, UNAMA documented 466 credible instances of physical abuse and other forms of ill-treatment in custody, including 259 instances involving acts causing physical suffering and 207 instances involving acts causing mental suffering. UNAMA also documented the deaths of 18 individuals while in custody of police, the so-called General Directorate for Intelligence (GDI), or prison.Between November 13, 2022, and April 30, UNAMA documented at least 43 instances of court-ordered corporal punishment ordered by Taliban-appointed judges. Within the 43 instances, 58 women, 274 men and two male children were lashed for a variety of offenses, including zina (defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman outside of marriage), running away from home, theft, homosexuality, consuming alcohol, fraud, and drug trafficking. In general, punishments consisted of 30-39 lashes per convicted person. As many as 100 lashes were reportedly given in some cases. In a number of incidents, the Taliban publicly announced punishments via social media platforms (namely X, formerly known as Twitter.) These announcements included accounts of the Supreme Court, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, and the spokesperson for the so-called provincial governor of Kandahar).On August 12, the Daily Etilaatroz reported a man and a woman were flogged 39 times each at a sports stadium in northern Jawzjan Province for committing adultery. Maulvi Abdul Ghani Saeed, the head of the appellate court, called the implementation of the Sharia punishment in the society a “lesson for the people” and necessary to reduce crimes. Local officials, security officials, ethnic elders, religious scholars, and hundreds of residents reportedly watched the punishment.Impunity was a significant problem among Taliban “police” and militia. The Taliban did not establish a formal system of accountability for abuses or killings. No independent organization was allowed to investigate abuses and killings in the country.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening due to inadequate food and hygiene supplies and physical abuse for adults and juveniles. According to a UN report covering the period between January 1, 2022, and July 31, UNAMA documented more than 1,600 human rights violations by the Taliban relating to the arrest and subsequent detention of individuals, of which 11 percent involved women. Just less than 50 percent of these comprised acts of physical abuse and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.Abusive Physical Conditions: The Pul-e-Charkhi prison in Kabul reportedly had poor conditions including overcrowding and inadequate access to water, sanitation, sufficient and quality food, and medical services. The International Committee of the Red Cross reportedly provided three meals per day for up to 12,000 inmates in 2022. While humanitarian organizations donated blankets, shawls, jackets, and socks to keep prisoners warm during the winter, the Taliban reported that at least 120 prisoners died from cold weather in January.Administration: In its September 2022 report on the treatment of detainees in the country, UNAMA determined that the Office of Prison Administration (OPA) lacked the resources to meet the basic needs or conditions of detention for the incarcerated population for prolonged periods and called on the Taliban to consider developing guidelines providing for an alternative to detention pending investigation and trial, particularly for those individuals accused of petty or nonviolent offenses.The Ministry of Interior, the so-called GDI, and OPA maintained a dialogue with UNAMA on allegations of human rights abuses brought to their attention by UNAMA, and on matters of detention, including the prevention of physical abuse. During the year, UNAMA conducted several awareness raising sessions on international standards for prison wardens and guards, including on the prohibition of physical abuse and prevention of mistreatment of detainees, and the use of force. These were welcomed by chiefs of police and the OPA, acknowledging the need and utility of these sessions.According to UNAMA, the OPA granted UNAMA access to prisons across the country and facilitated UNAMA engagements with prison administrators in the provinces.There was no further credible reporting on whether the Taliban investigated mistreatment, allowed visitors, or permitted religious observance.Independent Monitoring: UNAMA reported difficulty accessing detention facilities when it arrived unannounced. In May 2022 the Taliban ended independent prison monitoring in the country by closing the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The 2004 constitution prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. The Taliban generally did not observe these requirements. The Taliban reportedly frequently detained citizens arbitrarily without a clear legal basis and without regard to substantive or procedural legal protections. Local Taliban “police” reportedly detained persons capriciously on charges without a clear connection to any law.In a September 2023 report on the treatment of detainees, UNAMA found that the systematic violation of a detainee’s right to access a lawyer, and to challenge the legality of detention before a court while in the custody of the Interior Ministry and so-called GDI resulted in unjust and prolonged detention, frequently concluding without charges and judicial process. In almost all cases, arrests and detentions carried out by the Taliban were unjust because there was no clear connection to law, individuals were not informed of the reasons for their arrest or charges they were facing, pretrial detentions were lengthy, and detainees were not afforded access to legal counsel.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Arbitrary Arrest: Despite the general amnesty announced by the Taliban in August 2021, there were widespread reports of unjust detentions for lengthy periods of individuals associated with the pre-August 2021 government.On August 11, the Afghan Independent Journalists Union expressed concern over the arrest of Habibullah Sarab, an independent reporter for Ariana TV in Paktia, Jan Agha Saleh, and Faqir Mohammad Faqirzai, reporters from Kilid Radio in Nangarhar. It claimed the Taliban provided no reason for arresting the three journalists.Pretrial Detention: The 2004 constitution provided defendants the right to object to their pretrial detention and receive a court hearing on the matter. Nevertheless, lengthy pretrial detention was the norm.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The 2004 constitution provided for an independent judiciary, but the Taliban did not respect judicial independence. The Taliban replaced most judges with new ones not formally educated regarding the country’s legal system. In November 2022, the Taliban issued a decree placing the Afghanistan Independent Bar Association under the control of the Ministry of Justice, effectively stripping all lawyers and judges of their independence. Defense lawyers reported they were frequently unable to access clients in detention facilities and were often sidelined during court proceedings. In a joint statement issued on January 20, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Margret Satterthwaite and UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan Richard Bennett noted, “currently in Afghanistan, there are no standardized procedures or substantive statutes in criminal or civil matters that police, judges, or lawyers can follow.” They added, “laws and rules concerning legal procedure, judicial appointment, and procedures for fair trials, which were implemented by the previous government, were suspended. The result is a no-longer independent, all-male system implementing the Taliban’s version of Sharia law, and a human rights catastrophe.”																Trial Procedures						The 2004 constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, but the judiciary did not enforce this right. Criminal defendants were denied the rights to a presumption of innocence; to be informed promptly of the charges; to a fair, timely, and public trial; to be present at their trial; to communicate with an attorney of their choice; to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense; to receive the free assistance of an interpreter; to confront prosecution witnesses and present one’s own witnesses and evidence; not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt; and to appeal. After August 2021, the Taliban changed the structure of the court system, removed judges across the country, replaced them with graduates of Taliban-run madrassahs, effectively religious schools, reduced the size of decision-making panels in trials, and eradicated the family court system. They also changed trial procedures to reduce the number of proceedings and eliminated the appeals process.The Taliban largely did not uphold the 2004 constitution but did not release a new constitution to replace it, thereby rendering judicial proceedings opaque and arbitrary. Speaking at an August 16 press conference in Kabul, the so-called minister of justice claimed that the 2004 constitution was not Islamic, and that the Taliban was working to formulate a new constitution that aligned with “core Islamic principles.”						Political Prisoners and Detainees						The Taliban detained pre-August 2021 government officials, individuals they alleged spied for the pre-August 2021 government, and individuals they alleged or were affiliated with the pre-August 2021 government.Despite multiple public statements by Taliban leaders referring to the August 2021 general amnesty, there were numerous reports throughout the year of the Taliban detaining or killing individuals associated with the pre-August 2021 government. Credible sources estimated that as much as 90 percent of all prisoners were political prisoners.On March 23, the Taliban imprisoned Matiullah Wesa, founder of the nonprofit organization Pen Path and a vocal activist who campaigned for the education of girls for more than a decade. He was released after seven months of detention.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										There were many reports of the Taliban forcibly evicting or allowing the forced eviction of Hazara families from their land. In August, Hazara homes in Uruzgan Province were reportedly burned, fruit trees cut down, and pasture lands confiscated. According to a prominent Hazara figure, at least 13 Hazara residents in a village in the province had reportedly been killed in the past two years as part of a campaign against the Hazara community to forcibly displace them from their native lands and homes.On October 2, armed Kuchi nomads reportedly cut down trees at a public school in Wares District of Bamyan Province in an effort to take possession of a large piece of land that included girls’ and boys’ schools, an agricultural school, and the local district market, which included more than 100 local shops. The Kuchi nomads claimed ownership of the area after a decision from the conflict resolution commission established by the Taliban provincial governor in Bamyan awarded them the land. According to sources in the area, the Kuchi nomads threatened teachers and students at the schools, and warned the residents that the history of the Hazara people was over in the country.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The 2004 constitution provided for the confidentiality of correspondence and stipulated that personal residences should be free from trespassing or intrusion absent a prior court order, but the Taliban failed to respect these prohibitions. There were numerous reports that the Taliban forcibly entered homes and offices to search for perceived political enemies, at times under the guise of searching for weapons.On February 7, the Taliban reportedly started a door-to-door security search in wards 15 and 2 of Kabul city. Reportedly, Taliban arrested 18 individuals under charges of having association with the NRF. Taliban security forces allegedly behaved cruelly with inhabitants during their search operations and did not respect the privacy of the home.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										Internal conflict resulted in unlawful civilian deaths, abductions, prisoner abuse, property damage, displacement of residents, and other abuses. ISIS-K attacks continued, and Taliban efforts to defeat the group resulted in numerous violent clashes. According to UNAMA, actions by nonstate armed groups, primarily the Taliban and ISIS-K, accounted for most civilian deaths during the year.In a human rights report issued on July 17, UNAMA recorded a total of 3,774 civilian casualties (1,095 killed and 2,679 wounded) between August 15, 2021, and May 30. Three quarters of these civilian casualties (2,814 civilian casualties, 701 killed and 2,113 wounded) were caused by indiscriminate improvised explosive device (IED) attacks in populated areas, including places of worship, schools, and markets. The majority of civilian casualties (1,701) related to IEDs were due to attacks carried out by ISIS-K. Suicide attacks remained a significant concern and appeared to have increased in lethality, with fewer incidents resulting in higher numbers of civilian casualties. Victims struggled to access essential medical, financial, and psychosocial support after attacks.On June 6, a vehicle-borne IED explosion targeting the so-called provincial governor of Badakhshan, Mawlawi Nisar Ahmad Ahmadi, killed both Ahmadi and his driver, and wounded 13 others. On June 8, a suicide IED attack during Ahmadi’s funeral ceremony killed 13 persons and wounded 36 others.Killings: On August 11, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) issued a report recording more than 1,000 incidents of violence targeting civilians by the Taliban between their takeover on August 15, 2021, and June 30, accounting for 62 percent of all attacks on civilians in the country. According to ACLED, this placed the Taliban among the world’s top state perpetrators of violence targeting civilians domestically since August 2021. Both ACLED and UNAMA reported that despite the Taliban’s August 21 amnesty order the Taliban continued to detain, disappear, and kill many former officials. In some cases, families only learned the fate of their family members when they received their bodies days after their detention.Abductions: The UN secretary-general’s 2022 Children and Armed Conflict Report, released in July, cited eight verified incidents of the Taliban and other unidentified perpetrators abducting children in 2022, noting most children were abducted for the purposes of sexual violence. The report also stated that Taliban security forces detained 69 boys for alleged association with the NRF. Of those, 29 were released and two died in custody.Child Soldiers: A 2022 Taliban decree banned child recruitment by Taliban members, and the Taliban claimed it did not allow children younger than 18 to join any of its forces. The 2022 Children and Armed Conflict Report listed Afghanistan as being among the countries with the highest numbers of grave violations against children in armed conflict, although it noted that Afghanistan was also among those countries that saw a decrease in grave violations. The report listed 54 verified instances in 2022, of the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, 32 of whom were used in armed conflict and 22 of whom served in support roles.According to Equal Access International, sexual harassment, bacha bazi (the sexual and commercial exploitation of boys, especially by men in positions of power), child soldiering, and child labor remained prevalent under the Taliban. Taliban “commanders” reportedly were involved in bacha bazi, and reports indicated incidents had increased during the year. In August, during a wedding ceremony in Badakhshan Province, a dispute reportedly arose between two Taliban commanders over a boy associated with bacha bazi. The disagreement escalated to gunfire, resulting in the death of two Taliban members and injuries to four others as well as a civilian bystander. The boy reportedly had served as a bodyguard or soldier under the Taliban’s so-called district governor for Shahada District.The Secretary of State determined Afghanistan had government-supported armed groups that recruited or used child soldiers from April 2022 to March 2023. See the Department of State’s Annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The 2004 constitution provided for freedom of speech, including for the press, but the Taliban did not respect this right. The Taliban made public statements asserting press protections remained in place, a series of edicts issued in November 2021 severely limited freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media. The Taliban used force against protesters and journalists and suppressed political discussion and dissent, which had a severe chilling effect on civil society.Freedom of Expression: Public criticism of the Taliban – whether by individuals or groups – was largely muted. Public speech was subject to extensive surveillance by Taliban members, both online and offline. Taliban members often confiscated mobile phones and electronics to search for criticism of the group, third-country affiliations, or perceived violations of their edicts. There were reports Taliban also held male family members responsible for the actions of their female relatives, including for criticism of the group.On July 31, sources reported the Taliban aggressively stormed into the Hamisha Bahar TV &amp; Radio station in Nangahar Province, disrupted a journalism workshop for children, and shut down the station. On August 8, the Afghan Journalists Center reported the Taliban’s local administration in Nangarhar Province shut down the Nen (Today) and Jowanan (Youth) radio stations, because they were operating out of the Hamisha Bahar premises.On July 12, the Ministry of Interior tweeted that police had arrested an employee of the Afghanistan International News Channel, Ahmad Ramin Rasooli, for allegedly spreading fake news because of his interview with a person claiming to have been injured in a suicide attack.Violence and Harassment: There were numerous reports the Taliban subjected journalists were subjected to violence, harassment, and intimidation.During the July 31 Hamisha Bahar incident, Taliban forces insulted the youth participants in the workshop and expelled them from the class, then physically assaulted the trainers and implementers.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: The Taliban enforced a July 2022 decree stating that “defaming and criticizing government officials without proof” and “spreading false news and rumors” were forbidden under Islam and that those who “slander” government employees were unwittingly collaborating with the enemy and would be “punished.”Taliban censorship and threats of detention and violence against journalists drove several media organizations to close and journalists to flee.In early August, Reporters without Borders stated that more than two-thirds of the 12,000 journalists in the country had lost their jobs since August 2021, including more than 80 percent of women journalists who forcibly had to leave their jobs. It added that more than half of the 547 registered media agencies in the country had stopped their activities since 2021, with television channels dropping from 150 to fewer than 70, radio stations from 307 to 170, and news agencies from 31 to 18.On March 30, media outlets reported the Taliban closed the Sada-e-Banwan (women’s voice) radio station in Badakhshan Province. The provincial head of information and culture said the station had violated Taliban regulations by playing music during the month of Ramadan. Najla Sherzad, the director of the radio station, said she had not broadcast music. She had recently aired programming concerning the Taliban ban on girls’ education, however, and said this was likely the reason for her station being closed.																Internet Freedom						The Taliban selectively restricted access to the internet and blocked websites. There was no expectation of privacy of communications from Taliban monitoring. Media outlets and activists routinely used social media to discuss political developments, and social media was widely used in urban areas. The Taliban used the internet and social media to spread its own messages. The Taliban instituted internet blackouts or severe slowdowns in locations of active dissent and following periods of political discord in the population.On January 20 a key social activist and media reporter, Natiq Malekzadeh, tweeted that the Taliban started a campaign to control and pressure social media activists and Taliban critics through social media. Malekzadeh shared audio clips of a person allegedly with the so-called GDI who ordered the creation of fake women’s Facebook accounts in an effort to identify and punish those who spoke out against the Taliban.On June 26, the Taliban circulated on social media an edict from its so-called supreme leader instructing the Supreme Court to work collaboratively with other relevant offices on a proposal for the restriction or complete banning of Facebook.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The Taliban restricted freedom of peaceful assembly and association.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The 2004 constitution provided for the right of peaceful assembly, but the Taliban did not respect this right. A limited number of public protests occurred during the year.In May, Taliban personnel in Farah Province arrested, beat, and detained for four hours 70 farmers who protested against the poor management of agricultural price controls. The farmers were asking the Department of Agriculture to better control agricultural prices and prevent severe daily fluctuations in prices, which sometimes varied between 20 Afghanis and 100 Afghanis ($0.29 and $1.44).On September 27, Taliban security forces arrested Julia Parsi, the founder and leader of a grassroots women’s protest movement, one of the leaders of the Alliance of Protest Movements, and the founder of a women’s library. 8am news agency reported that Taliban security forces took Parsi and her son from her house in the Qala-e-Fethullah area of Kabul city, seized the phones of Parsi’s children, and confiscated documents from her house. Parsi’s detention followed the Taliban’s September 19 arrest of Neda Parwani, a fellow member of Parsi’s protest movement, her husband and child. A women’s rights activist and influential figure in the women’s protests said Parsi had been under surveillance for some time, had recently stopped using her mobile phone, and had reportedly changed her residence in Kabul 10 days before her arrest.						Freedom of Association						The 2004 constitution provided for the right of freedom of association, but the Taliban generally did not respect it. The Taliban had not permitted any political parties or opposition groups to operate since its takeover. On August 16, the Taliban’s so-called minister of justice publicly announced that political parties were not allowed to operate, blaming them for the death and destruction of the country. Speaking at the press conference in Kabul, the so-called minister claimed the constitution was not Islamic, and therefore the Taliban would formulate a new constitution that aligned with “core Islamic principles.” In a September 2022 statement, the Ministry of Justice declared “current geopolitical and political circumstances in Afghanistan are not conducive to the functioning of political parties. The traditional role of political parties in a nation is to contribute to nation-building and serve the citizenry. However, the prevailing sentiment among our citizens suggests dissatisfaction with the activities of political parties. Considering the majority’s experiences and viewpoints, these same political parties have historically been linked to conflicts and adversities.”																										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 2004 constitution provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation. The Taliban generally respected these rights for men with sufficient identity documentation, including passports, but it prevented several political figures associated with previous administrations from traveling abroad. Women were prohibited from freely moving around the country or internationally unless accompanied by a mahram (male relative).In-country Movement: After the Taliban takeover in August 2021, intercity travel was generally unobstructed. In December 2021, the Taliban announced that women could not travel more than 50 miles without a mahram, an edict that was enforced by threatening the detention or punishment of male relatives. Within populated areas, women could move relatively more freely, although there were increasingly frequent reports of Taliban “police” questioning women who were out in public without a mahram. The Taliban banned women from public parks and gyms. In May, the Taliban announced requirements for women to wear a burqa in public and recommended women ultimately not leave their homes at all, severely restricting most women’s access to essential services, employment, education, and health care.Foreign Travel: The Taliban stated they did not want citizens to leave the country but that those with foreign travel authorization and required documentation would be allowed to depart. Taliban leaders stated that the right to travel was guaranteed by Islam. Enforcement of these orders was inconsistent. Citizens with valid passports and visas for third countries were generally permitted to depart the country, but the Taliban did stop some Afghans from departing without providing reasons, reportedly causing fear of arbitrary obstruction of foreign travel for political reasons. Reports indicated that applications for passports surged during the year, with credible complaints from Afghans throughout the country that lengthy processing times meant it was difficult to get a passport without having connections with local Taliban passport authorities or paying a bribe.On August 23, media outlets reported that the Taliban prevented 60 girls from traveling to Dubai to go to school on scholarship even though the girls had passports, visas, proof of scholarship, and accompaniment by a mahram. Some individuals associated with the pre-August 2021 government reported being detained and beaten following their visit to passport offices. Reports suggested airlines inconsistently enforced Taliban mahram rules for women departing the country.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The Taliban cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Organization for Migration (IOM), and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees and returning refugees, as well as to other persons of concern.Access to Asylum: The Taliban had not created a legal and programmatic framework for granting of asylum or refugee status.Durable Solutions: UNHCR estimated there were 5.2 million Afghan refugees and asylum seekers in neighboring countries as of December 31, 2022. As of August 1, UNHCR documented 8,029 Afghan refugees voluntarily returned to Afghanistan during the year (95 percent from Pakistan, 4 percent from Iran and 1 percent from other countries). As part of its support to refugees voluntarily returning to the country from countries of asylum, UNHCR offered a voluntary repatriation package consisting of a one-off cash grant of $375 to cover transportation and immediate needs upon arrival. Returning refugees also received basic health care and overnight accommodation when needed as well as other services provided in each Encashment Centre.On September 28, Pakistani Foreign Minister Jalil Abbas Jilani confirmed his government had decided to force out all Afghans and other foreign nationals living unlawfully in the country. Reports indicated that the number of Afghans returning from Pakistan had increased from an average of 85 to more than 700 per day through the Torkham border crossing, and from an average of 176 to 435 per day through Spin Boldak border crossing since September 15.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										The IOM and UNHCR estimated there were more than five million IDPs in the country displaced by both conflict and natural disasters, including both new and long-term displacements. As of August 1, UNHCR estimated 1,900 IDPs had returned to their places of origin during the year. Approximately 1.13 million IDPs returned to their places of origin in 2021 and 259,000 in 2022.Limited humanitarian access due to the poor security situation caused delays in identifying, assessing, and providing timely assistance to IDPs, who continued to lack access to basic protection, including personal security and shelter. Many IDPs, especially in households with a woman head, faced difficulty obtaining basic services because they did not have identity documents. Many IDPs in urban areas reportedly faced discrimination, lacked access to adequate sanitation and other basic services, and lived at constant risk of eviction from illegally occupied displacement sites, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center. Women in IDP sites reported high levels of domestic violence. Limited opportunities to earn a livelihood following the initial displacement often led to secondary displacement, making tracking of vulnerable persons difficult. Even IDPs who had access to local social services sometimes had less access than their non-IDP neighbors, due to distance from the services or other factors.Kabul municipality authorities reportedly forcibly evicted approximately 1,850 IDPs from Pul-e-Shina No1 and No2 and Hussain Khail settlement in ward 22 on July 10 and 11 without prior notice to the families. Kabul municipality representatives claimed they needed access to the land the IDPs were living on for an unspecific public works projects they wanted to complete before winter. The Norwegian Refugee Council reported the deaths of two children, ages four and 15, during the evacuation in the Pul-e-Shina area outside of Kabul, although a spokesman for Kabul municipality denied there were any casualties during the clearance operation. After a discussion with UN agencies on July 11, Kabul municipality representatives agreed to pause further evictions in Kabul for one month to allow UN agencies to develop a plan for orderly relocations.On August 26, media outlets reported that the Taliban in Baghlan Province forcibly displaced approximately 15 Tajik families, and threated numerous others, reportedly charging that the families were cooperating with the National Resistance Front (NRF). These forced evictions followed events earlier in the year when the Taliban forcibly displaced hundreds of predominantly Tajik families in Khost, Deh Salah, Andrabha, and Doshi districts of Baghlan Province.																																				g. Stateless Persons										Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) noted the lack of official birth registration for refugee children in the country as a significant problem and protection concern, due to the risk of statelessness and potential long-term disadvantage.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The Taliban maintained an authoritarian approach under a single so-called supreme leader and showed no interest in a participatory form of political organization. They said nothing regarding whether there would be future elections. The country did not have any institutions, independent or otherwise tasked with managing elections. The Taliban’s restrictions on women’s participation in public life largely prohibited women from contributing to any political processes.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: There have been no elections in the country since the Taliban takeover in 2021. The Taliban did not express any intent to hold elections.Political Parties and Political Participation: Since August 2021, the Taliban effectively consolidated all political power and disenfranchised all non-Taliban groups by preventing the legal formation and participation of additional political parties.On August 16, the so-called minister of justice publicly announced that political parties were not allowed to operate, blaming them for the death and destruction of the country.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: No laws officially prevented women or members of religious or ethnic minority groups from participating in political life. Nonetheless, the Taliban’s edicts limiting women’s participation in public life, education, and employment effectively barred their inclusion in the political process.Most Taliban were ethnic Pashtuns, although some members of other ethnic groups supported or joined the Taliban. Representatives from many other ethnic groups said the Taliban favored ethnic Pasthuns over other ethnicities and expressed concerns over the “Pashtunization” of their lands.On September 11, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Richard Bennett stated Taliban officials were overwhelmingly Pashtun men and were uninterested in the participation of other ethnic groups and women in power. On September 26, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women Sima Sami Bahous said women’s influence on decision-making in the country had shrunk dramatically at all levels.According to media reports, the Taliban repressed members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) community and would not allow members of historically marginalized minority groups to participate in their so-called ministries and institutions. LGBTQI+ persons reported intimidation from Taliban members as a significant deterrent to entry in public spaces, keeping them from participating in any political process.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law under the pre-August 2021 government provided criminal penalties for corruption by government officials, but the Taliban did not implement the law effectively. There were numerous reports of Taliban corruption.The public security division of the appellate courts and so-called military courts adjudicated corruption cases under the Supreme Court.Corruption: The Taliban announced anti-corruption policies following their takeover in August 2021, including the creation of commissions to identify corrupt or criminal Taliban members. The Taliban also launched a commission through the Ministry of Defense to identify members who were flouting the movement’s directives.On September 25, sources reported that Taliban personnel in Kunar Province asked local NGOs to hire their relatives and members, rent their vehicles, and otherwise indirectly requested money from the project implementers. When the NGOs denied the Taliban’s demands, the Taliban reportedly ordered local residents and district officials not to coordinate or work with the project implementers.The Taliban called bribery in the public sector a criminal act, but there were reports that lower-level Taliban members attempted to manipulate food aid beneficiary lists to ensure that Taliban-affiliated families benefited from assistance at the expense of others. There were reports of widespread nepotistic appointments to public positions and the abuse of official powers throughout the country.For additional information about corruption in the country, please see 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												    																						The Taliban created a forbidding environment for many international and nongovernmental entities, especially human and women’s rights organizations. The legacy of the Taliban’s retaliatory actions against activists created a climate of uncertainty and fear, which curtailed the work of journalists, civic activists, and human rights defenders, many of whom left the country due to retaliation or engaged in self-censorship. Some investigations and reports by international human rights organizations documented widespread human rights abuses and atrocities by the Taliban, including allegations of summary executions of persons associated with the pre-August 2021 government, as well as unlawful killings and forced disappearances of journalists and activists. Since their takeover, the Taliban closed most official bodies responsible for protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens, including the AIHRC, Electoral Commission and Ministry for Women’s Affairs.On January 1, the Taliban’s spokesperson reaffirmed a restriction banning all NGOs and international NGOs from employing Afghan women in the country. According to the spokesperson, the decree was issued to preserve the dignity and chastity of women. On April 4, UNAMA stated the Taliban informed it that no Afghan women (national staff) were allowed to work at UN offices in the country.Also on April 6, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation issued a statement calling the ban on women working for the United Nations in the country an alarming violation of women’s fundamental rights.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: Women organizing for women’s and girls’ rights, civil society activists, and others who publicly dissented from Taliban policy suffered unjust detention or disappearance.The Taliban reportedly arrested and beat university professor and women’s right defender Ismail Mashal on February 2, for protesting against the Taliban’s ban on education for women and girls.On January 7, the Taliban reportedly raided a home in Kabul and arrested civil society activist Sultan Ali Ziayee, who had gathered with other activists to protest the Taliban’s decision to ban women’s education and work. The civil society activists had reportedly gathered in the house of a woman activist who had been released from a Taliban detention cell only three days prior.Government Human Rights Bodies: The Taliban did not maintain any official bodies or institutions tasked with protecting or monitoring human rights.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law criminalized rape against both women and men, but the Taliban’s deconstruction of the justice system severely eroded enforcement of these laws. The Taliban maintained no support system for survivors of rape and provided only limited protection services.On May 14, Hasht-e-Sobh news agency reported that women prisoners in Taliban prisons in Jawzjan, Faryab, and Samangan provinces suffered from humiliation, insults, physical abuse, and sexual assault. According to the report, 10 women employees were present in the prisons during the daytime performing tasks such as physical searches, cleaning, and general prison duties. Only male guards were on duty during the night, which led to instances of sexual assault against women prisoners. Out of the 90 women imprisoned in Jawzjan, Faryab, and Samangan, 16 of them reportedly became pregnant because of repeated rape and were forced to undergo abortions in local hospitals. The Taliban reportedly ordered these women’s pregnancies terminated during the third and fifth months. At least four women inmates in Samangan reportedly fell seriously ill as a direct consequence of repeated sexual assaults by Taliban members and were ultimately executed by the Taliban.Many of these women were reportedly incarcerated in the Taliban women’s prisons in the north for reasons such as moral corruption, theft, and fleeing from their homes. Over the past year, the Taliban had reportedly discreetly brought 48 women to the Faryab, Samangan, and Jawzjan hospitals to receive treatment for severe bleeding because of physical abuse and sexual assault. On July 3, media outlets reported that a girl, age 16, who was forced to marry a member of the Taliban in Ghor Province committed suicide on July 1. She reportedly became depressed because of her forced marriage and the requirement that she stay at home after the Taliban banned girls’ education.Domestic violence was viewed in the country as a “family matter.” Institutional responses to domestic violence were not available, and patriarchal norms, corruption, and family or tribal pressure persisted.Women survivors faced stringent or violent societal reprisal, ranging from imprisonment to targeted killings.The Republic law criminalized forced gynecological exams, which acted as “virginity tests,” except when conducted pursuant to a court order. Awareness and enforcement of the restrictions on forced gynecological exams remained limited. There was insufficient information to determine whether the forced gynecological exams continued.Taliban members stated survivors of abuses should resolve issues within their family unit. Taliban “police” held women in detention centers after they reported gender-based violence.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Under the 2004 constitution, the law criminalized forced, underage, and baad marriages (the practice of settling disputes in which the culprit’s family trades a girl to the victim’s family) and interference with a woman’s right to choose her spouse. The Taliban criminalized forced but the practice of exchanging brides between families was not criminalized and remained widespread. “Honor killings” reportedly occurred throughout the year.A Taliban decree provided women the following protections: women had the right to consent to marriage and could not be forced; a widow had inheritance rights in relation to the property of her husband, children, father, and relatives; widows had the right to receive a dowry from a new husband; women in a polygamous marriage were afforded rights in accordance with sharia; and the Supreme Court had to ensure courts considered appeals from women to the courts. There were reports that judges and so-called provincial governors ignored this decree and facilitated forced marriages.Discrimination: The Taliban’s edicts formalized discrimination and exclusion of women and girls from most aspects of society and at a nationwide level.Women did not have equal legal rights, compared to men, to inherit assets as a surviving spouse, and daughters did not have equal rights, compared to sons, to inherit assets from their parents. By law women could not unilaterally divorce their husbands but had to obtain their husband’s consent, but men could unilaterally divorce their wives.The Taliban regulated dress codes for women journalists and banned women from acting in films. Taliban edicts stated women were not allowed to travel further than 50 miles unless accompanied by a mahram.In December 2022, the Taliban issued an edict prohibiting women’s attendance at both public and private universities. The so-called minister of higher education explained the restrictions as being required by Islam due to the use of women’s dormitories, failure of women to observe the Islamic veil, continued interactions between men and women on campus, and women studying subjects not appropriate for women’s dignity.On January 28, Reuters reported the Ministry of Higher Education ordered private universities not to allow women students to sit university entrance exams the following month, underscoring the Taliban’s policy to restrict women from tertiary education. A letter from the ministry was addressed to institutions in the northern provinces, including Kabul, where exams were due to take place from the end of February. The letter stated that those institutions that did not observe the rules would face legal action.On May 3, the Ministry of Public Health announced that only men would be able to register for the supplementary “exit exam” mandated by the Taliban as a prerequisite for medical graduates to pursue their four-year specialized studies. The ministry also published the list of specialist vacancies in public hospitals, showing none for women doctors.On April 30, media outlets reported the Department of Information and Culture in Ghazni Province had prevented media outlets in the province from broadcasting commercial announcements recorded with women’s voices. The Taliban in Ghazni Province also prevented radio hosts from making telephone calls to women during programs.On July 24, media outlets reported that the Taliban in Ghazni Province banned women’s participation in the Shia religious mourning ceremony.The so-called minister for the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice announced on August 26 that women could no longer visit the popular Band-e-Amir National Park in central Bamiyan Province, claiming that women visiting the park did not adhere to the “proper” way of wearing the hijab and that “going for sightseeing is not obligatory” for Muslims.On August 31, the Ministry of Information and Culture told Rashatoudi news agency that the Taliban’s restrictions on women’s work were due to Islamic law and local traditions, adding that after the return of the Taliban the “attitude toward women has improved and the Taliban are providing security for women and allowing women to pursue entrepreneurship.”On September 26, UN Under-Secretary-General Bahous said restrictions on women were being enforced more frequently and with more severity, including by male family members, and were accompanied by increases in child marriage and child labor. As a result, she said, 90 percent of young women respondents to a survey reported bad or very bad mental health, and suicide and suicidal thoughts had increased dramatically.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of involuntary sterilization on the part of the Taliban.Women faced nearly insurmountable barriers to receiving health care due to Taliban restrictions on work, travel, and male-female interactions. According to a study conducted by Human Rights Watch, male doctors were afraid to treat female patients because of restrictions imposed by the Taliban on interactions between men and women. In addition, the Taliban prohibited male doctors from treating female patients unless they were accompanied by a mahram. Women could see female doctors, but it was difficult to find them. The Taliban permitted women to working as health practitioners, but many women were reportedly afraid to work due to Taliban restrictions on women in the workplace. The ever-smaller number of qualified women health practitioners steeply increased the risk of poor health outcomes for women.There were reports of women facing difficulties entering health clinics when they were not accompanied by a mahram.Having a child out of wedlock was a crime, but the punishment was unclear. Mothers faced severe social stigma for having a child out of wedlock, even when the pregnancy was a result of rape. The law classified abortion or ending a pregnancy as a crime punishable by three months to one year’s imprisonment.The law required women to obtain their husband’s consent to use contraception. Persons with disabilities faced increased barriers to reproductive health resources because of decreased access to transportation, education, and social support.Families and individuals in cities generally had better access to information than did those living in rural areas. According to the United Nations, the rate of contraceptive use among married women was 35 percent for those living in urban areas, compared with 19 percent in rural areas.On January 30, the Kandahar provincial office of the Taliban’s so-called Ministry of Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Amr-e Ba Maroof) instructed the local health department to require all of the province’s 1,400 women healthcare workers to report to work with a mahram and starting on January 30 to forbid women workers from entering clinics or hospitals without a mahram.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										Religion and ethnicity in the country were often closely linked. The population included a wide range of distinct ethnic groups. The Hazara, the third largest ethnic group in the country and predominantly Shiite Muslims, bore the brunt of systemic discrimination by the Taliban. Societal discrimination against Hazaras existed in the form of extortion through illegal taxation, forced recruitment, forced labor, physical abuse, property confiscation, and detention. There were many reports Taliban fighters, ISIS-K members, and other unknown actors targeted and killed members of the Hazara community, although ISIS-K attacks reportedly decreased during the year.In Takhar Province, Taliban security forces reportedly arrested Tajik civilians from Abshar District, accusing them of having links with anti-Taliban elements based only on their ethnicity. Multiple reports from Badakhshan, Balkh, Bamyan, Faryab, Kabul, Kapisa, Panjshir, and Parwan provinces throughout the year accused the Taliban of discriminating against non-Pashtun ethnicities when allocating resources and administering social services. In two separate incidents, representatives from the Ministry of Public Health in Balkh Province and the Ministry of Education in Kabul Province reportedly refused to accept job applications from ethnic Uzbeks and Tajiks, saying they should go to Uzbekistan or Tajikistan to look for employment.																																				Children										Education: Education for boys was compulsory through ninth grade, generally ages seven to 15, although schools generally permitted families to enroll their children, girl or boy, at age six. Primary education was required for girls through sixth grade, generally ages seven to 12, although media reported the Taliban restricting girls from attending primary school once they showed subjective signs of having begun puberty, regardless of age. According to a Taliban edict, girls were prohibited from going to school beyond the sixth grade, effectively excluding 1.1 million girls from further education. The Taliban permitted girls to attend Taliban-approved madrassahs without age limit.Local sources from Kabul, Bamiyan, and Ghazni provinces said the Taliban issued and closed all education centers for secondary school-age girls, including private English language centers and university entrance exam preparation courses. Private education centers had been operating in the districts despite existing bans on secondary and higher education for girls.On June 6, sources confirmed that the Ministry of Education had directed all provincial education departments to notify international NGOs to suspend education activities in all provinces. The directive gave international NGOs a one-month grace period to wrap up operations and indicated a new directive would be forthcoming. As of September 9, the ministry had not issued a new directive.Child Abuse: The law criminalized child abuse and neglect, but the Taliban did not take actions consistent with the law. Between January 1 and March 31, the United Nations verified 315 grave violations against 165 children. Killing and maiming remained the most prevalent violations committed against children, representing 85 percent of all verified violations. Many of the casualties resulted from attacks on civilians and explosive remnants of war.Children were frequently jailed alongside adults. The Taliban allowed a limited continued operation of shelters for boys and girls who were survivors or at risk of abuse or trafficking in persons.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The legal minimum age for marriage was 16 for girls, or 15 with the approval of their father or a judge. The legal minimum age for marriage for boys was 18.A Taliban decree banned the forced marriage of women. Despite this ban, child, early, and forced marriage was common across the country. In a June report, UNICEF expressed concern regarding the increase in child marriage and reported that due to the extremely difficult economic situation in the country, many families were forced to make “disappointing decisions” such as sending children to work and marrying off underage girls. UNICEF estimated that 28 percent of women in the country between the ages of 15 and 49 were married before the age of 18 and noted that teenage girls who were not allowed to go to school were more threatened by the “risk of child marriage.” Societal pressures and the Taliban practice of arranging marriages for widows also forced women into unwanted marriages.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The Taliban publicly stated that bacha bazi was against Islamic law, but multiple human rights groups reported the practice’s prevalence in many parts of the country.																																				Antisemitism										There were no known reports of antisemitic incidents. There were no confirmed Jews residing in the country.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: The Taliban considered consensual same-sex sexual activity to be a criminal offense, and representatives routinely enforced this position through violence, intimidation, harassment, and killings. Under the Taliban’s interpretation of sharia, conviction of same-sex sexual conduct was punishable by death, flogging, or imprisonment. Individual Taliban members made public statements reiterating that their interpretation of sharia included the death penalty for homosexuality.Violence and Harassment: LGBTQI+ persons faced increased threats, attacks, sexual assaults, and discrimination from Taliban members, strangers, neighbors, and family members. In a video interview broadcast on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on August 30, a member of the LGBTQI+ community, age 19, said he had to quit school to protect his identity and the Taliban arrested and beat him and his boyfriend on two occasions. A separate interview recounted the story of four Taliban security personnel gang-raping a gay man, age 20, while holding him in custody.Discrimination: The law did not prohibit discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. Same-sex sexual conduct was widely viewed in the country’s culture as taboo and indecent. LGBTQI+ individuals did not have access to certain health-care services and could be fired from their jobs because of their perceived or expressed sexual orientation or gender identity.Organizations assisting LGBTQI+ individuals reported they had been contacted by hundreds of individuals seeking resettlement. Even if the option to settle internationally was available, LGBTQI+ persons faced additional barriers. Gender nonconforming individuals reported being afraid to go to the country’s passport office or passing through routine checkpoints on public roads due to fear of being identified by Taliban members.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: There was no legal pathway for transgender or gender nonconforming individuals to change their gender identity.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: The country’s culture insisted on compulsory heterosexuality, which forced LGBTQI+ individuals to acquiesce to life-altering decisions made by family members or society.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: There were no legally registered LGBTQI+ rights organizations. LGBTQI+ individuals could not assemble, associate, or express themselves publicly due to fear of being killed, attacked, or outed by the Taliban. In February, members of the Behesht Collective, an LGBTQI+ group, protested from a private residence against the Taliban’s treatment of LGBTQI+ persons. The participants in the protest fled the country immediately afterwards to protect themselves, saying they were residing in a Muslim country that criminalized same-sex activity, but was still better than Afghanistan.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities could not access education, health services, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others. Persons with disabilities faced barriers such as limited access to educational opportunities, inability to access government buildings, difficulty in acquiring official identification required for many services, lack of economic opportunities, and social exclusion due to stigma.In May, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Afghanistan stated that persons with disabilities in the country were disproportionately affected by the humanitarian crisis.The so-called Ministry of Martyrs and Disabled Affairs cited unemployment and lack of income as a serious concern among the persons with disabilities in the country. The Taliban reportedly only provided services to its former fighters with disabilities resulting from the war with the United States and NATO, and persons born with disabilities or those who were not Taliban did not receive support.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The pre-August 2021 government’s law provided for the right of workers to join and form independent unions and to conduct legal strikes and bargain collectively. The Taliban did not announce that these laws were rescinded, but their actions were not consistent with labor laws and regulations. The International Trade Union Confederation observed that there was no guarantee of rights due to the breakdown of the rule of law.International NGOs noted that unions were largely absent from the informal and agricultural sectors, which accounted for most workers.The Taliban’s so-called interim minister of labor and social affairs had not made any statements on workers’ unions since he assumed the office.																																				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: Since August 2021, the Taliban had not taken actions consistent with minimum wage, overtime, or wage or hour standards.The law provided for reduced standard workweeks for children ages 15 to 17, pregnant women, nursing mothers, miners, and workers in other occupations that presented health risks.Occupational Safety and Health: The country had no occupational safety and health (OSH) regulations or officially adopted standards. There were no government inspectorates to investigate unsafe conditions or respond to workers’ complaints. Workers could not remove themselves from health-endangering situations without risking their employment.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The Taliban did not effectively take actions consistent with minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws in either the formal or the informal sectors.  The International Labor Organization estimated that the informal sector accounted for more than 86 percent of the national economy.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																						i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			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																																																						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																																																			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																					Afghanistan																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
- Department Press Briefing – April 3, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 3, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 3, 2024																																																					April 3, 2024																																																								1:37 p.m. EDMR MILLER: All right. I don’t have anything from the top, so Shaun, do you want to start us today?QUESTION: Sure. Welcome. I wanted &#8212;MR MILLER: Don’t look at me that way. Yeah, I’m going to call you out on that dirty look you flashed me. You can go second. (Laughter.) Sorry. Meant in jest.QUESTION: As you might guess, we – I’m sure all of us want to start on the – this issue with the foreign aid workers who were tragically killed in Gaza. What do you make of the Israeli explanation of it? Prime Minister Netanyahu says it was unintentional and that they’re investigating this. Is that enough at this point? What is the United States looking for Israel to do?MR MILLER: So we are looking for them to do two things – one, to conduct a full, swift, and transparent investigation; and if that investigation shows that accountability is appropriate, then there of course should be accountability. And we will wait to see the results of that investigation before we pass judgment on it. The Israelis have said to us, and they’ve said publicly, that they intend to conduct this investigation swiftly. We want to see it wrapped up as soon as possible and see them put in place any measures to prevent this from happening again in the future.And that’s – go to the second point that we think we need to see, not just – and they don’t have to wait for the outcome of this investigation to do it – they need to put in place better deconfliction and better coordination measures to protect humanitarian workers and to protect all the civilians on the ground. And it is something that we have consistently said to them over the past few months, is that they need to improve their deconfliction measures and they need to improve their coordination measures.I saw that the defense minister, Minister Gallant, said that they are going to stand up a situation room to improve coordination between aid workers and the IDF. That’s something that is absolutely critical; it’s something that’s overdue. Secretary Blinken has, in his conversations with Israeli counterparts, made the case for some time that they need to stand up something like that. He raised that with Minister Gallant as recently as last week when he was here in Washington. And so we’re glad to see them do it. It should have been done sooner, but it’s an important step for them to take going forward. But ultimately, as is – as the case with all of the measures they’ve put into place, we’re going to judge them on the results, not the intent.QUESTION: Now, I mean, there’s – this obviously is something that’s happened before. And not to have a – not exactly this situation, but there was the tragedy with people searching – receiving aid who were killed. If you go even before October 7th, there was the investigation into the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. I mean, do you think that the Israeli investigations and the U.S. responses have had an impact? Particularly the U.S. responses. I mean, do you think that the – that just saying that you’re going to wait for the Israeli investigation, for the Israelis to act, has had an impact?MR MILLER: So there have been times that the steps they have put into place because of – at our urging have had an impact, and have had an impact to the – to – have had a positive impact. For example, when the Secretary traveled to Israel and pushed them to implement better deconfliction, we did see an improvement in deconfliction. We saw them evacuating specific neighborhoods instead of just sending blanket evacuation orders across entire stretches of north Gaza, and those did have a positive impact, but they haven’t been sufficient. And so that’s why I made this point at the beginning, that we want to see them take further steps – like the ones that they say they’re standing up – but we’re going to watch, and if there are more things that need to be done, we will of course call on them to do so.With respect to investigations, look, I don’t want to pass judgment on what this investigation will show, just as you don’t want to pass judgment on what any investigation would show before it’s concluded. It’s important that they conduct a full, transparent, swift investigation. They need to find out exactly what happened, and we will – I’ll wait to pass judgment on it until it’s completed.QUESTION: Just one more before – following up on that, but I mean, the President himself laid out this aid plan at the State of the Union. It was quite a – the United States was – is it – was very visible on that, saying that – talking about the portable pier and everything. What does this say about that? I mean, is this – is this ruining the U.S. efforts to get aid in? I mean, obviously it – the U.S. can still do it, but tons of aid that were supposed to go in are – have already gone back because of – because of this killing.MR MILLER: So it will not affect our efforts to stand up the pier to deliver aid through sea. That effort is ongoing. The Pentagon is working hard on that, and I know they brief on that on a regular occasion, and we want to get that stood up as soon as possible. Of course, this strike does reveal the very difficult situation that aid workers on the ground inside Gaza face when it comes to not just receiving aid in Gaza but then actually delivering it. So, for example, and I know we’ve talked about this quite a bit over the past few months, it’s one thing to get aid into Gaza, either through Rafah or Kerem Shalom or through a maritime option when we have that up and running. The real question is being able to distribute it, and that’s of course – it’s in the distribution efforts where we saw this tragic strike take place yesterday.So it does, of course, raise real concerns about the safety of those aid workers who are doing that dangerous work. And I think it’s important to remember that these were seven tragic deaths yesterday, but over 200 aid workers have lost their lives since this conflict began. So that just reiterates and heightens the need for Israel to do better going forward, and it’s why the steps that Minister Gallant outlined yesterday, we are going to be watching closely to see if they are fully implemented and implemented in a way that yields better results, because there very much need to be better results.And again, I’ll come back to one point that we often make, and you – you’ve heard me say this; you’ve heard the Secretary say this publicly, but this is a case that we make directly to the Government of Israel. We need – they need to do better in delivering – in allowing humanitarian assistance to be delivered, and in achieving better deconfliction and coordination measures for the benefit of the innocent civilians inside Gaza who are suffering. That’s enough of a reason to do it on its own; that should be enough of a reason to do better. But it is also in Israel’s security interest to do better. And so we will continue to press them to do that.QUESTION: Just one more. Is – could there be any repercussions for the United States? I mean, I know you’re going to say that you’re waiting for the result of the investigation and everything, but as we’ve discussed, I mean, the – we’ve had this before investigations; we keep seeing these – it wasn’t just these seven; I think there are 208 workers or so who have been killed, by some tallies.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So obviously, something’s not happening. Are there more measures that the United States could do, could – more pressure that the United States could employ?MR MILLER: So we are going to continue to say exactly what we think about this publicly, we’re going to say exactly what we think about this privately, we’re going to offer our best advice to them on things that they could do better, and we are going to push them to do better, as we have done since the beginning.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, there’s been reporting in Israeli media about how the attack has taken place. Basically it said the drone fired three missiles in succession and, like, each of them sort of struck one of the cars. And Reuters just – we have an interview with José Andrés, actually, just on our wire. And he told us that the Israeli army targeted the convoy, quote, “systematically car by car.” And president – Prime Minister Netanyahu talked about this being a mistake and unintentional. How do you reconcile those two, the reporting and what José Andrés is saying, and what Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying?MR MILLER: So two things about that. So, number one, the chief of staff for the Israeli Defense Forces has come out and said it’s a – it was a misidentification. So while they were – I took that to mean while they were targeting those cars, they did not believe that it was a World Central Kitchen that was operating those vehicles at the time. But that said, we need to wait and see the outcome of this investigation to know with any confidence what it was that happened, and we’re going to wait to do that.But the second thing is – the second point is, it doesn’t really matter how they made the mistake. At the end of the day, you have seven dead aid workers who were there trying to deliver humanitarian assistance. So whatever the reason was that led to this tragedy, whatever the mistake that happened inside the IDF, it’s unacceptable, and they need to do better, and they need to put measures in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.QUESTION: And given there was an American citizen killed in this attack, why isn’t the United States conducting its own investigation?MR MILLER: So we don’t conduct investigations of the type I believe you’re referring to from this building, so I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t presume to speak to any.QUESTION: The – I mean, could the administration consider sort of Department of Justice can do that, FBI can do that?MR MILLER: Again, that – we don’t conduct that type of investigation from the State Department. I’m not going to speak on behalf of any other agency.QUESTION: And I just want to ask the evergreen question. We’ve reported, and other media outlets have reported as well, that U.S. – that the administration is looking at furthering a big $18 billion aircraft package, weapons package, to Israel. We reported that earlier this week. And looking at President Biden’s statement last night saying, like, this is not a one-off, there are – and you just talked about the number of humanitarian workers who’ve been killed. There are a lot of journalists who’ve been killed. Doesn’t this kind of, like – given the accusations of disregard for noncombatants by the IDF, doesn’t this kind of incident make U.S. stop and reconsider its arms sales or military aid to Israel?MR MILLER: So let me say two things with respect to that question. Number one, with respect to some of the reporting that we’ve seen over the past few weeks about arms transfers or potential arms transfers to Israel, some of which we have not officially notified to Congress and have not moved forward on at all, but a lot of those are with respect to weapon systems that would not be delivered for years – long after, hopefully, the conflict in Gaza has been resolved. It&#8217;s something we’re –QUESTION: But I’m not – I’m not entirely &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no – but no – I just want to say that I think it’s important to – because it does go to the exact point. We have had a longstanding security relationship with the State of Israel that predates this administration, that predates the current government in Israel. And that has existed through Democratic and Republican administrations in Washington, and through governments of different parties in Israel, because we are committed to Israel’s long-term security.So when I get questions and when I see some of the reporting about arms transfers or potential arms transfers to Israel, some of which started years ago or were approved years ago, and some of which relate to systems that won’t be delivered until years down the road, I think it’s important to put in context that those relate to our overall security relationship with Israel and our overall commitment to Israel’s defense against a number of adversaries that it faces in the region that are committed to the destruction of Israel.Now, with respect – with respect to the question I know that you’re getting at, which we’ve addressed a number of times here, we continue to be committed to Israel’s defense, but we continue to press them consistently to ensure that they fully comply with international humanitarian law; and, critically, that when they do make mistakes, as they very well – they very obviously did yesterday, that they are transparent about those mistakes, that they investigate them, and, if appropriate, there’s accountability.QUESTION: I’m not entirely sure how the delivery date for this being down the line four years, five years, has an impact on your decision-making today because you’re making the decision today with the information that you know there are, like, various accusations about Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza; elsewhere there are incidents that the State Department is looking at whether Israel has breached international rules – like humanitarian law – so I’m not entirely sure how relevant it is that the delivery of those are, like, down the line. But – just one last thing. You said a minute ago – so you talked about misidentification. Are you referring to the video of Israel chief of staff, or are you &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, correct. The statement he said publicly.QUESTION: And also is that what Israel – is that what U.S. Government have been told, that it was a misidentification?MR MILLER: They have told us – they have told us the same things privately that they have said publicly.QUESTION: But I mean, that – they took the strike, but they didn’t – they weren’t aware that it was a WCK convoy?MR MILLER: I am not going to – they have – they have – as I said, the thing that – the point about misidentification that General Halevi said in that public statement is what they have communicated to us privately. I’m not going to get further into the conversations, but ultimately what’s important is that they conduct an investigation to identify how that mistake happened – exactly how it happened and what they can do to prevent it from happening in the future?QUESTION: So &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; a short follow-up on that. Also, in the IDF statement, Halevi said that the misidentification was at night. Is that the understanding of the U.S. Government as well? And can you shed any light on why aid convoys are traveling at night at the moment?MR MILLER: I don’t have any reason to dispute that statement. And with respect to aid convoys traveling at night, I think they – they travel at different times during the day, but some of them, especially those traveling to the north of Gaza where the aid situation has been much more restricted and there’s been much – a more desperate humanitarian situation, sometimes they’ve been traveling at night to minimize the scenes like we saw several weeks ago where you saw stampedes of desperate individuals trying to rush out and take aid from the trucks. So they’ve been trying to move at times that would mitigate the risk of that happening.QUESTION: And just one &#8212;MR MILLER: But I – they also do move during the day. They don’t move only at night.QUESTION: Okay. And one on just timing. I know you say a swift investigation. Can you give us any more detail whether this is days, weeks &#8212;MR MILLER: I would defer to the Government of Israel to speak to that. We want to see it happen as soon as possible while ensuring that it is thorough and gets to the actual bottom of what happened.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Just one more on this and then a question on the Benny Gantz comments from today. So has the Government of Israel shared with you any information that prove that this was what they’re saying, a misidentification, or are you just trusting that at this point?MR MILLER: They – what we are trusting is that they’re going to conduct a full investigation. But that said, we will look at how that investigation is conducted, we will look at the results of that, and then we will pass judgment on it. So I don’t want to pass judgment on anything that they have said privately or publicly until they’ve conducted a full investigation. And I only say that because, as is true with our own military, as is true with militaries around the world, oftentimes the early events of what happened don’t bear out when you conduct a full investigation into the underlying facts. So we’re going to wait and pass judgment when we see the full results.QUESTION: But in a way you’re passing judgment by standing up there and saying it was a misidentification already before you have the actual facts before you.MR MILLER: I don’t have any reason to dispute that, but we will pass – we will wait and see the full investigation.QUESTION: Okay. Benny Gantz, Israeli war cabinet minister, said today that he would call for parliamentary elections in September. What is the U.S. response to that? Would you support such elections taking place?MR MILLER: That is entirely a decision for the Israeli people and the Israeli – members of Israeli Government to make.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) something that Humeyra asked? When you’re talking about three strikes on this convoy, I mean, even if we take at face value that it’s just a misidentification, I mean, is that appropriate? I mean, you have a convoy which is apparently clearly marked by aid, but if it’s – whoever it was in there – having three strikes, so systematically destroying it – is – do you think that’s an appropriate way to go at &#8212;MR MILLER: I – it’s hard to comment on that without getting into a hypothetical. You can obviously see a scenario if they were a convoy of clear terrorists, that it might be appropriate. That obviously was not the case here. So I think we will wait, as I said, for the results of the investigation to pass judgment on how this mistake happened. But as I said, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether it was three or two – they killed seven aid workers. How ever they made the mistake, it resulted in a tragedy that should have never happened, and that’s what they need to prevent from happening again.QUESTION: Can I – can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. On the investigation, Matt, do you believe that Israel’s record in investigating itself is a good record? They have come up with good results in the past? I mean, there have been – there has been so many investigations. Can you cite one investigation where they actually came clean?MR MILLER: So they have spoken to a number of investigations, including one where you had members of the IDF who behaved inappropriately inside a mosque, and they spoke to those members being disciplined. They have spoken to a number of other investigations that they have ongoing. I’ve read comments last week from the chief lawyer inside the IDF who talked about a number of ongoing investigations they have. But ultimately, let’s just wait, see what the investigation comes up with, and then we can make our judgments.QUESTION: Okay. Now, I have a couple more – just bear with me. On the misidentification, so when they say misidentification, does that tell us that they were actually after three-car convoy that had Hamas fighters in it and they were targeting, or – I mean, movement of fighters by cars, which is obviously unusual and so on? Is that – is that what you think they meant?MR MILLER: I don’t know what they were after. And ultimately, as I said, it doesn’t really matter what they were intending to do, because what they did do was kill seven aid workers, and it’s unacceptable and should not happen again.QUESTION: Okay. So there’s been about 196, I believe, 196 aid workers killed in Gaza; 175 UN workers, including UNRWA workers and so on. So I want to ask you: Do you believe there’s any kind of – what is different about this strike, the fact that this particular strike was – owned or headed by a famous chef and it had citizens of Canada and Australia and Britain and the United States, and not just Palestinians. Is that the only difference for this strike to garner such a great deal of space and to engender the anger of the President of the United States of America and your anger?MR MILLER: So Said, I won’t speak to why anyone strike gathers more attention than others. That’s a decision is largely not made by the United States Government. I will say, when it comes to the United States Government speaking out, we have talked at length about the need for Israel to do more to minimize civilian harm and minimize death to aid workers. That didn’t start this week with these deaths, this – the tragic death of these seven World Central Kitchen workers. We have talked about it for some time and we have pressed the Israeli Government to do better and offered them ideas on how to do better. And as I said at the outset, one of those ideas was to stand up the kind of situation room that they are now standing up.QUESTION: Last question, on Rafah and the meeting that took place on Monday. It seems that there are deep differences between the United States of America and Israel on the Rafah invasion. Can you update us on what’s going on? What will the United States – what does the United States expect – does it – what does the United States expect Israel to do? Because we’re talking about movement of maybe one and a half million people.MR MILLER: We – I couldn’t tell if you were – I was just going to jump in, and sometimes I’ve jumped in and you &#8212;QUESTION: No, please, please. Go ahead.MR MILLER: &#8212; you’ve not been done with the question, so I didn’t want to interrupt you.QUESTION: No, I’m fine. Go ahead.MR MILLER: So with respect to a potential operation in Rafah, what we have made clear to them is we share the goal of dismantling the remaining Hamas battalions that are – that exist in Rafah and do pose a legitimate security threat to the State of Israel and the people of Israel. But we do not want them to conduct a full-scale operation that we believe would not only lead to a high number of civilian deaths and would hinder the delivery of humanitarian assistance, but would ultimately weaken Israel’s security. So what we did in that meeting that the Secretary attended at the White House a couple of days ago is to offer them our best advice on other ways to accomplish that mission. And we will have follow-up meetings in the coming days to further that conversation.Go ahead. I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So you said that we have seven dead international aid workers and you want to avoid seeing more killing in the future. So therefore, you said that you asked Israel to coordinate better and to establish deconflicting zones. But this is contradict with what exactly happened with World Central Kitchen. They coordinated with Israelis to every detail and they went into exactly the deconflict – deconflicting zone on the beach, and yet they were targeted. So how this applies now? What difference does it make?MR MILLER: That has been – that is exactly the point I was making. They have had deconfliction measures, they have had coordination measures to try to prevent tragedies like this from happening, and they haven’t worked well enough. Clearly they haven’t worked well enough when you see not just these seven aid workers that have been killed, but over 200 aid workers that have been killed since the outset of this conflict. And so they need to do a better job. Some of this has been bureaucratic with aid workers not talking to the – having the right – with the IDF not having set up the right channels to communicate with aid workers and messages not getting passed back and forth.But as I said, ultimately, whatever the details are that broke down here, the result is unacceptable, and that’s why they need to do better. And so that’s why they need to have improved deconfliction and coordination measures to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future.QUESTION: Okay. So as a result of the killing of the World Central Kitchen staff – also Anera, which is an American NGO, suspended their work in delivering aid to Gaza. And before that, UNRWA was targeted by the Israelis of saying there is some people who are involved in the October 7 attack, and we’re still waiting for the investigation. So practically, three of the vital organizations that providing aid to Gaza either suspended their work or they don’t have enough fund to help the people who are starving in Gaza.Some people believe that this actually is kind of a strategy on behalf of the Israelis to use food as a weapon of war and to prevent Gazans of receiving the aid, and therefore forcing them to leave, as some kind of strategy by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do you see it? Can you entertain this for a second, this thought that actually this is not a mistake or unintentional or haphazard or was accident, but actually there is some kind of thought process that get into it by the Israelis.MR MILLER: So a few things just in the preface to the question first. So with respect to UNRWA, it’s not just the Israeli Government that found that there were UNRWA workers that participated in the terrorist attacks – it was UNRWA itself. And I think that’s always an important thing to remember, UNRWA itself that actually briefed the United States on its own findings.With respect to UNRWA, it does continue to operate. Obviously it’s faced funding challenges, but you’ve seen a number of countries who have resumed their funding. And UNRWA is continuing to do important work on the ground now – vital work – that we want to see continued. So while they have faced funding challenges, they are continuing to deliver humanitarian assistance inside Gaza, and it’s critical that that work continue. I – obviously there are organizations that are going to look at what happened the other day now and be worried about the safety and security of their employees. How could they not be? And so it is why it is incumbent on the Government of Israel to institute better measures to give confidence to aid workers that their employee – or to give aid organizations that their employees won’t be killed just trying to deliver humanitarian assistance.With respect to the overall policy, look, I can just speak to what the Government of Israel has said and what they have done. So they have said they want to see humanitarian assistance come in and they have allowed humanitarian assistance to come in through Rafah, through Kerem Shalom, through the 96 gate. They’re working with us on this maritime option that we are standing up with the cooperation of other countries in the region. But in all of these circumstances, it has been not enough. It has been too little. It has been plagued in many cases by bureaucratic delays and bureaucratic obstacles that we are continuing to try to work through.But it’s kind of the same thing as – with respect to – it’s the same point I’m making with respect to these deaths. Whatever the reason the number – the amount of humanitarian assistance hasn’t gotten in at the levels it should had, the ultimate fact is the fact, which is not enough food, not enough water is getting in right now. And the Government of Israel needs to do more to allow it to get in and to facilitate it getting in.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just want to follow up Said’s questions on nearly 200 aid workers killed in Gaza and your – difference in your approach. President Biden yesterday expressed outrage over the killing of seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen in Gaza. Is the administration also outraged by the killing of nearly 200 aid workers, 100 journalists, 30,000 – 33,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children? Are you outraged by this too?MR MILLER: We are outraged by every loss of civilian life in Gaza. And you have heard the President speak to this, you’ve heard the Secretary speak to this in saying far too many civilians have been killed, too many aid workers have died in this conflict, too many journalists have died in this conflict, and we want to see Israel do a better job in minimizing all of those casualties.QUESTION: Just one more on that. Biden also, in the same statement, said that Israel has not done enough to protect aid workers and civilians. And you yourself said that you have repeatedly urged Israel to take some steps to minimize civilian harm in Gaza. If there are steps that Israel needs to take and Israel chooses not to take them, doesn’t that mean that Israel is deliberately attacking aid workers and civilians?MR MILLER: No, I don’t think you can necessarily make that conclusion because there &#8212;QUESTION: Why?MR MILLER: Because sometimes there are bureaucratic obstacles that are presented. And we try to work through those bureaucratic obstacles. But &#8212;QUESTION: How do you explain the killing 33,000 Palestinians, then?MR MILLER: So partly this is because Israel is operating in an incredibly difficult environment where Hamas hides behind human shields. They’re operating in an urban environment where Hamas has constructed tunnels beneath apartment buildings, hides in mosques, hides in hospitals, even hospitals that – like al-Shifa that Israel had cleared. Hamas returns to those hospitals. And so it is an incredibly difficult environment, and the Israeli Defense Forces face real challenges &#8212;QUESTION: But does this justify killing of civilians?MR MILLER: Real challenges – but I’ll say it does not minimize at all their responsibility to do everything possible to prevent taking civilian life.Tom.QUESTION: Just to follow up on the several questions about the value of investigations after actions by the IDF, I mean, you have called numerous times for investigations after Palestinians have been killed in recent years. Some of those have been U.S. citizens. In the last two years, Omar Assad, February 2022, found dead after being detained by Israeli soldiers. You called for a thorough criminal investigation, full accountability. Shireen Abu Akleh, as we know, May 2022, a U.S. citizen – you called for a full investigation. June 2023, Omar Qatin, a U.S. resident in Turmus Ayya, which is a town full of U.S. passport holders in the West Bank – you called for full accountability and justice. I haven’t – what – are you satisfied with the outcome of those three investigations, for a start? And then what should we read into your call for an investigation in this case &#8212;MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to the specifics of every one of those investigations. Some of them predate my &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: I would say some of them predate my time here before I was working at the State Department. I can say with respect to the investigation of Shireen Abu Akleh, of course, we called on Israel to investigate and we also called on them to cooperate with our investigation. And they did cooperate with our investigation that the U.S. security coordinator conducted that concluded that gunfire from IDF positions was likely responsible for her tragic death. And so there were steps that they took to cooperate with the investigation that we had.Ultimately, as it pertains to the deaths of – and I should say there are two other cases that are ongoing right now, one of American citizens who were killed in the West Bank, one that’s being conducted by – one investigation that’s being conducted by Israeli law enforcement, one that’s being conducted by Palestinian Authority law enforcement. And in all of those cases, we want the same thing. We want a full investigation. We want to – it to happen as quickly as possible, but we don’t want that swiftness to come at the expense of thoroughness. Ultimately, it’s important that they get it right.And then with respect to all of them, we will make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether that investigation was conducted fully and appropriately and led to appropriate outcomes and results.QUESTION: I mean, B’Tselem, which is a very well respected Israeli human rights group, several years ago said it would stop cooperating with military investigations in Israel because – in its words – they are “nothing more than a masquerade.” Do you see that view? Do you have any sympathy with it?MR MILLER: Let me just say with respect to – I think we’re all going to have a chance, the entire world, including the journalists in this room, including the United States Government, to look at an investigation being conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces with respect to the killing of these World Central Kitchen workers, and we are all going to be able to make our own independent judgments about the thoroughness and the reliability of that investigation. I know that we will do so, and I’m sure that all of you as well – will as well.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, let’s stay on. Alex, I’m just &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: I’ll come back to you. Stay on – I’m sure we’ll stay in the region.QUESTION: Matt, just want to follow up on Said and a Rabiyah question regarding this attack on WCK convoy. It’s not an isolated incident. Been attacks on conveys before, on UNRWA’s storage facilities; people queuing for aid in Gaza have been also targeted by Israel forces. And now you’re calling them for an investigation. You’re calling them to change some – to make some changes so this incident doesn’t happen again. But don’t you think that the U.S. soft approach toward Israel in this war also let them to get away with it, for example?MR MILLER: So I would &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible) do that?MR MILLER: Sorry, sorry. I would disagree with the characterization. We have on a number of occasions pressed them to do more on deconfliction measures, on protection of civilians, and they have taken steps that have been important; in most cases – nearly all cases – not enough, but steps that have been tangible and that have produced results. But we want to see them do better, and that’s why we’ll continue to engage with them on that – in that regard.QUESTION: But do you think it was better enough? Let’s say, I mean, that northern Gaza is on the verge of famine already. Aid are not coming in for a while now, for months. Your pressing the Israelis’ counterparts, it seems that doesn’t yield results any more.MR MILLER: So I will say that you can look back at the history of our engagements with the Government of Israel and show where it has produced tangible results. And that includes in the immediate aftermath of October 7th, right up to the recent history, starting with the first trip that the Secretary made to the region when he urged the Government of Israel to open Rafah, and then the President came two days later and cemented that agreement to open Rafah, which allowed humanitarian assistance to get in.We then engaged with them to urge the opening of Kerem Shalom, which is an important step to allowing more humanitarian assistance to get in. The same thing is what led to the opening of the 96th gate in the north, the same thing that led to flour coming in through Ashdod, the same thing that is leading to the opening of a maritime route to get more humanitarian assistance in.When it comes to deconfliction measures, it was our involvement that led to them to implement a humanitarian pause, not just the pause of one week, but three-hour pauses with four hours’ notice in the early days of the war when they were bombing neighborhoods, oftentimes with kind of blanket notices but not with any kind of specificity. And it was our involvement that led them to start offering those pauses. It is our involvement that led to them offering, as I said earlier, specific neighborhood evacuation orders rather than just these blanket orders.That said, in all of these cases, we want to see them do more and we want to see them do better. We want to see them to do more to let humanitarian assistance in and to protect civilian lives. And that is why we are consistently engaged with them, from the President of the United States, to the Secretary of State, to our team on the ground, and everyone in the United States Government who works on this matter.QUESTION: The last – my last question about the statement that issued by the White House’s today on the – President Biden’s statement regarding this attack on – the latest attack on the convoy. The President sounded outraged and heartbroken, and blamed Israel that they are not doing enough to protect aid workers. Does this language signal a change in policy, or is just a statement regarding this incident?MR MILLER: It was a statement about this incident. But it’s not a change in policy because we have always, as I said, consistently been telling the Government of Israel that they need to do more to protect aid workers and civilians and journalists. Now, we’re glad to see them taking additional measures now; as I said, those measures were overdue. We’ve been urging them to do them from some time – for some time. But this has always been the policy that we have clearly communicated to them that we want them to follow.Camilla.QUESTION: Matt, sorry, just one on the U.S.-Canadian dual national who was amongst those killed. World Central Kitchen has also named him. Can you confirm that the State Department has reached out to his family, and what if any consular support the U.S. can give?MR MILLER: We have reached out to his family. We reached out to his family yesterday to offer our condolences and to offer any consular assistance that we can provide. That is always our standard practice in these cases when we see an American citizen who has tragically lost their life overseas. We offer any type of assistance that we can to facilitate whatever they need in the wake of this tragedy. And we’ll keep, obviously, the details of that private, but we have been in touch with his family.Let me just make sure. Stay in the – finish up on Gaza before – go ahead. Guita, sorry.QUESTION: Thanks. In the neighborhood?MR MILLER: In the neighborhood, yeah.QUESTION: Yes. Thank you. Regarding the attack on the Iranian facility in Damascus, I was wondering, well, we know that the United States has sent messages to Iran saying that it was not involved. It had no idea of this operation. I was wondering what – how was the American message received? Was it accepted, do you think, considering that there are now a number of officials threatening retaliation?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to how it might have been received. The Iranians can speak for theirselves. I will just say that we made very clear to the Iranians that we had no involvement in this strike, we didn’t know about it at the time, and we warned them not to use this attack as a pretext to attack U.S. facilities or personnel.QUESTION: Since then, have you – has the administration possibly followed up with reaching out to an intermediary, somebody that – a country that Iran trusts – to hone in that message?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to our range of diplomatic engagements, but as we have made clear over a number of months, we have the ability to send messages, very clear messages, to Iran both directly and indirectly, and we do so when it’s in our interest.QUESTION: Matt, do you know if – have you – has the administration been able to ascertain the – that the facility, the Iranian facility, was indeed a diplomatic one, as Iran claims?MR MILLER: We are still gathering details about what it – what precisely type of facility that was.QUESTION: And given the Iranian response or threats, are U.S. interests – troops – in the region and across the world, have they been put on alert?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to speak to that. Obviously, we have been broadly – excuse me – we have been broadly – and I’m not speaking on behalf of the Pentagon but just on behalf of the State Department – broadly concerned about escalation since October 7th, and if you’ve seen us take a number of steps over time with respect to our embassies. We are constantly monitoring the situation and making assessments about the precise threat environment at any given day. But I don’t have any updates to posture to announce. And with respect to American forces in the region, I would defer to the Pentagon for comment.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Two questions, basically. First question specifically: For you being diplomat, do you think so attacking diplomatic missions and diplomats in an area that is dedicated or declared a diplomatic mission? It sounds like the U.S. have no condemnation on this Israeli strike. It will be another continuation for Israel, another signal to continue this effort. Because the attack, where it happened, that location were adjacent to other missions, like Iranian mission is right next to it. So what is your comment?MR MILLER: We do not support attacks on diplomatic facilities, but as I said in response to Guita’s question, we’re still gathering information about what type of facility this was.QUESTION: And my other question is regarding the United States position on the strong support to Indian opposition as the State Department issued many statements in the support of Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal and then the (inaudible) of Congress. So it seemed like United States have very strong position to – to condemning the attempts to silence the opposition in India. But regarding the political prisoners in Pakistan, specifically the female prisoners that are still behind the bars of a many political charges. So why so strong position for Indian opposition and nothing for the Pakistani political prisoners?MR MILLER: So I would – I would – I would not agree with that characterization. We have made clear on a number of occasions that we want to see everyone in Pakistan treated consistent with the rule of law, treated with respect for human rights, as is our position with respect to any country in the world.QUESTION: The female prisoners &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. It’s been 110 days since journalist Samer Abu Daqqa was killed; 65 days since six-year-old Hind Rajab, her family, the medics sent to save her were killed. Per Shaun and other colleagues’ earliest question, today should be Shireen Abu Akleh’s birthday, our Palestinian-American colleague, I might add, killed in 2022. So I’m wondering if you have updates on not just the investigations but actual accountability measures in response to these? And if not, how can this administration’s approach of relegating things to months-long investigations while not changing policy – all as thousands more are killed – be a justified approach?MR MILLER: So I would say that with respect to Shireen, I did speak to that a moment ago. We can &#8212;QUESTION: Right, but in terms of accountability measures as well.MR MILLER: Yeah, I know. I know. We condemned her killing when it happened. We still condemn it now. There was an investigation conducted by the United States that found no reason to believe that that death was intentional, but it is a tragedy nonetheless. With respect to investigations – and, look, this is – I used to have to answer questions on behalf of the Justice Department that were very similar to this – investigations in some cases take time. You heard me a minute ago say we want them in every case to be conducted swiftly but not at the expense of thoroughness. And that is our position with respect to these investigations in Israel; it is our position with respect to investigations anywhere in the world, whether they impacted American citizens or they involve other types of tragedy. So we will continue to press for not just full investigations but, when warranted, all appropriate accountability measures.QUESTION: But so – yeah, like, given that approach, I understand; but given, again, that thousands of people have been killed since these instances I’ve laid out – Hind Rajab’s killing, the journalist’s killing – like, how is this justified given – and as you’ve said yourself, like, the material consequences of these things matter. The fact that seven aid workers have been killed matters. So how can this approach continue to be justified if – well, at the end, what matters is thousands of people continue to be killed with no change in policy.MR MILLER: So there are two things here. I think one is with respect to investigations, and we want to see accountability measures, when appropriate, for people who have behaved inappropriately, in violation of IDF code of conduct or in violation of international humanitarian law, we want to see accountability inside the Israeli system. But it’s also true that we have pressed the government to enact operational changes to prevent further civilian loss of life. And we have seen them – as I have spoken to at length – enact changes over time. Those haven’t been sufficient. We have seen Minister Gallant announce new changes that they are putting in place just yesterday, and we are going to watch those and make our judgments based on how they work.QUESTION: Finally, one more. As our colleagues have pointed out, hundreds of aid workers, doctors, volunteers have been killed even before this week. U.S. has cut funding to UNRWA, the World Central Kitchen is pausing operations, Anera is pausing, all out of fear of their workers being killed. And you think of, for instance, the Mr. Rogers quote, the infamous Mr. Rogers quote, if you’ll humor me: “When I was a boy and I would see scary things on the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’” I imagine you and your colleagues have come into this work hopefully trying to be helpers, too. So I wonder, what’s the United States’s message to the helpers in the world trying to help people in Gaza, given those helpers are being killed with American military aid?MR MILLER: So you saw the Secretary speak to this not the – with a very similar quote yesterday, speaking in Paris about how aid workers are the helpers that run into conflict to provide help to those who need it. And our message to them is what it has been throughout this conflict, that we support the work that you do, we fund the work that aid organizations do in Israel, in Gaza, all around the world, and we want to see that work continue, and we will continue to make very clear to the Government of Israel that it needs to do much better to protect those workers from harm.All right. Any more in the region before move on?QUESTION: It’s a – one follow-up question.MR MILLER: We’ll finish here, and then I’ll take a few.QUESTION: When you said that you don’t expect that this attack is going to impact the humanitarian pier being set up and the support from that pier getting to where it needs to go, I assume, or are you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I was – what I was speaking to is the – you have to – when you think about the pier, you have to think about the same way as I think delivery through Rafah or anywhere else. There is both getting aid in through the pier and into Gaza, that’s the first step; and then there’s the delivery of that aid inside Gaza.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: We do not expect that it would impact the first; of course, the ability of humanitarian aid workers to deliver aid inside Gaza, which is what we saw tragically impacted yesterday, continues to be an ongoing concern. And so it’s why it’s important that the Government of Israel improve deconfliction and coordination measures.QUESTION: So could this incident delay that pier being up and running and getting the support to people?MR MILLER: I would refer to the Pentagon for any comment about the timeline of this pier, which you should not read into one way or the other, other than that it’s a project that they are managing. It’s just something I’ve never been able to speak to from here.Humeyra.QUESTION: Just on – to follow up on that one, actually, have you had since yesterday any conversations with any – with Pentagon or with any possible humanitarian aid partners on the ground about how concerned they are because now it would be expected that perhaps they would look for additional measures to ensure their safety and security?MR MILLER: We’ve had a number of conversations with humanitarian aid organizations who, as you might expect, as you would obviously expect, are incredibly concerned about what happened. But the sad truth is – as we’ve spoken to, as some of you have mentioned in your questions I’ve spoken to – these are not the first death of aid workers. There have been 200 aid workers that have been killed. So the very sad truth is that the workers doing this important work are aware of the risk, because they’re living with them every day and are putting their lives potentially on the line to deliver humanitarian assistance.So what we have heard from aid groups is they want to see the Government of Israel do better, and that’s what we have pushed the Government of Israel to do.QUESTION: And have you picked a partner on who’s going to distribute from that pier, who’s going to pick it up from the pier?MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any further updates or developments on that question. It’s something we’re continuing to work through.QUESTION: Just a couple of other things. Is it the State Department’s or is it U.S. understanding that there are – there is already famine in Gaza? You have warned of imminent risk, but is it your understanding that there is already famine in &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not aware of an assessment that there is currently famine. Now, there are places where we have a lack of information, particularly in northern Gaza, where it is very clear that there is acute food insecurity and there is a potential for famine. What’s actually occurring on the ground is very difficult to know. Bottom line is there needs to be more food delivered to people who desperately need it, because if famine is not already occurring, there are at least parts of Gaza that are on the brink of famine, and we need to get food in to those people.QUESTION: And two more things. Palestinian Authority wants a vote at the UN Security Council in April to become a full member. Does the U.S. oppose this, and if necessary would you veto it?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speculate about what may happen down the road. But we have always made clear that we believe the – while we support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and you’ve seen the Secretary engage in very intensive diplomacy over the past few months to try to establish a Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel, that is something that should be done through direct negotiations through the parties – something we are pursuing at this time – and not at the United Nations.QUESTION: Okay. And the final thing is &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: &#8212; Kirby said – sorry, I’m almost done – Kirby said yesterday on the podium that the State Department has not found that Israel’s military conduct has violated international humanitarian law. His comment sounded conclusive and definitive. So I just want to follow up and clarify: Does the State Department have such a definitive conclusion that it has looked at all of the incidents raised so far, and all of the incidents and the review on those have been concluded, and as a result, you have a definitive assessment that no violations have occurred?MR MILLER: So I saw what the admiral said. He also said that we have ongoing processes here at the State Department, and that is &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, that is what he &#8212;MR MILLER: I – so that is correct. We have ongoing processes here at the State Department to examine that very question, and we have not at this time concluded that Israel has violated international humanitarian law, but these are very much ongoing processes with respect to that question.QUESTION: Can I just follow up one single thing on that?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is – have any of those – when you’re making the assessments, have any of those gone to the Office of the Legal Adviser?MR MILLER: I have made it clear that we are not going to talk about the specifics of internal deliberations and how we’re conducting those processes. But there &#8212;QUESTION: This is – it’s about international humanitarian law, so it’s a legal assessment &#8212;MR MILLER: There – and there are a number of offices inside the State Department that are involved in these assessments, but I’m not going to speak to the exact specifics.QUESTION: Are you able to say how many incidents in total are you looking at? Is it a couple? Is it dozens?MR MILLER: A number of them. I’ll leave it at that.Shaun.QUESTION: Hey, Matt, in yesterday’s presser &#8212;MR MILLER: I meant Shaun, but go ahead, Alex. I’ve been – I’ve been overlooking you for some times, so go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, back to yesterday’s presser. At the presser the Secretary seemed to suggest that Russia has already received Iranian ballistic missiles and – and has used it in Ukraine. The White House yesterday couldn’t confirm that. Did the Secretary mean to say that? Was it translation error? I should mention that he was speaking in French.MR MILLER: He was speaking in French, and we have made very clear that we have been concerned about the burgeoning security partnership between Iran and Russia. The Secretary was speaking to the fact that they have delivered drones already.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to the South Caucasus. Secretary spoke with Aliyev today. If you look at Azerbaijan readout, Aliyev was venting about this week’s meeting-slash-Armenia summit. And he said that the failure to postpone the trilateral meeting – despite his concerns, he says – will lead to escalation of tension and – rather than peace. Does the Secretary agree with that assessment, and is a meeting still on?MR MILLER: So I – with respect to that, I am going to defer to a statement that we have coming out shortly. The President spoke to – I’m sorry – the Secretary spoke to President Aliyev earlier today, and we’ll have a readout coming.QUESTION: About – about the particular point that Aliyev made, did the Secretary – will that change any decision? Yeah.MR MILLER: We will speak to that in the readout, but their meeting is – the meeting is still ongoing.QUESTION: All right. On Georgia, do you have anything for me on Georgian Government’s trying to press – reintroduce, let’s say, the Russian law? They tried it last year; they failed. It looks like they are trying &#8212;MR MILLER: So we’ve seen the reports that they are considering that potential legislation. And And I would just say that last year, tens of thousands of Georgians took to the streets to make their European ambitions known and to reject the last attempt to implement this law. Georgia has a historic opportunity to open EU’s accession talks, and we stand ready to continue to support Georgia in that process.QUESTION: I have one more, if I may, on Russia sanctions. It appears as the administration removed three of Russia sanctions from the SDN list, targeting VTB Bank subsidiaries. U.S. imposed them two months ago against a Russian oligarch because of sanction violations. What is the reason for that decision?MR MILLER: So with respect to that specific question, I’ll refer you to the Treasury Department. But I would note that we have continued to impose new sanctions on Russia, including just in the past few months, and have taken measures to tighten the enforcement of our existing sanctions.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shaun, go ahead. And then I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: A different topic – Uganda. The constitutional court in Uganda today struck down a bid to undo the anti-LGBTQ law. I was wondering if the U.S. has any reaction to the court ruling and whether this will have any implications on policy toward Uganda, including potentially more sanctions (inaudible).MR MILLER: So the United States continues to be deeply troubled by human rights abuses in Uganda and by the anti-homosexuality act. We believe that law undermines the human rights, prosperity, and welfare of all Ugandans. The Ugandan Government’s failure to safeguard the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons is part of the broader degradation of human rights protections that puts all in Uganda at risk and damages the country’s reputation abroad.And with respect to United States actions, so we have already imposed sanctions, including the visa restriction policy. We have ended Uganda’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, curtailed direct government-to-government funding to programs implemented with Uganda, issued a business advisory, a travel advisory, and advocated for Uganda’s full compliance with the social safeguards agreed to in the World Bank lending – in World Bank lending. And we will continue to take all appropriate measures.QUESTION: And just – just a very brief follow-up on that. I mean, it’s not the only place in Africa where this is happening. Ghana – there’s still the debate there. I mean, is there a concern about a broader push against LGBTQ equality in Africa? And particularly on Ghana, is there any communication on that with the Ghanaians?MR MILLER: So we are deeply concerned by legislation under consideration elsewhere in Africa and globally – it’s not just in Africa – that targets LGBTQI+ persons and their allies. We believe that governments should protect the – all individuals in their countries, and that every person deserves full dignity, and that these laws, whether they be in Africa or anywhere else in the world, undermine the human rights, prosperity, and welfare of individuals, and risk damaging their country’s reputation abroad.Go ahead, and then I’ll come to &#8212;QUESTION: Would you have a comment on the earthquake in Taiwan, the worst in 25 years?MR MILLER: I would say first and foremost we express our deepest condolences on behalf of the United States to the at least nine people dead and 900 injured and their families and everyone who was affected. We stand ready to support the people of Taiwan at this difficult time. USAID staff in the region and here in Washington will continue to closely monitor the earthquake and tsunami warnings, and will remain in close contact with the American Institute in Taiwan and are ready to provide assistance if necessary.QUESTION: Also, with the AIT chairperson now in Taipei, would you have a message ahead of the inauguration next month of Taiwan’s president-elect?MR MILLER: I would say that the chair will meet during this trip with a range of senior Taiwan leaders, political figures, and scholars from across party lines to discuss continued U.S.-Taiwan collaboration on issues of mutual interest, such as regional security, mutually beneficial trade and investment, and people-to-people, educational, and cultural ties. But broadly, U.S. policy has not changed. We have a longstanding, rock-solid partnership with Taiwan, and we look forward to continuing that unofficial relationship through the Taiwan political transition.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: On equality, the Secretary announced a new chief DEI officer yesterday, but there’s criticism both internally and outside of State on why this took so long. The position was vacant for 10 months and doesn’t require Senate confirmation, so why did it take so long if this is such a top priority for the Secretary?MR MILLER: So we were working to find the best possible candidate, and we believe we did find the best possible candidate. Oftentimes when it comes to these jobs, you have to go through difficult bureaucratic procedures to fill basic positions, but I will say the emphasis that the Secretary has put on this job has not wavered – and has put on this issue has not wavered – throughout that time, that our work to expand diversity has continued since the outset of this administration because the Secretary believes that having a workforce that reflects America in all of its diversity makes us stronger and improves our national security. And we look forward to working this – with this new diversity officer to expand the work that we are already doing.And I’ll take one more and then wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. An Indian internal investigation has found the involvement of the intelligence officials into the assassination attempt on Sikh leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York. According to Indian media, that report is also shared with the State Department. Do you have any response on that because you were also waiting for that (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to media reports. I will just say that we have made clear to the Government of India that we want to see them conduct a full investigation, and we continue to look forward to the results of that investigation, but I don’t have any updates to offer.QUESTION: Sir, according to some media reports, the United Nations has delivered more than $2.9 billion in cash to Afghanistan since the Taliban seized control, resulting in the flow of U.S. funds to the extremist group. So sir, is this happening with the consultation of U.S. Government or &#8212;MR MILLER: No, not at all. So let me make clear that we require all of our partners to have safeguards in place to ensure that assistance reaches those who need it. We also require robust monitoring and reporting from partner organizations implementing assistance programs, including those in unstable and unfriendly environments. When there is cause for concern related to the delivery of assistance, we have plans and protocols in place to respond, and we will continue to monitor all of our assistance programs and seek to mitigate the risk that U.S. assistance could indirectly benefit the Taliban or could be diverted to unintended recipients.QUESTION: Any response to the President Biden’s letter? Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has said that Pakistan is willing to work with the U.S. for global peace and regional prosperity. What support can U.S. offer Pakistan in addressing security threats from neighboring countries and combatting the Pakistani Taliban?MR MILLER: So we will continue to work to expand the security partnership between the United States and Pakistan. We have spoken to that a number of times from this podium. It’s been a priority for us and will continue to be so.And with that, I’ll wrap for today. Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Georgia																								Ghana																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Taiwan																								Uganda
- Department Press Briefing – April 1, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 1, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 1, 2024																																																					April 1, 2024																																																								1:19 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Hello everyone. Good afternoon. I don’t have anything to start with, so – Matt, welcome back.QUESTION: Well – well.MR MILLER: Welcome back for a short period. I know you’re traveling with the Secretary.QUESTION: Well –MR MILLER: Happy to have you today.QUESTION: I’m sure you are. I won’t – never mind. Let’s just start with Gaza. Two things. One, in terms of the Secretary’s involvement or the State Department’s involvement with this meeting, virtual meeting today, can you tell us – with the Israelis about Rafah?MR MILLER: So the Secretary is at the White House right now participating in the meeting with representatives of the Israeli Government to lay out an alternative approach to dealing with the remaining Hamas battalions in Rafah. When I walked out, the meeting had not yet broken, or at least I’m not aware of it yet having broken, and expect a statement from the White House at its – upon its conclusion.QUESTION: Okay. Well, was there anything specifically that the State Department wanted to convey, to get across to the Israelis in this meeting?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak too specifically about the meeting that is, as far as I’m aware, ongoing. We’ll have a statement afterwards. But the Secretary would, I expect, reiterate the concerns that he expressed when he was in Israel some 10 days ago now about the dramatic humanitarian impact of a full-scale ground invasion in Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, I presume that you have seen some of the images, video and still photos, plus witness accounts and written witness accounts of what happened at the Shifa Hospital. Do you have anything to say about that?MR MILLER: Yeah. So I have seen a few things – one, the accounts in the media from inside Gaza, and I of course have seen what the IDF has said about the operations that it has conducted, where it has said it has killed a number of members of Hamas and detained I think several hundred additional members of Hamas. We, as often is the case, don’t have any – the ability to get full ground truth, because we don’t have anyone on the ground in Gaza.I will say from our perspective, the things that you have heard us say before, of course, remain true. It’s we generally don’t want to see Israel operating inside hospitals in Gaza. We want to see hospitals be protected sites. But it is concerning that after Israel had conducted an operation earlier in this campaign to clear al-Shifa, that al-Shifa again was apparently infiltrated by Hamas fighters.And so two things about that: One, look, obviously, we – it would be great if Hamas would stop hiding behind civilians and stop hiding inside civilian infrastructure, including hospitals; but two, it points out what we have been saying all along, which is the need for Israel to have a sustainable, long-term strategy when it comes to Gaza, that it’s not enough to just clear certain neighborhoods or hospitals or any other geographic areas or buildings of Hamas. They need to have a long-term, sustainable strategy that is not just a security strategy but also a political strategy if they really want to secure the future of Israel against the terrorist threat that has to date emanated from Gaza.QUESTION: Okay. And so you don’t have any comment on what you’ve seen from the aftermath of the two-week operation against the hospital?MR MILLER: Not beyond what I just outlined.QUESTION: All right. And then when you say – and this will be it for me. Then when you say Israel needs a sustainable, long-term strategy for Gaza, have you seen one yet from them?MR MILLER: We have not yet seen one, no. And that’s what we have been in conversation with them about, that what they &#8212;QUESTION: But presumably the meeting today is just about Rafah, right? It’s not &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s just about – it’s just about Rafah.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And the point I mean – a sustainable, long-term strategy means something beyond a military strategy. It means &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, but &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; a political path as well.QUESTION: So a political path to two states, right, from your &#8212;MR MILLER: That is our preferred – that is our preferred policy. But you need a political path of some sort for it.QUESTION: But have you seen –MR MILLER: No. No.QUESTION: But have you seen one from the Israelis that is even – that is even short of two states?MR MILLER: At this point we have not, no.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, just to follow up on al-Shifa, Israel has given some numbers: 200 militants have been killed; 900 suspected militants detained, of whom some 500 have been identified as Hamas. Does the United States have any assessment that these numbers are correct?MR MILLER: We don’t have an independent assessment, no.QUESTION: Do you have an assessment on how many civilians around that operation have been killed?MR MILLER: We do not.QUESTION: Okay. Moving on to this strike, the suspected Israeli strike in Damascus, do you have anything to say on this (inaudible)?MR MILLER: I don’t. Obviously, it just happened in the hour or two before I came out here. We are in conversations with partners in the region, gathering more information, but at this point don’t have confirmation either of the target or the responsible party.QUESTION: Do you know if the United States was given a heads-up by Israel about this?MR MILLER: Again, we are gathering information. I don’t have anything about the strike right now. I don’t have anything beyond that to offer.QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any concerns that this might sort of escalate tensions, which are already high &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t –QUESTION: &#8212; and it would endanger the hostage talks in any way?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to – before we have gathered information about what exactly this was, I don’t want to speak to it specifically. But of course, we are always concerned about anything that would be escalatory or cause an increase in conflict in the region. It has been one of the goals of this administration since October 7th to keep the conflict from spreading, recognizing that Israel has a – the right to defend itself from adversaries that are sworn to its destruction.But with respect to the hostage talks, there is no reason why this incident should have any impact on the hostage talks. We have long believed it is in the interest of everyone to see these hostage talks succeed because you would not just see a relief to the civilian population in Gaza that desperately needs it; it would enable the increase in humanitarian assistance into Gaza and of course it would get the hostages out. So no, I don’t – no, I don’t believe it should have any impact on it.QUESTION: Can you say how those talks are going as far as &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any new assessment to offer today.QUESTION: Okay, two final things. This is about last – this is from last week about these authorizations of these bombs to Israel. They have been approved a long time ago by Congress, but it looks like the State Department has decided to do the transfers last week, the week before. Why was that decision taken, like, recently?MR MILLER: So let me – I think it would be helpful to step back and put this in a little context, and the context is that we – the United States has a decades-long commitment to Israel’s security. Israel is surrounded by entities that are sworn to its destruction – not just Hamas but Iran and proxy groups that Iran sponsors, Hizballah among them, who have repeatedly talked about their desire for the destruction of Israel.We believe Israel has every right to defend itself against those opponents, and we to that end have a longstanding security relationship with them where we provide them more than $3 billion annually in security assistance. Now, the way that that works – and I know you prefaced this in your question, but just for the benefit of everyone else – the way that that works is we provide them with $3.3 billion a year in security assistance. They don’t always draw all of that down in any given year, but they come to the United States, request certain defense articles. We make assessments about whether those are appropriate or not. We notify them to Congress in the regular course of business.And oftentimes what happens – let’s say just as an example, this is a fictional example; let’s say they requested a hundred planes – we make a decision, we notify Congress. That doesn’t mean that they take a hundred planes tomorrow once that notification has been given and once the approval has been given. They draw those down over time, and sometimes it takes years to fulfill those requests.And so those are the types of things that – I see you wanting to go. Bear with me. I know – I know this is long, and then you’ll have the opportunity for a follow-up. Those are the types of things that often take years to fulfill, and they were happening before October 7th and they have continued after October 7th.So what these are about in many cases are about self-defense, but also deterrence and replenishment. And so we make these in the regular course of business, and what I can tell you about them is that we follow the same procedures with respect to everyone that we do for every other country in the world, which is that we notify Congress. And in fact, since October 7th we have gone above and beyond to notify Congress about these transfers. There is a statutory threshold where we are required to notify them of transfers. We have been regularly briefing the committees to let – to make them aware of every transfer that we are making.QUESTION: So I’m going to have to combine my questions now that you’ve taken up so much time to answer. I understand &#8212;MR MILLER: I would apologize, but I don’t think you’d believe it.QUESTION: Oh no, I’m just joking. Of course take your time. I understand the fulfilling can take years, but are you basically saying that the authorization of the transfer coming in these recent weeks was a coincidence?MR MILLER: So I’m not saying it’s a coincidence. Israel has been engaged in a military conflict, and of course when you are engaged in a military conflict you deplete your military stocks and you need to &#8212;QUESTION: So there was a request in recent weeks &#8212;MR MILLER: And you need to see those – I’m not going to &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; for the – for the additional fulfilled – for the fulfillment of these particular &#8212;MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; weapons.MR MILLER: As is always the case, I’m not going to get into the timings of exact requests from here.QUESTION: Okay. My final &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me just – I’ll be quick. That’s a – but this is a process that we keep Congress fully apprised of, our relevant committees.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But when you see these types of requests and when they get publicly reported – and you have to remember that Israel is in an armed conflict and is expending a great deal of defense materiel, and some of that needs to be replenished for Israel’s long-term security.QUESTION: Right. And my final thing on this is, like, the Secretary and a lot of senior officials from this administration basically said far too many Palestinians have been killed. But when you go and make the – and we know that the administration’s policy hasn’t changed; it is not conditioning weapons to Israel. But when you go and make such an authorization of the transfer in recent weeks, even if the actual weapons transfer has been approved years ago, don’t you think that is going to damage the weight of your word, your credibility, and basically your sincerity in saying that far too many Palestinians have been killed?MR MILLER: So I do not agree with that at all. We have been very clear that we want to see Israel do everything it can to minimize civilian casualties. We have made clear that they need to do every – that they need to operate at all times in full compliance with international humanitarian law. At the same time, we are committed to Israel’s right to self-defense, and this is a long-term commitment the United States has made, that it made before October 7th and that continues – it continues since October 7th.So obviously the fight in Gaza is connected to Israel’s long-term security in very substantial ways. I got into some of that with response to Matt’s question. But Israel still faces – in addition to the security challenge posed with – in Gaza, it still faces an Iran that is hostile to Israel. It still faces Hizballah on its northern border that is hostile to Israel and says it is committed to the destruction of Israel. And so we are going to continue to support Israel’s ability to defend itself against those sworn enemies that want to see it end as a modern state, or a state at all.Yeah.QUESTION: Just to follow up, a 2,000-pound bomb is self-defensive, in your opinion?MR MILLER: It is a – so they need to have the ability to defend themself against a very well-armed adversary – like I said, Iran; Hizballah, which has thousands and thousands of fighters and quite sophisticated materiel and quite sophisticated weaponry, as we’ve seen them deploy – excuse me – against Israel in the last few days. So yes, they do need the modern military equipment to defend themselves against those adversaries.QUESTION: Yeah, but that was in Gaza, or beginning in Gaza.MR MILLER: And we have made clear to them that when – that whatever weapon they use in Gaza, be it a bomb, be it a tank round, be it anything, that we expect them to use those weapons in full compliance with international humanitarian law, and we have said it – we have had very frank conversations with them about the fact that far too many civilians have died through their operations and that they need to do better in taking into account the need to minimize civilian harm. And we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: And just a – on that point – okay. So the requests were done years ago, what have you, but this time around you were suspiciously very careful not to publicize it. Usually we do the notifications to Congress, and we do a statement that had a – but this time, I understand you didn’t need to do it because of this, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Do we – so I’ll just say we did notify Congress. We did – we followed – we followed the &#8212;QUESTION: I know, but you didn’t publicize it.MR MILLER: So it is not &#8212;QUESTION: It’s what you do on arms sales and all that; you publicize it.MR MILLER: So that’s not true with regard to most arms sales around the world. I know people have gotten used to our – the tempo of arms sales with respect to Ukraine. But that is a very different situation than our arms sales to Israel or any other country with which we have a security relationship because we stood it up from nowhere right before an active war, where most of our security relationships we don’t publicize our ongoing sales. What we do is we notify Congress about those sales, and we have done that with respect to these sales to Israel, as we do with respect to sales anywhere in the world.QUESTION: Okay. Just to – last question on – back on – okay, I understand it’s a bit early, but obviously you don’t deny there was a strike by Israel on the consulate in – like I said, in the embassy of Iran in Damascus.MR MILLER: So we’ve seen the strike. But again, I want to let the consultations that we have ongoing with partners in the region take place, allow – before we can – before I comment any further.QUESTION: But it’s definitely escalatory.MR MILLER: That’s not what I said, either. I said &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m saying that.MR MILLER: You’re saying that. I thought it was a question.QUESTION: I’m asking you to react.MR MILLER: So Humeyra kind of – that’s good. Humeyra kind of did speak to this. I’m not going to comment with respect to this particular strike because, again, we just need to know more information about it before we do. And that includes drawing any conclusions from it. As a general principle, of course we are worried about escalation. We are worried about anything that would cause the conflict to expand or widen in any way.QUESTION: I have one on Havana, a couple on this.MR MILLER: Let me come back – let me back to you so the room doesn’t go into an uproar. Said, go ahead. But I will definitely come back.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Now, you said that Hamas returned to al-Shifa Hospital. There are some 800 fighters and so on and all these things. Now, is that your – you are citing the Israeli narrative, or you have your own independent information?MR MILLER: We don’t have our own independent assessment. But you have seen Israel produce the names – hold on – the names and photographs of known Hamas fighters who it has killed or captured.QUESTION: How many? I mean, they showed names and Hamas fighters in al-Shifa Hospital?MR MILLER: I have – I have seen the information they have publicly released. Said – hold up, Said, just let – I know you get – let me just finish.QUESTION: No, no. I &#8212;MR MILLER: I know. But let me – said, just &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not interrupting. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying.MR MILLER: Good. So we have seen them release – I don’t think there’s anyone who has cause to dispute that yes, they have – there were Hamas fighters hiding in al-Shifa Hospital – again, not for the first time.QUESTION: Okay. So you are certain that the reason that Israel went into al-Shifa Hospital one more time is because Hamas fighters were there, and not hundreds of civilians that are taking refuge there?MR MILLER: So I think it is certainly a fair conclusion, given what has been their goal since the outset of this campaign – to take the fight to Hamas – that is exactly what they were doing, yes.QUESTION: And you believe that Israel has achieved that goal now by eliminating Hamas, or would you like to see them go back to al-Shifa Hospital again?MR MILLER: So that is – I answered that question somewhat in response to Matt. I think there is a concern that you saw Hamas back inside hospitals.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I don’t know why I don’t hear more people calling on Hamas to stop going into hospitals. You shouldn’t have to clear Hamas from a hospital once, let alone twice.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: But yes, we do have the concern that Hamas has been able to re-establish itself in a hospital that Israel had already cleared, and that points to an ongoing challenge for Israel in the way it conducts its operations.QUESTION: Right, yeah. Just bear with me. A couple more questions. So, but why do you think – in your opinion, what value is there strategically for Israel to burn all the building, destroy all the equipment, destroy every last X-ray machine and everything in the hospital and not keep it? If their fight &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; is with the fighters, why must you destroy – and they left. There were – there was no fighting when they left – just to burn the buildings and burn the things and destroy everything.MR MILLER: So let me just say this gets &#8212;QUESTION: Why is that okay?MR MILLER: Let me just say this gets into where – I’m often asked to comment on – to questions where there are conflicting accounts.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And Israel has said that is not what they did, and we don’t have ground truth on that question. Israel has said what they tried to do is protect patients and not operate in places when there are patients, to evacuate people from the hospital, and only operate in a way that would impact the Hamas fighters that were there. Obviously, it’s an incredibly difficult situation. There shouldn’t be terrorists in a hospital at all. And so it is incredibly difficult to operate there and achieve a legitimate counterterrorism goal in a way that minimizes harm to patients, which goes back to my first point, which is Hamas shouldn’t be in a hospital at all.QUESTION: Well, Hamas shouldn’t be – as far as Israel and the United States is concerned should not be there, period. But &#8212;MR MILLER: I would think, Said, everyone could conclude – I would think, including you, I would think everyone could conclude that Hamas should not be inside a hospital.QUESTION: Well, honestly &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t think – I don’t think – I hope, anyway, that that’s not a controversial opinion.QUESTION: Well, okay. But that’s a different issue altogether.MR MILLER: Not really.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Not really. No, it’s kind of the core of what we’re talking about.QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you something. You talked about the 2,000-pound bombs and so on. You think that it is really wise to send it at this time when this far, in this battle or this war, it has only been used in Gaza? I mean, I know you say that Israel is surrounded by people that wish it (inaudible) and so on. But in fact, it’s surrounded by Egypt, with very good relations with Israel; it’s surrounded by Jordan, with good relations with Israel; it’s surrounded by Syria, that is obviously embroiled in its own civil war and can’t even defend itself against attacks, as we have seen today. So quite the contrary, it’s – Israel is surrounding Hamas, and it’s using these weapons to do that. And in fact, I mean, the F-35, to the best of my knowledge – I could be wrong – has only been used in combat against the people of Gaza.So how could you justify sending all these weapons when you have the most hapless people probably on Earth, destroyed moving from one place to another and so on, and you send these weapons to sort of just finish the job or continue the job? I don’t know.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: What logic is there in sending in sending those weapons?MR MILLER: So the logic is exactly what I outlined a moment ago. Despite the fact that Israel has a – has diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan, it does not change the fact that Hizballah is parked on its northern border and is sworn to the destruction of Israel. It does not change the fact that Iran – no, not exactly, not right on its border, but well within striking distance – is committed to the destruction of Israel and continues to fund proxies committed to the destruction of Israel.So yes, Israel faces incredibly serious threats not just from Hamas – although Hamas is clearly one, as we saw on October 7th – but from other adversaries that it needs our assistance to continue to defend itself against.QUESTION: Lastly, please.MR MILLER: Go ahead, let me – one more, Said.QUESTION: Just one last one, if I may. Are you aware of a report made or a conversation that Israeli officers made with – to – or an interview with Haaretz where they say that Israel established some sort of – an illusionary kill zone line and so on? Are you aware of that?MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: And they actually kill whoever walks or moves about in that area?MR MILLER: I read that article and I noted at the end that the IDF says that that, of course, is not what they have established. There are, of course, areas of significant combat where any civilian could wander in and be the – unfortunately be killed, either by fire from Israel or by fire from Hamas. If you walk into an active conflict zone, that’s a possibility. But I have noted that the IDF said they have not, of course, established kill zones. It would be incredibly inappropriate for anything like that to be established, and we’ve not seen evidence at this point that they have.Go ahead, and I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Thanks. There’s reporting that Israel submitted a plan to the UN that would essentially dismantle UNRWA, transferring staff and funds to World Food and some other organizations. Have you seen that plan? Do you support it?MR MILLER: I have not seen that plan. I can’t speak to whether somebody inside the United States Government has. We continue to support the work that UNRWA does both in Gaza and in the broader region. We think that they play a critical role in delivering humanitarian assistance to people who need it. Now, the United States cannot fund UNRWA by statute now, given the recent action by Congress. So we are exploring ways that we can direct the humanitarian assistance we are committed to providing the Palestinian people through other organizations, and we look forward to identifying ways to do that and continuing to support humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians. But that does not mean that we do not also support UNRWA’s work; we want to see it continue.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, today the Knesset passed a law, 70 to 10, voting to pave the way for the closure of all Al Jazeera offices inside Israel. I am just wondering if you have a comment on that.MR MILLER: So we support the independent free press anywhere in the world, and we think the work that the independent free press does is important everywhere in the world, and much of what we know about what has happened in Gaza is because of reporters who are there doing their jobs, including reporters from Al Jazeera. I’ll say, just with respect to Al Jazeera, obviously we – I think it’s well known that we’ve not always agreed with all of Al Jazeera’s coverage, but it’s a media organization that we engage with. I’ve done interviews with Al Jazeera. Other people from the department have done interviews with Al Jazeera.So what we will continue to make clear is that we support the work that the free press does.QUESTION: Our assessment with that passage of this law and previous incidents with our crew in Gaza, that this, like, enhanced our suspicion from the beginning that our crews were actually targets, not by mistake or by – did you – does this trouble you that a media organization becomes the target of the Israel and become part of the targets in this war?MR MILLER: So with respect to targeting – and I mean targeting in a sense not through a law passed by the Knesset but I think with respect to potential military targeting – Israel has said very clearly that that’s not what they have done. Obviously, that would be incredibly inappropriate. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this, that it is tragic how many journalists have lost their life in this war, because, as I just spoke to a minute ago, they go – they put their own lives at risk in bringing us information about what’s happening inside Gaza, and it’s important that we continue to get that information. And so we support the work that journalists do in Gaza; we support the work that they do around the world.Tom, go ahead.QUESTION: The – just to go back to the meeting between U.S. and Israeli officials, why is this happening virtually?MR MILLER: I will leave it to the White House, which is the primary – White House took the lead in organizing this meeting, so I’ll leave it to them to speak to that.QUESTION: But, I mean, there’s an important diplomatic element, because we know – I mean, Benjamin Netanyahu said in press conference yesterday that he pulled the delegation traveling to send a message because of the UN Security Council vote. So it will worry people that on such an important issue – and it’s not a long flight from Tel Aviv – that this meeting is not happening in person. I mean, what does that say about your ability to persuade the Israelis on the issue of an invasion of Rafah when you haven’t been able to persuade them even to fly to Washington?MR MILLER: So I’m in a little bit of a box here because I can’t talk about the outcome of the meeting, because it’s still – maybe it’s broken now since I’ve been at the podium. We will have more to say about the meeting later today. But I’ll just say I would not expect this to be our final engagement on this issue.QUESTION: Do you think you can persuade them? I mean, this – so far, this doesn’t feel like a huge success of your argument, because you’ve been saying for weeks you don’t support a ground invasion of Rafah. The Israeli prime minister has been saying for weeks they will go in.MR MILLER: So we will continue to make what we believe is the best case to Israel about actions that it should take in Rafah that won’t just minimize civilian harm and prevent an unnecessary loss of life in a place where you have somewhere around 1.4 million civilians living today, but also would be in Israel’s long-term security interests. And I think that’s an important point that we don’t – the case that we are making to Rafah is not just about the interests of the Palestinian people. It’s also about Israel’s long-term security interests, and you heard the Secretary speak to this some in Tel Aviv – I know you were there – about the toll that this has taken on – this campaign has taken on Israel’s standing in the world and its ability to influence countries around the world. And we think that a full-scale of invasion of Rafah would only further that impact to Israel’s standing. So we’re going to make that case to them. Ultimately, they’re a sovereign country and will make their own decisions. But we’re going to make the – we will lay out to them the way we see it.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: And will this conversation also make clear what the U.S. will do if they go ahead with a full-scale invasion in response? Or is this just laying out alternatives?MR MILLER: So two things about that. One, with respect to the broader question, not tied directly to this meeting, I’ve gotten that before and I’m just not going to speak to hypotheticals. We’re going to take it one step at a time and not make any predictions about what will happen.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, but what will – and then with respect to the meeting itself, again, I’m not going to speak in detail about a meeting that was still ongoing when I walked out here. We’ll have more to say about it once – we’ll have more to say about once it’s concluded – at a very high level.QUESTION: Okay, and just one more question on Israel.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I understand the regular course of business when it comes to arms sales, of course, Israel, any other country. But I’m just trying to understand if – if you’re saying that these weapons were promised, they were approved, the process went through, and now they’re going forward, is that regular process being examined at all given what’s going on in the Israel-Hamas war or not at all?MR MILLER: So that process is a process that applies not just to Israel but to every country that – with whom we have a security relationship. So it is one that is longstanding, and again, there are dozens if not hundreds of open orders for Israel that go back years under which they receive defense articles from the United States. So no, that is not a – it is not a new process and it’s not one just with respect to Israel, and no, we’re not re-examining the entire process. But obviously we always look at – we always look at requests that come from any country in light of their current needs and in light of our ability to supply them. But again, I think it’s important to remember that these are requests that were made and approved in many cases years ago – not just months ago, not just before October 7th, but years ago – and were approved years ago.QUESTION: So all of those orders that have been approved will go forward?MR MILLER: So I can’t say all of them – that will go forward, because Israel may come back and not want some of them. You’re talking about orders that are – orders that &#8212;QUESTION: If Israel wants them, they’ll go forward?MR MILLER: &#8212; that – years old. I cannot speak with respect to every request. And as I said, there are dozens of open requests that date back years. But when a country comes and makes a request and the United States does its due diligence and goes through the formal process of notifying Congress and then delivers those arms to a country – if a – if a country has ordered, like I said, 100 planes and they’ve taken 20, they still have the ability to come back and ask for the other 80 with which we’ve committed to provide them.Anything else on Israel before I go? Let me – go ahead, Guita, and then I’ll come to Humeyra next.QUESTION: Thank you. You referenced Iran a couple of times just in the past 10, 15 minutes. It seems like the – their proxy groups in Iraq have attacked – conducted an attack against Eilat in Israel, so despite everything that the U.S. is trying to do to contain the war to just the Gaza Strip, it’s – Iran is doing the opposite. Now, what options are you –could there be besides diplomatic options that are really not going anywhere?MR MILLER: So two things on that. One, we have – or I should say one, I think it reinforces the point I was just making about the Iranian-supported proxy groups who are committed to the destruction of Israel – not just Hizballah, not just Hamas, but proxy groups that exist in Iraq and did attempt to launch an attack against Israel over the weekend. But two, we will continue to make clear to those groups and to Iran that it is not in their interest to take strikes against Israel, it is not in the interest to take strikes against the United States, as we have done for some time.QUESTION: How much confidence do you have in the Iraqi Government to contain them? Because the foreign minister was here, the prime minister is supposed to be coming, and there hasn’t – the government hasn’t really been able to deliver.MR MILLER: So I would say that that is an ongoing conversation we have with our Iraqi counterparts about the need to take action against proxy groups that launch attacks from within Iraqi – inside Iraq. You have seen, obviously, a dramatic decrease in the number of those attacks over the past month or six weeks, but it is something that we continue to engage with the Iraqi Government about.Any more on – Humeyra. Humeyra, and then we’ll come here.QUESTION: Just one thing. In your answer, Matt, to me and a few others on the weapons thing, you mentioned the threat from Hizballah, like on Israel and all that. So were you trying to suggest that in the course of this latest authorization for the transfer, did you get any assurances from Israel that it’s not going to use these, like, in its offensive in Gaza, but it’s only going to use these against Hizballah?MR MILLER: So no, that’s not what I said at all. I think you’re reading quite a bit into &#8212;QUESTION: Okay, no, I just want to make sure that &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – quite a bit into my answer, but again, the recent authorizations that you’re talking about were in many cases made years ago.QUESTION: Right, but – but just &#8212;MR MILLER: Right, years ago. Before October 7th.QUESTION: Yeah. But just to be sure, there has been no assurances – United States has not sought any assurances from Israel just in the wake of this or just before this transfer? Like, you can use it in this place and you can’t use it in that place – there’s been no such conversation &#8212;MR MILLER: So I’m not – I am not going to get into the private conversations we have with any country &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on – any country in the world, but that is not to read into – you should not read into that that we are imposing some kind of conditions. The – what we expect with respect to the defense articles that we supply to Israel and other countries are that they operate in compliance with international humanitarian law.Now, with respect to a campaign against Hizballah or a potential campaign against Hizballah, we have seen – we want to see that issue resolved diplomatically. We want to see Israeli citizens able to return to their homes in northern Israel, we want to see Lebanese civilians able to return to their home in southern Lebanon, but that’s a path we’re pursuing diplomatically.QUESTION: And just by law, you had the authority not to make the transfer, right? Like even if Congress had approved this years ago, even if the fulfillment takes years, United States Government certainly had the – has the authority not to fulfill it today, right?MR MILLER: So whether we have the authority or not is one question. There are always ramifications if you have committed to supply a country with something and you don’t. This gets very technical and &#8212;QUESTION: Matt, I’m just wondering if you had the option.MR MILLER: And – but again, we are committed to the defense of Israel. I know people want me to say some kind of different answer, but we are committed to Israel’s long-term security, and again, this is something that predates October 7th and will continue to be the policy of the United States, and we – and we will, in keeping with that commitment, continue to be very direct and candid with Israel about how it is in their interest to use the articles of defense that we provide them, as well as weapons that they manufacture themself, in full compliance with international humanitarian law and in a way that minimizes civilian harm.QUESTION: Final thing, I promise: Are you expecting today’s talk to feature at all the humanitarian plan that Israel is supposed to present to you?MR MILLER: Why don’t we just wait – let’s – I think I’ve probably talked enough about these ongoing talks. Let’s wait for what we’ll have to say about them at the conclusion.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Just to follow up on this question &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; especially on Lebanon – you have been saying you are trying to resolve the issue on the northern borders diplomatically. You’ve been successful so far, but are you concerned that now it’s been escalating for the last two weeks? Are – is the risk higher now?MR MILLER: I don’t want to assess a relative level of risk. Our concern about escalation is high, it has been high since October 7th, and that is why we have engaged in a diplomatic process to try to resolve the very real security challenges that Israel faces without further conflict, and what’s – what we’re going to continue to pursue.QUESTION: One more question. During the Secretary visit to the region, can you confirm the reports that the Arab ministers gave him an Arab proposal on how – on the day after and on the establishment of a Palestinian state within three years?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to confirm that report, but the path forward for Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinian people is something that we have been engaged with with partners in the region. As you may recall, when the Secretary traveled – and I should back up; it’s really been something that we have been engaged with partners since the immediate aftermath of October 7th, but it’s a process that intensified when he traveled to the region in early January and started direct coordination with Arab partners about how to rebuild Gaza, establish security inside Gaza, and ultimately provide a political path forward for the Palestinian people. And that’s something that we continue to engage with our Palestinian – or I’m sorry, our Arab partners about, but I don’t want to get into specifics of those conversations.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Matthew?MR MILLER: All right. One more and then we’ll – and then we’ll – I’ll take some others.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. One question on the Kurdistan region election. As you know that this election has been scheduled for June 10th, and it’s supposed to be further delayed, especially the KDP, the ruling party, is refusing to participate in that election. In the past few days, the U.S. ambassador met the KDP leader twice. So do you have any concern that the election, the KRI election, will not happen in the scheduled time? And then how are you going to encourage the KDP and other political parties to overcome the disputes and having election either on June 10th or any other day this year?MR MILLER: So we understand the IKR president and various Iraqi authorities and political parties are actively considering next steps. We encourage efforts to schedule free, fair, and credible elections in the IKR.And I realize I forgot to come back to you about &#8212;QUESTION: You don’t &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, I – we could do – it seems like we could do the whole briefing on it, so let me – we’ll move on for now and then come back if there’s more time.Go ahead. I promised.QUESTION: Thank you. Per the CBS 60 Minutes reporting that aired on Sunday, a first incident of Havana syndrome took place in Frankfurt with an employee of the U.S. consulate. This happened two years before the already known cases that occurred in Havana in 2016. Can you confirm there was an incident in 2014, at least one incident in Frankfurt, that led to apparent Havana syndrome symptoms?MR MILLER: So we have made it a practice to not confirm or comment on specific reports in this regard. What I will say is what we have done for affected employees, and that is we have implemented the HAVANA Act passed by Congress that has allowed us to provide additional support to those affected employees, including reimbursement for medical care, including free care at military hospitals and other military treatment facilities; it includes help with their careers if they have been affected by, say, a prolonged absence from work. The safety and security of our personnel remains the top priority of the Secretary, and we are doing everything possible to help those affected.QUESTION: A couple more on Havana still. Does the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research have confidence that – in the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment that it is unlikely that a foreign adversary is causing Havana syndrome?MR MILLER: So we do. It has been the broad conclusion of the Intelligence Community since March 2023 that it is unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible for these anomalous health incidents. It’s something that the Intelligence Community has investigated extensively and continues to look at. We will look at new information as it comes in and make assessments inside the State Department and with our Intelligence Community counterparts.QUESTION: But you can’t confirm whether INR agrees with that in this building?MR MILLER: No, I said we do – they do share that.QUESTION: You do? You do. Okay.MR MILLER: They do share that assessment.QUESTION: And I don’t know if you’ve seen the report that aired on Sunday, but will any State Department employees who believe they are victims of Havana face consequences for publicly questioning the intel community’s assessment?MR MILLER: No. Of course not.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: And let me – I said – let me just come back and say of course not and in no case would we in any way hold employees – I guess “accountable” is not even the right word. In no case would we discipline employees for speaking their mind. They have the ability to do that. We encourage it. But that doesn’t change our assessment. And I say the – I should say our – the Intelligence Community’s broad assessment that a foreign adversary is unlikely to be responsible for these incidents.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Russia, North Korea, and China. Russia opposes extending the term of UN Security Council’s panel of experts on sanctions against North Korea. How concerned is the United States about this?MR MILLER: Incredibly concerned. I spoke to this at detail – in detail last week. It’s unfortunate that Russia and China decided to exercise their veto. This is a panel that has – whose work has previously been extended unanimously, and I think it’s clear what happened here is that Russia made a bargain with the DPRK in return for the DPRK arming it in its war against Ukraine. And now we’re seeing Russia deliver on its end of the bargain.QUESTION: So how will violations of North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests be sanctioned in the future?MR MILLER: So we still have a full range of sanctions on North Korea, and we will continue to enforce those.QUESTION: On China, President Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin will hold a summit meeting in China next month. What do you think about the solidarity between Russia and China?MR MILLER: So we have made clear that we have concerns with the, I think, full-scale partnership – I’m going to get the words exactly wrong – that we have seen between Russia and China. We have made very clear that we don’t want to see China do anything to help support Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and we will continue to make that clear.QUESTION: Follow-up?QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two separate topics. Let me start with the latest extension of RFE/RL reporter Alsu Kurmasheva’s pre-trial detention today. What was your reaction to the court decision? And with the American embassy officials being present for the first time, what can you tell us about her condition?MR MILLER: So we are deeply concerned about the – about her detention in Russia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and civil society voices. The charges against Ms. Kurmasheva are just another sign of the weakness of Putin’s regime. And with respect to her condition, I would refer you to the embassy officials who were there at her hearing.QUESTION: She happened to speak about that, from the court hearing. She said is in poor condition, she doesn’t feel very well, there is no minimum conditions for her. I know you are in the middle of fact gathering when it comes to designating her arrest as wrongful, but how much of what we have heard publicly from her today will help you expedite the process?MR MILLER: So we look at a broad range of information when it comes to making those determinations. Some of that information is public; some of it is not public. Some of it is information that’s available to the United States Government, and we’ll continue to collect information in this case, as we do in all potential wrongful determination cases.QUESTION: Thank you. I’m going to Armenia-Azerbaijan.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Over the weekend we saw the Azeri side was trying to push a narrative that the Armenian side was trying to escalate, and something that the EU monitoring mission didn’t confirm. What – how much do you know what’s going on? And how concerned are you about potential escalation? And what kind of reaction will that invite, if that happens, presumably this week basically?MR MILLER: So we saw the statement from the Government of Azerbaijan over the weekend. I would note that the EU monitoring mission said yesterday that the Armenia-Azerbaijan border was calm and quiet, with no unusual military troop or artillery movements, despite those statements. We caution and will continue to caution against escalating rhetoric or hostilities along the border. We continue to encourage the creation of conditions for a just and dignified peace in the region, where the rights of all are respected. And as you’ve heard me say from this podium many times, the only way to ensure a sustainable peace is at the negotiating table.QUESTION: I know the Secretary has an engagement this week with the Armenian side. Is there anything you’re going to do in terms of like reaching out to Azeris to prevent escalation?MR MILLER: So we will continue to make clear to both Armenia and Azerbaijan that escalation is in no one’s interest. I don’t have any diplomatic conversations to preview.QUESTION: Have the Azeris been even invited to the meeting that will happen this week, or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I think, again, this meeting, remember, is about Armenia’s reforms and its democracy, economy, and resilience. The peace process is not the focus of this meeting; it’s a meeting between the U.S., EU, and Armenia to discuss economic diversification, humanitarian assistance, support for refugees, and supporting Armenia’s political reforms in areas such as democracy and the rule of law. It is not a regionally focused meeting.QUESTION: And final one from me, if I may, on the 60 Minutes investigation. There are reports about – that Americans living in Tbilisi also talked about them being impacted. How concerned are you about Russian operations in the region, in Georgia (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So again, I’m not going to comment on specific reports – as I said, we make it a practice not to do. But we obviously are concerned with the destabilizing act – actions of Russia all around the region.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Follow-up on that.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: So this is on the meeting between U.S., South Korea, and Japan on Friday to counter North Korea’s cyber threats. What are some of the things that came out of that meeting that the U.S. is doing to counter these cyber threats, and how big of a problem is it for the U.S.?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. Can you confirm that next week an Israeli delegation is going to come to Washington in person? Will Secretary Blinken participate in that?MR MILLER: No, I cannot confirm that. As I said, I would not expect that the conversation today will be our last one, but I don’t have anything else to offer.QUESTION: And regarding the likely shuttering of Al Jazeera in Israel, the – what the Israeli Government said over the years is that the channel has been known to instigate violence and is just – obviously, it’s a propaganda arm of Qatar. What do you make of those pushbacks?MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to add to what I said a moment ago, which is obviously we – we have made clear we don’t agree with everything that Al Jazeera airs. But at the same time, we support the free, independent press anywhere in the world.Michel.QUESTION: But it’s not independent.MR MILLER: Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: It’s owned by Qatar.MR MILLER: Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Are you concerned about the security situation in Jordan, especially that there are reports stating that the regime is under threat from Iran and its proxies?MR MILLER: No. I – we have a close working relationship with the Government of Jordan, and I don’t – I don’t share that assessment.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. Thank you. One’s I want to follow up on Said’s question about the reports of kill zones in Gaza. You said that you haven’t seen evidence of such a thing. But we’ve seen, for instance, the two Palestinians who are waving white flags killed just days ago. We’ve seen repeated reports of Israeli snipers killing people outside of hospitals, people afraid to even walk into the streets to save people who are bleeding out. So it seems understandable to say we’ve seen reports, Israel denied it, we’ll look into it. But I wouldn’t say there’s not evidence of Israel establishing some form of this kind of practice. Does that seem preliminary, to say that kind of thing?MR MILLER: No, we have not seen evidence of what was – what was reported in this article. Now, have we seen a number of incidents of civilian harm? Of course we have. We have seen those, and that happens in every war, and I can tell you what we have said before, which is we take those incredibly seriously. We have engaged with the Government of Israel to make clear that those accounts need to be investigated, and if soldiers are found to have operated in violation of either the IDF code of conduct or international humanitarian law, they need to be disciplined.QUESTION: And then on al-Shifa Hospital, I know you’ve talked at some length about it, but I am just wondering, we’ve gone from months ago the idea of Israeli forces targeting hospitals to being outlandish, to now they’ve done this attack on al-Shifa, and statedly and ostensibly they say that they’ve killed Hamas terrorists. Nevertheless, we’ve seen reports of kids, women found gruesomely killed, executed, reportedly even a surgeon who was there for 172 days treating patients killed. And some victims we can’t even confirm their – the identity because of the state of their bodies.So I’m wondering, given this attack, given the evident lack of care for civilians, given that we can’t an update on investigations into, for instance, the now two-month killing of Hind, the medics sent to save her, how can the U.S. approve any action into Rafah, a slice of land where 1.1 million Palestinians are seeking refuge? If a targeted attack on a hospital looks like this &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, so &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; what would an attack in any form on Rafah look like?MR MILLER: So again, do not believe that this attack was on the hospital. The attack was on the Hamas fighters that are hiding inside a hospital.QUESTION: Still – still to my point &#8212;MR MILLER: Some – hold on. Some place that they should never be. But it makes – you make a good point with respect to Rafah, which is why we have made clear we don’t want to see a full-scale military operation. But I think the premise of the – I shouldn’t say the premise of the question because I don’t want to attribute this to you, but the other alternative is that Israel does nothing about the Hamas fighters that continue to exist in Rafah, and we don’t think that’s an acceptable alternative either. So what we have said is there needs to be a targeted military operation in Rafah that targets the Hamas fighters in a way that minimizes civilian harm and not a full-scale operation. That’s been what we have been making clear to them.QUESTION: Just one small follow-up on that, if you’ll allow. I guess this just gets to a broader question about – what does the U.S. see as sort of the path out of here? Like is it political? Because what does it mean for Israel to defend itself ongoingly? Like is it a matter of eradicating everyone who is associated with Hamas? Because that &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah &#8212;QUESTION: I don’t know. It doesn’t necessarily seem like a goal that has led to the protection of civilians up to this point.MR MILLER: So there needs – they – there need to be battlefield successes and there needs to be a political path forward, and that is what we have been engaged with partners in the region to develop and ultimately to present to Israel. Because as you have heard the Secretary say, without a political path forward for the Palestinian people, Israel and the Palestinians are going to be stuck in this same cycle of violence that they have been stuck in for decades. And that’s not in the Palestinian people’s interest, as we have seen over the past nearly six months. It is not in Israel’s interest, as we saw very clearly on October 7th.And so that is the work that we are doing inside the United States Government to try to develop that political path forward that we think ultimately is in the best interests of the Palestinian people, the Israeli people, and the broader region at large.And go ahead (inaudible).QUESTION: Yesterday Türkiye held local elections. I know it’s the local elections, but it has a significant outcome. So do you have any comment or statement about these elections, the process of these elections, or the results?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. We typically don’t comment or take a position on elections anywhere in the world.QUESTION: And the elections are over. Do you have any updates about President Erdogan’s visit to Washington?MR MILLER: I do not.Go ahead, and then we’ll wrap for &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt.MR MILLER: Or come to Guita.QUESTION: I have some good news about one of the U.S. detainee in Afghanistan, Mr. Ryan (inaudible). I spoke to the – a senior Taliban official. They said that he’s in good health and he speaks to his family. Another detainee before him was Joshua (inaudible), who also contacted me after he was released from the Taliban. I had requested the Taliban that these detainees should be released immediately without any conditions in the Holy Month of Ramadan. They said we will definitely do it if you give us commitment that the U.S. will release our detainees and – and not a media group so big as Al Jazeera, and it’s a small-town niche media group. Is there anything I can convey that, like, these detainees should be, I mean, given back to each other, or it’s too much out of my &#8212;MR MILLER: I – with all due respect, I think I will decline to conduct diplomacy via you through this podium.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: But I will say two things. One, we are concerned despite those assurances – well-meaning as they may be – we are concerned about the well-being of Americans detained in Afghanistan. And number two, we are actively working for their release and will continue to do so.QUESTION: All right. My second question is – are drones have been reported flying in different parts of Afghanistan. Any things you can share that at least &#8212;MR MILLER: No. No, I don’t have any comment on that at all.QUESTION: Just last – last &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me go to Guita because we have to wrap.QUESTION: Just one more.MR MILLER: That was – that was two. Guita.QUESTION: I have five, six questions. I don’t even get three.MR MILLER: And – Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, Human Rights Watch has issued a report on the situation of the Baha’is in Iran. It said that the Iranians’ persecution of this religious minority is tantamount to crimes against humanity. I was wondering, since the State Department has been following their situation – this situation of the Baha’is in Iran, if you would have the same assessment as Human Rights Watch.MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you an assessment. I haven’t seen that. That – obviously it’s an issue we’ve been following. I haven’t seen that specific report, but let me talk to others in the building who might have and get you a response.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:12 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Turkey
- 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
- Department Press Briefing – March 26, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 26, 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 26, 2024																																																					March 26, 2024																																																								1:25 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. No Matt Lee today? Who wants to – who wants to go first?QUESTION: I’ll vote for me.MR MILLER: Leon. A lot of people auditioning for the role of Matt Lee. (Laughter.) Let the record reflect a snicker from the – from the front row. (Laughter.)QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: I know you talked about this already yesterday, but I’d like to come back to it because it’s a little bit mind-boggling to me. Since when is a UN resolution, a Security Council UN resolution, not – nonbinding? Because that’s a significant shift. That’s not the understanding of most countries, and it’s not the understanding of the UN either. This is not a Chapter VII resolution. So I don’t get how the U.S. is now saying that it would be nonbinding, and basically giving the message that another country wouldn’t necessarily need to comply with it.MR MILLER: So let me explain what we meant by that. First of all, as we said yesterday and we’ve made clear all along, we have always believed that the path to a ceasefire and the release of hostages is something that will be reached through negotiations between Israel and Hamas, enabled by third-party countries and in which the United States is participating, and not through a UN process. And that remains our belief.Nevertheless, we – when we say the resolution is nonbinding, what we mean is that it does not impose any new obligations on the parties the way, for example, some UN resolutions that impose obligatory sanctions, impose actual requirements on people to implement them. That said, we do believe that even though there are – this resolution lacks nonbinding provisions and lacks new requirements that is imposed on the parties, it does carry weight and it is something that should be implemented.QUESTION: I mean, that’s a little bit contradictory, if I may. I mean, either it’s binding or it’s nonbinding. If it’s nonbinding, like you said, because it lacks provisions, why would anybody comply with it?MR MILLER: It’s nonbinding in that it does not impose any new obligations on the parties, but we do believe it should be respected, that it carries weight, and that it should be implemented, as has always been the – as has always been our belief when it comes to UN Security Council resolutions.QUESTION: Can I follow up, Matt, just to clarify?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Okay. So if this was nonbinding – now, the other resolution, the three resolutions that you vetoed, were they also in the same kind of resolution?MR MILLER: So, Said, I’d have to go back and look at the provisions, but we vetoed them, so ultimately they weren’t – they weren’t the voice of the UN Security Council.QUESTION: So I’m saying if they are not binding, then why bother and veto it?MR MILLER: Because – so they – they carry weight and should be implemented, and so we want to see resolutions that pass ultimately reflect the policy positions of the United States, which is what I said yesterday. We came to the determination that this Security Council resolution, although it did contain – or it lacked some provisions that we wanted to see, most notably condemning Hamas’s actions on October 7th, that it ultimately – it called for two things that we support: a ceasefire and the release of hostages together. And so that’s why we abstained from the resolution. We do believe that it carries weight and should be implemented.QUESTION: But you know – and I remember, like, during the – the whole Iraq thing, there were 12 UN resolutions, and they were all binding. They were all binding every time, and the U.S. would be the first one to say it’s binding. I mean, I worked in Iraq; I knew exactly what was going on. So I’m saying that any UN resolution that passes, that is allowed to pass, it potentially can be utilized within the framework of Chapter VII.MR MILLER: Is there a question there, Said?QUESTION: Yes, there is. I’m asking you. I mean, there – can you answer the &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I just – there was a statement. I wanted to see if there’s actually a question.QUESTION: No, I – absolutely. So, okay, let me reframe my question.MR MILLER: Or maybe ask one.QUESTION: Do you think that this resolution can potentially be subject to Chapter VII?MR MILLER: We believe that the – that the UN Security Council resolution carries weight and should be respected, as I said.QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple of other questions, but I’ll –MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; defer to others on Gaza.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Can we just – there are some reports that Israelis feel that depend – their ability to depend on the United States has now decreased because of the abstention at the Security Council vote yesterday. Can you just speak to that and the relationship right now?MR MILLER: So absolutely not. The – first of all, the relationship between the United States and Israel is one that is longstanding. They’re a longstanding ally of the United States. And the President has made clear that the United States will always support Israel’s right to defend itself. That was true before our action in the Security Council – in the Security Council yesterday; it remains true today.As I said yesterday, the position that we take and the position that was contained in that resolution that led us to not block its moving forward is that there should be a ceasefire, and there should be the release of hostages. That is our position; we have believed it has been Israel’s position, because Israel has been negotiating to try to achieve a ceasefire that would secure the release of hostages. So far from there being, at least in our eyes, any distance between the United States and Israel, we believe the position that we were endorsing at the United Nations yesterday is the same one that Israel has been trying to achieve through the ongoing negotiations.Now, none of that is to say there are not things with which we disagree with Israel. There obviously are. There have been a number of things in recent months that – where we have had disagreements with them, and we have been very direct and candid with them in our conversations about those disagreements, and those of course have been well aired in public, at this podium and in other places.QUESTION: And Netanyahu’s office is indicating that the U.S. not vetoing the resolution actually hampered or harmed the hostage talks. Is that the U.S. understanding?MR MILLER: So that statement, which I believe said that Hamas pulled out of the hostage talks or Hamas rejected the most recent proposal because of the United Nations Security Council resolution, that statement is inaccurate in almost every respect and it is unfair to the hostages and their families. The description of Hamas’s response that has been aired in the public is all from news reports – it’s not the actual substance of the response – and I can tell you that that response was prepared before the UN Security Council vote, not after it.So for the United States, we are not going to engage in rhetorical distractions on this issue. We are going to continue to work to try to bring the hostages home.QUESTION: Just one last question on this. I understand that U.S. officials say that there are domestic political concerns for Prime Minister Netanyahu when he went forward with canceling these Rafah meetings here in the United States. But it does have a damaging effect on the U.S.-Israel relationship as well, and now he’s going even further and saying that this move is harming hostage talks. Are there going to be ramifications for Israel for pulling back on these talks and for now blaming the U.S. for hostage talks not moving forward quickly enough?MR MILLER: So I wouldn’t look at it that – the way – I wouldn’t look at the question of ramifications in the way that you posed the question. We’re not going to make our decisions based on minor disagreements or whether someone canceled a meeting or not. We’re going to make our decisions based on what we believe is in the best national security interests of the United States, and ultimately when we have conversations with Israel, we are talking to them about what we believe are in the national security interests of Israel, as well the national security interests of the region and in the interests of the Palestinian people and others.So when you think about ramifications, we wanted to have that meeting with Israel to present to them an alternative way to accomplish their legitimate security goals of defeating the Hamas battalions in Rafah, because we believe it is in their interest to do this in a better way. We believe that a full-scale military operation in Rafah will not just cause civilian harm to the Palestinian people; it will not just hinder the flow of humanitarian assistance – most of which is coming in through the Rafah area and being distributed initially through Rafah; we believe that that kind of operation would hurt Israel’s national security. It will leave Israel more isolated in the world. It will separate Israel from countries that have been longtime partners of Israel – and you’ve heard this from countries all around the world.So we have been making clear that this kind of operation is not in Israel’s interests, let alone in the interests of the Palestinian people. So when you speak to ramifications, those are the type of ramifications that we are worried about for Israel, and that’s why we want – we wanted to have this meeting, to present to them what we think is a better alternative.QUESTION: Are you rescheduling those meetings anytime soon?MR MILLER: I don’t have any schedule – any announcements to make regarding schedules.Go ahead.QUESTION: Just to clarify, what does it mean to say that it should be – that the resolution should be implemented? From the Israeli point of view, I guess they would say there’s no – there’s no deal to be taken at the moment. So how can they implement?MR MILLER: It goes back to the first point I made, which is that we believe a ceasefire and the release of hostages will be ultimately secured through negotiations, and it’s the negotiations that we have been pursuing in the region, most recently over the weekend in Doha. And so we are going to continue to pursue those negotiations to reach a ceasefire and secure the release of all hostages.QUESTION: Sure. I wonder if you can just talk about the meeting with the defense minister yesterday, the Israeli defense minister. Did he come with specific requests in terms of more arms that the U.S. – that Israel wants the U.S. to provide for the continued operation in Gaza?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak specifically to that other than to say that, as you would expect, whenever we have a conversation with the defense minister, they usually have things that they want from the United States – and I know that he’s having meetings at the Pentagon today, also met at the White House yesterday.From our perspective – and I will let the defense minister speak for himself – from our perspective, we were there to talk – to continue the conversation that the Secretary had in Tel Aviv last week with the security cabinet, which included Defense Minister Gallant, about what we thought would be the harm of a full-scale military operation in Rafah, and as well as more things we think Israel needs to do to allow humanitarian assistance in.QUESTION: So you’ve got an ally coming, asking for more military support. You’ve already given quite a lot of military support during this operation, during this conflict. But they’re also basically planning to go ahead with an operation that you’re telling them is unwise. Are you saying we’re – your acceptance of these requests for future arms provisions is going to be conditioned in some way on whether you listen to us on Rafah or not?MR MILLER: Let’s take this one step at a time. We believe that it’s still important to have this conversation. We believe that there is a better way for them to accomplish a legitimate security imperative. And I don’t want to preview any possible actions if it goes a different way.QUESTION: On this, Matt?MR MILLER: Let me – go ahead, Michel.QUESTION: Did you – did you provide the defense – the Israeli defense minister any guarantees that the U.S. will continue providing Israel with arms?MR MILLER: So the President has spoken to this. He spoke to it recently and said that the United States will always support Israel’s right to defend itself. That’s not going to change. And I wouldn’t want to preview any further steps.Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Also on this &#8212;MR MILLER: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Wondering on Rafah – I mean, you’ve been very clear from the very beginning that you don’t dictate operate policy or operations to Israel. You’ve said that numerous times. You’ve said you’re not involved in the military planning. Here you’re telling them not to do a major offensive in Rafah, but you’re giving them or want to talk to them about alternatives, whether they may be – counterterrorism, what have you, I don&#8217;t know specifically. But by doing that, you would get directly involved in the operations that were to take place in Rafah and potentially there could be more civilian deaths and what have you. So in that case, you would be directly involved. How big of a problem is that?MR MILLER: So I don’t agree with that. Let me say a few things. Number one, when it comes to dictating, you’re right; no, we do not dictate to them. We can’t dictate to them. They’re a sovereign country, and the United States can’t dictate to any sovereign country. They’re going to make their own decisions, and they have been quite clear about that, and we would expect nothing less from any sovereign country.That said, we always offer our best advice to them. We have done that from the beginning. You’ve heard the President talk about that when he went to Israel just a week after or a little over a week after October 7th, where he talked about the fact that Israel is – because Israel is such a longtime friend, we are going to offer advice about them, oftentimes colored by the mistakes that we have made and the experiences that we have learned from mistakes that we have made in our past and we have conducted military operations. And so we try &#8212;QUESTION: Well, it wasn’t very good advice. Sorry to interrupt, but &#8212;MR MILLER: No, we try to give them that advice. In terms of the options that we will present to them – or that I assume we will present to them at some point – I wouldn’t think of it as military planning. We’re going to offer them – and I also don’t want to preview too much in detail publicly, because these are still conversations that ought to happen privately. But the intent would be to give them advice about how to conduct such operations. It’s not to do actual military planning. For example, what to do when, how, with that level of specificity. When I come – when I talk about we’re not involved in military planning, that’s what I mean. We’re not in with them, planning exact military operations. But we have always offered them advice about what we believe the best way to go about this operation is. That’s true going back to some of the first meetings that we had in Israel right after October 7th.QUESTION: Well, then either one of two things – either you gave very bad advice, because you have 30,000 civilians who got killed, or they didn’t listen to your advice. So what about Rafah? You think they would – are they actually listening to what you’re saying? Because they said if we don’t have the U.S. on board, we’re going it alone.MR MILLER: So they will speak for themselves, but we have not yet had the meeting where we outline the steps that we believe that they ought to take.QUESTION: Thank you. I appreciate it. A couple more questions. First of all, the Palestinian Red Cross just announced that an Al Amal Hospital in Khan Younis has been completely shut down. The Israeli army threw out the patients, the staff, and so on, and put dirt, whatever – they closed it off and so on. Are you aware of this?MR MILLER: So I haven’t seen that exact report. I’ve seen reports of operations at hospitals – hold on. Hold on, Said. Just let me finish. I’ve seen reports of operations at hospitals; I haven’t seen that specific one. And I know that oftentimes we’ve gotten – especially over the past few days – conflicting information from Palestinian sources and Israeli sources about exactly what is going to happen. So I’m a little reluctant to make a definitive comment absent definitive information.What I will say – two things. Number one, we generally don’t want to see operations at hospitals. But number two, we have – you have seen over the past few weeks that areas that had been cleared by Israel, that Hamas fighters have flown – flowed back in and are inside hospitals. And so while we don’t want to see operations in hospitals, we also don’t believe that Hamas should be hiding there. And we would, again, encourage them to stop hiding behind patients and hospitals.QUESTION: Will you look into Al Amal Hospital situation?MR MILLER: Of course.QUESTION: Okay. A couple more things. Now, UNRWA – I know that the largest contributor thus far has been the United States of America, so that’s a big chunk, close to $350 million a year, maybe $400 million a year, except – I mean, these operations not only in Gaza, but they are in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon and in Jordan and in Syria. How do you see this being replaced? Because obviously nobody’s going to shell out that kind of funding. And while the World Food Program and so on can provide food, they cannot replace UNRWA in terms of providing medical care, schools, all kinds of stuff that they do, that they have uniquely done thus far.MR MILLER: So Said, I think you’re referring to – you didn’t mention it definitively, but just make – to make sure I’m clear, you’re referring to the provision that the United States Congress passed to ban U.S. funding of UNRWA. So &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Because I have a follow-up on &#8212;MR MILLER: Right. So you’re right, that Congress has barred us in this fiscal year and a few months beyond from continuing to fund UNRWA. We do remain committed to the work that UNRWA does. It’s important. We also remain committed to providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.I will note that in that appropriations bill that passed that contained that provision there is somewhere north of $10 billion for humanitarian assistance around the world. That is the pot of money from which we would have drawn to fund UNRWA. And I can tell you that we will draw from that pot of money to fund humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, and we’re exploring what avenues that assistance will take now.QUESTION: Okay. And my question, to follow up on this one, the President of the United States has – for instance, when they passed the resolution back in ’95 that the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem, we had an executive waiver that the presidents used time – every six months and so on to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv. Will the President have a similar waiver to keep funding of UNRWA going if it &#8212;MR MILLER: I think that’s a question you should direct to the White House.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: Any more on Israel before I go on? Yeah, Ryan, go ahead.QUESTION: Just on your point about Israel being a sovereign country and the U.S. can’t tell them what to do, back on May 19th, 2021, you have Joe Biden telling Netanyahu – his quote was, “Hey man, we’re out of runway here. It’s over.” And it was over. Ronald Reagan famously did the same back in 1982, told them it was over. Why can’t he say “it’s over” this time? Does that mean that he supports the continuation of this war, even if it means going into Rafah?MR MILLER: So we support Israel’s ability to defeat Hamas. We support Israel’s legitimate security objectives. We support them ensuring that October 7th can never happen again, and so we continue to support their ability to do that while offering, as I – them, as I said, our best advice on how to go about that campaign, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.QUESTION: What is your assessment on those two Hamas battalions that you – that the U.S. has said are so key to take out and that Israel has said are key to take out? What’s the assessment on why Hamas wouldn’t be able to just create new battalions &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; in the absence of a political solution?MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah, so it’s a great – it is actually – it’s a great question. First of all, I think it’s more than two. I think it’s more than two battalions that Israel has said continue to operate in Rafah.So a few things about that. First, in the areas in which it has operated, Israel has been somewhat successful in taking out the leadership of some of those Hamas battalions, and while you can replace fighters, ultimately the leaders are harder to replace, or at least takes more time. The initial people who might move up into a leadership role maybe don’t have the same experience that those who have been training for some time do, so Israel has been successful in taking out some of the leadership of the Hamas battalions and in taking out fighters, either by killing them on the battlefield or arresting them. So it has degraded Hamas’s battalions outside of Rafah, and we believe in a military operation, hopefully in the way that we are suggesting, they could be successful in degrading those battalions in Rafah as well, and that’s something that we would support.That said, your underlying question is exactly right. Ultimately, something that we have learned in our counterterrorism experience around the world is that you can – while you can accomplish counterterrorism objectives on the battlefield, ultimately, when it comes to winning the larger battle, you have to offer a political path for the Palestinian people’s legitimate – or in this case, you would have to offer – we believe you have to offer a political path for the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations. And so we have – you have heard the Secretary make very clear that there needs to be a political path forward for a couple reasons: one, because you have to offer that legitimate path to people; but two, because in order to have some other kind of security force in place to keep those Hamas battalions from reforming, you have to have a political solution. You have to have a political path forward.So, for example, one of the possibilities is for the Palestinian Authority to offer policing and security on the ground with a trained-up force. Well, you have to have a – the PA operating in Gaza to be able to do that. And so you have to have some of the – a political path forward to achieve that. So we have made very clear that the ultimate – the ultimate – Israel’s ultimate long-term security objectives can only be accomplished not just through a military campaign but through some kind of political resolution with the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Can the U.S. imagine Hamas or some version of it being a part of that political solution if that’s what the Palestinian &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no. Absolutely not. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that committed terrorist acts long before October 7th and then, of course, committed the heinous attacks on October 7th, so they do not have any right to political participation, given the blood that continues to be on their hands.QUESTION: On Gaza.QUESTION: I have a Pakistan question &#8212;MR MILLER: You – I’ll come back to you. Yeah, finish Gaza.QUESTION: Gaza.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I have a simple question. U.S. allowed Gaza ceasefire. What does it – that mean for the war?MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what?QUESTION: That U.S. allowed Gaza ceasefire. What does that mean for the war?MR MILLER: I don’t know what you mean. I don’t know what you mean, the U.S. – I don’t know what you mean, the U.S. allowed a Gaza ceasefire.QUESTION: That ceasefire in the UN resolution, you support it.MR MILLER: In the resolution? I spoke to that. I spoke to that already.QUESTION: And can I have another question on the – on Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu?MR MILLER: Let me come back to you. I just want to close out Israel.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you.MR MILLER: Rowdy room today. Go ahead.QUESTION: I want to go to the military aid. You’ve seen the reports that people drowned while trying to get to those aid, and previously the aid fell on the head of other people. There is still some difficulty in bringing convoys to the northern Gaza. Israelis still put a lot of restrictions on that. What your plan to ease this and prevent future incidents like that?MR MILLER: So I have seen the reports of people unfortunately drowning, and it is a tragedy. It’s – and it’s not just a tragedy that those – I believe it’s 12 individuals – died trying to get aid. It’s a tragedy that they felt so desperate that they had to swim out in the ocean to try to retrieve it in the first place. No one should have to do that. No one should have to put themselves at risk to try to get food and water and medicine for their families. It should just be there for them, and that is what we are trying to accomplish through the work that we are doing to provide humanitarian assistance and in our engagements with the Government of Israel to encourage them to facilitate the delivery of additional humanitarian assistance.So – excuse me – air drops have always been a supplement to the humanitarian assistance that goes in through the land, not a replacement. The same is true for the maritime option that we have been working to deploy, this floating pier that we want to deploy to get aid in, not over land but over sea into Gaza, which would dramatically increase the amount of humanitarian assistance flowing it and would not carry the same risks that air drops unfortunately do.But that said, even that is not a replacement to aid going in over land. We believe aid going in over land needs to be increased and it needs to be sustained. We have seen some improvement over the past few weeks, but there have been times before where we have seen an increase in the number of trucks going in on a daily basis, and that increase hasn’t been sustained. It’s fallen off for a variety of reasons, and so we want to see the increase – the modest increase that we’ve gotten be sustained, be increased, and then be sustained at an increased level. And that’s what we’re working on every day to try to achieve.QUESTION: One – Matt – but those tragedies, Matt, are manmade. They’re not because of the nature of the geography of the region or whatever. They are because of the Israeli restrictions on letting aid to get in. This can easily be dealt with.MR MILLER: So this is not a simple, one-faceted problem. There was a lot of aid going into Gaza before October 7th, before Hamas launched this war that has had such a dramatic impact on the Palestinian people. So anyone that says Hamas doesn’t also bear some responsibility in the tragic situation and in the inability of aid to get into Israel is ignoring the reality on the ground and ignoring the fact that it was Hamas that launched this war in the first place, and it is Hamas that has at times prevented aid from actually getting to the people it needed to inside Gaza.So we believe Israel needs to do more to facilitate the increase of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. We have been quite clear about that, and you have seen the Secretary push the Israeli Government. You’ve seen the President push the Israeli Government. It is because of our interventions that Rafah opened in the first place; it is because of our interventions that Kerem Shalom opened. It is because of our interventions that the 96 gate opened in the last few weeks and got us up to the level that we are at now.But that doesn’t mean we’re satisfied. We want to see that level continue to increase, and that’s why we’re going to continue to stay engaged on it.QUESTION: Last – last one – last one.QUESTION: Yeah, could I just follow up on the question about the air drops?QUESTION: Just – I have a last question.QUESTION: Okay, I’ll – yeah, we’ll come back to it.QUESTION: Just if – any update on when the pier will be operational?MR MILLER: I would defer to the Pentagon on that, who has operational control over that issue.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Sorry, on the air drops.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Are you saying – you said it’s tragic, but do you know if it was – if these were U.S. air drops?MR MILLER: I don’t. I don’t. I would refer to the Pentagon on that question.QUESTION: Were there air drops going – you don’t know if an air drop has been – was going on yesterday in this &#8212;MR MILLER: There are – the Pentagon has been conducting regular air drops, but other countries have also been conducting regular air drops, so I’d refer to the Pentagon to speak to that specific one that the question referenced.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Hold on – guys. Guys, no one needs to – anyone else have anything on Gaza before we move on? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Excuse me. How the USA look at the people or, like, a human being that Israel arrested them? Around like 7,000 more have been arrested from Israel or by Israel in West Bank and in Gaza, some of them, like, humiliated. Does USA look at them as hostage, or are they, like, legally prison? Because Hamas now in the part of the negotiation is to exchange hostages, like to release some hostages from Israeli prisons and releasing some hostage at, like, Hamas – with Hamas. How USA look at those thousand people that USA arrested them and humiliated them?MR MILLER: We believe that every detainee, whether it’s in Israel or anywhere around the world, should be treated with dignity and should be treated with respect for the law.QUESTION: But they are hostage or not?MR MILLER: Go – let me – I’m just going to move on because we’ve spent a lot of time and I want to get to other stuff. Go ahead on Gaza, and then we’ll move on to other things.QUESTION: A little quick. The United States emphasized that release the hostages in Gaza is a priority. Why some of them were killed due to the Israeli bombing in different part? There is no safety place – middle, north, south. And some were killed due to the hunger – and stressed – and thirst. Despite this, the United States still emphasized that the hostages issue is a priority. Don’t you see U.S. bears a large of part of this responsibility because it’s continued to supply IDF with the military aid?MR MILLER: The only entity that bears responsibility for the plight of the hostages and the fact that they continue to be held is Hamas. It’s Hamas that took these hostages; it’s Hamas that has refused to release these hostages. It’s Hamas that could release them today if it wanted to. So no, I think it’s – there is only one entity that bears responsibility. It’s Hamas.Go ahead. This will be the last question on Israel, and then we’ll – then we’ll move on. Many people &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, a question on Israel and then I have, like, two on – and I’m kind of in a hurry, if you don’t mind, Matthew. Thank you.MR MILLER: You’re kind of in a hurry?QUESTION: Yeah. No, very busy. You’ll see why. Okay. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: It’s a busy news day, a busy news day.So there is funding for UNRWA that was suspended. Given that the minibus prohibits funding of UNRWA through 2025, what will happen to the suspended funding? Is it still available were the U.S. to find the investigation into UNRWA employes allegedly involved in October 7th satisfactory, or does – it going to go back to the Treasury Department?MR MILLER: It’s funding that we can use for other humanitarian assistance priorities.QUESTION: Okay, and then has the – regarding what happened in Baltimore, the bridge collapse, it was a ship that has a Singaporean flag and then it was supposed to go to Sri Lanka. Has the United States been in touch with Sri Lanka and Singapore since the incident?MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any contacts with Sri Lanka. The U.S. Embassy Singapore has been in contact with Singapore’s maritime port authority, which has offered to provide assistance to the U.S. Coast Guard.QUESTION: And does the U.S. expect this tragedy to interrupt international commerce?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to it from here. I would defer to other agencies. Obviously, the Port of Baltimore has been closed. You heard the President speak to the fact that they want to get it reopened as soon as possible. But I would – I’d refer to an agency with more direct responsibility to comment and to offer any kind of actual assessment of the effect on shipping.QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR MILLER: Okay, Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A few separate topics. Let me start with Evan Gershkovich. Today Russian, quote, ”extended” his detention beyond one year until June, which one might argue that contradicts against even their own laws. No prosecutors are allowed to expand on the complex cases beyond one year, and they have claimed that this was not a complex case. He was, as they said at the very beginning, that captured red-handed – quote/unquote. What was your reaction, and have you received any evidence from Russia during this one year?MR MILLER: So let me just say that at the hearing today Russian authorities did not provide any evidence of a crime. They just extended his detention for another three months. And despite their claims, they have provided no justification for holding him at all, and we believe there’s a simple reason for doing that, and it’s because he has done nothing wrong. It’s because journalism is not a crime. So we believe, as we have believed, that Russia should stop using individuals like Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan – who has been detained for five years – as bargaining chips. They should be released immediately.QUESTION: The point that you just made about bargaining chips – have you exhausted your options in terms of defending him, getting him out of Russian prison?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to that in detail. We – but other than to say that no, we continue to remain engaged on trying to secure the release of both Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan. And we will – that will remain a top priority for us.QUESTION: Another country that I was also hoping you could help us put Alsu Kurmasheva’s case into context. I asked this last week to Vedant, but if she is not wrongfully detained, then what is this all about, in your opinion?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that other than what Vedant said last week and what you have heard us say many times about the case. I don’t have any new assessment to offer today.QUESTION: And another question. I know you got this yesterday – Moscow attack.MR MILLER: Come on.QUESTION: Just to – going back to yesterday. The Secretary also spoke to ISIS threat this morning. Despite the fact that terrorist group has claimed responsibility, Russian officials, most recently the spy chief today, keep claiming that not only Ukraine – the U.S., the UK – everyone is behind it. So how do you read that?MR MILLER: So first of all, it’s simply not true. We’ve made that clear that there is no evidence at all that Ukraine was involved in this, because Ukraine was not involved in this. And I would say that those comments by Russian officials, including from President Putin, are just propaganda to justify their continued aggression against Ukraine.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Last week Assistant Secretary Donald Lu had stated that the U.S. is not in the favor of Pakistan starting work on the pipeline with Iran. Now Pakistan is consulting some law firms to see if the U.S. can give a waiver. Is there a chance for a waiver, or no?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to preview any potential sanction actions, as I never do from here, or any actions involving sanctions. But we always advise everyone that doing business with Iran runs the risk of touching upon and coming in contact with our sanctions, and would advise everyone to consider that very carefully. And as the assistant secretary made clear last week, we do not support this pipeline going forward.QUESTION: Matt &#8212;QUESTION: Just one more thing. Today five Chinese who were working in Pakistan were hit by a suicide car bomb. Five of them have perished. Do you also have the same feeling with regard to Pakistan doing business with China as well, especially with regard to the CPEC, or no?MR MILLER: So I would say that we – first of all, we condemn the attack on a convoy of PRC engineers in Pakistan. We are deeply saddened by the loss of life and injuries sustained, and share our heartfelt condolences with those affected by the attack. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists, and I’ll note that PRC nationals in Pakistan have also been the victims of terrorist attacks, and no country should suffer the acts of terror. And I don’t have anything beyond that.Ryan, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, on Pakistan.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Don Lu last week had said that he wants to see the Pakistani courts undertake an investigation into election rigging and irregularities. Today, as you may have seen, there was this extraordinary statement from six supreme court justices in Pakistan saying that they have been pressured, tortured, their families kind of abducted and pressured, by the Pakistani military to put pressure on the court system. What is the U.S. response to these judges coming forward rather courageously to make these claims? And does that undermine the confidence in the court’s ability to kind of independently assess the elections?MR MILLER: So let me just say with that I saw the letter right before I came out here. I didn’t have a chance to read it or to consult with any of my colleagues about it. So before I offer any definitive comment, let me take that back and consult with people and get something for you.Kylie, did you have something? No?QUESTION: On Ukraine.MR MILLER: Ukraine? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: The Ukrainians have recently said after some reports about the U.S. warning them not to target Russian oil refineries that they understand those warnings but they have certain military targets that they will continue to target. Can you just bring us up to speed with regard to those conversations between the U.S. and Ukraine and if you guys have recently been telling them that they should not go after these Russian oil refineries?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to specific conversations, but it has always been our position since the outset of this war that we do not encourage or support Ukraine taking strikes outside its own territory.QUESTION: Okay. But there have been reports of this happening more recently, so have these conversations been reupped even though they’ve been reiterated?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to specific conversations, but this has been our longtime policy that we have made clear to the Ukrainian Government, so it’s not something that they would – of which they would be unaware.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: It has been announced that a (inaudible) meeting between the Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, plus Secretary Blinken, and president of the European Commission is to be held on 5 – April 5. So what items are on the agenda? Is – any support for Armenia is being considered? Is it of a political, economic, or security nature?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to it in detail other than to say that our objectives in every engagement with the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan are to include – are to encourage them to work to bridge the differences that – between the two countries and reach a durable and lasting peace agreement.Michel and then we’ll – and then Simon, then we’ll close out.QUESTION: Matt, the high court in London ruled today that Julian Assange would not be extradited immediately and gave the U.S. three weeks to give a series of assurances around his First Amendment rights and that he would not receive the death penalty. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: Yeah, my comment is that you should ask – take that question to the Justice Department, who can speak to it. We don’t typically comment on extradition matters. I was a little flip. I guess that wasn’t a comment after all. It’s a referral to DOJ. They should speak to that.Simon, let me put – hold you off. I’m going to take a couple over here, then I’ll come to you and close out. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank – thank you, Matt. About today’s meeting between Secretary Blinken and Iraqi foreign minister, have they touched disputes between Erbil and Baghdad in that meeting? And what is the U.S. view on the current disputes between these two cities? Do you have any concern about that?MR MILLER: So they did discuss that issue. The Secretary made clear that stability between Baghdad and Erbil would bring economic benefits to all Iraqis, it would be good for the region, and that we encourage the two partners to work together.QUESTION: And second question about energy issue, which Secretary Blinken mentioned that they will discuss this in their meeting. It’s been a year that the KRG oil export been stopped and the IOC, including the U.S. companies, has stopped their operations, and there is a dispute between the U.S. companies and the Iraqi minister of oil. So the U.S. has been engaged with all parties to resume that exports. And in your point of view, why it hasn’t happened yet? And then how does the U.S. work with the U.S. companies and also with the Iraqi Government to resume that exports?MR MILLER: So the U.S. has been engaged at the most senior levels on this issue, and we have urged all parties to reach an agreement to resume the flow of oil through this pipeline. We believe that restarting oil exports through the pipeline would be mutually beneficial to all parties, and because of that reason, that’s why we’ll continue to pursue it.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: The Taliban claimed recently that they have crushed ISIS-K in Afghanistan; however, we have seen the Daesh branch has expanded its operation, particularly with the recent attacks in Iran, Moscow, also in Kandahar. How do you see ISIS-KP activities and operations in Afghanistan and also in the region? Also, Lindsey Graham yesterday said in a tweet, quote, “We should be hitting ISIS-K targets in Afghanistan hard, disrupting their operations before it’s too late.” What is your reaction?MR MILLER: So we have long been worried about ISIS-K’s potential for terrorist activities. You’ve seen us actually give warnings to Russia and Iran about these two most recent terrorist attacks. And you’ve seen ISIS-K plots disrupted in Europe. And so we have made clear that we remain – need to remain vigilant against the threat of ISIS-K and we’re working with our allies and partners to do just that.And then I would say with respect to Afghanistan, we have always said that it is important that Afghanistan not become a safe haven for terrorists who bring – who could – who might want to bring harm to Americans. We have demonstrated a commitment to hold terrorists in Afghanistan accountable. But we have also made clear to the Taliban that it is in their interest to counter violent terrorist groups inside Afghanistan.Simon. Now we’ll close out.QUESTION: Yeah, it just came in during the briefing, a statement from Senator Van Hollen regarding your comments yesterday about the National Security Memorandum 20. So he’s seeking some clarity on basically what you said about this yesterday. Have you determined and what is the basis for determining that those assurances provided by Israel in line with the NSM-20 are credible and reliable?MR MILLER: So I do think there has been a lot of confusion around this memo really from the beginning. Let me back up and say that the memo required all of the seven relevant countries – as well as other countries that are not in active conflict that will report later – but these seven relevant countries, including Israel, to make assurances to the United States that they will not act in violation of international humanitarian law.But it has always been required that these countries that are receiving defense articles from the United States act in compliance with international humanitarian law, both in the use of those defense articles and in the provision of humanitarian assistance and in allowing humanitarian assistance to enter into the affected areas. That is not a requirement that was imposed by the NSM; it is something that was already required by U.S. law, and so we have already, before the NSM, had processes ongoing to assess Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law – both, as I said yesterday, in the use of those arms and as it pertains to the delivery of humanitarian assistance. And we have not yet reached any conclusion that they are in violation of international humanitarian law.So when we receive those assurances from the Government of Israel and the governments of Ukraine and other governments, we look at those assurances and we look at them informed by the assessments that we have had ongoing. And as I said, the – we have not reached the conclusion with respect to Israel that they have violated international humanitarian law.But those are processes that are very much ongoing; they didn’t start with the letter. They were – as I said, they were going on before, and they’ll continue. And the next step is we are due to provide Congress a report – this is the next thing that’s required by this memo – on May 8th, where we will get into these issues in more detail.QUESTION: Could I have a follow-up?QUESTION: So to try to clarify that – to try to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Simon has the last question. We’re going &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; make sense of that a little bit – so you haven’t reached the conclusion that Israel have violated international humanitarian law. But have you reached the conclusion that they haven’t? Has any process concluded –MR MILLER: So we have –QUESTION: &#8212; that found that they haven’t breached international humanitarian law?MR MILLER: So the processes are ongoing. That’s why when I say that the – that these processes to assess their compliance with international humanitarian law are ongoing, they have not reached a definitive conclusion. Now, the way this usually works is we have partners that we provide defense articles to. They use those defense articles. You see allegations at times that those defense articles are used in violation of international humanitarian law, and we assess them. And those assessments are ongoing, and those assessments could reach a conclusion at some point that there were violations of international law, or that they’re in compliance with international law. But those ongoing processes remain ongoing, and not terminated at this point.QUESTION: Given this war has been going on for nearly six months, can we assume that there have been some incidents that have been fully assessed, that have taken place during this war, that people might have seen, that we could – there’s a few that have come up in this meeting, and there’s been incidents that you’ve then raised with the Israelis – have there been incidents that have gone through whatever black-box process this involves, and come out the end with a sort of a green tick with the U.S. saying, “We’re fine with this”?MR MILLER: So it’s hard to answer that question without getting too much into internal deliberations. I will say that the ways these processes work, as you would expect, right, when you look at any kind of thing, they have different levels that they move through. There are a number of incidents that have been raised as potential violations of international humanitarian law that we are able to look at with a very quick assessment and determine that no, there’s an actual justification for this action, and it is – it does not violate international humanitarian law. We can look at a particular strike, for example. There are others that more – are more complicated that require an extensive fact-finding process and taking those facts and applying them against the law, and a number of those are ongoing.QUESTION: Can you say whether by May 8th, when you provide this report to Congress, would there be – will you be able to say something conclusively?MR MILLER: I just can’t speak to what – where we might be on May 8th at this point. So – it’s a month and a half away. So &#8212;QUESTION: Just to clarify one thing on that –MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: When you’re saying “we have not yet reached” the conclusion, you’re talking about the whole – I mean, since the beginning of the war. You’re not – because it could be almost interpreted as we have not seen yet up until now certain acts in violation of humanitarian – international – U.S. law, basically. Do you see what I mean?MR MILLER: I don’t. I don’t. (Laughter.)QUESTION: The way I –MR MILLER: If other – maybe other people do and I’m just slow, but I didn’t – I don’t see what you meant.QUESTION: You said, “We have not yet reached” the conclusion that –MR MILLER: Correct, yeah.QUESTION: Okay. You could interpret that by saying we have not yet made the determination from October 7th up until today that they have done something against international law. That’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying the whole – you haven’t yet made a conclusion on the whole assessment, right?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not sure if – we have not concluded in any sense – and again, you have to look at – these are all – like, when you come to the use of – use of weapons, it’s a determination you have to make with respect to individual strikes, or individual campaigns, or individual acts. And so we have had ongoing assessments to look at some of those, and none of – in none of those have we yet found violations of international humanitarian law.I don’t know if that answers the question. I’m not sure &#8212;QUESTION: So you’ve looked at them and you have not found any violations?MR MILLER: That’s correct. Yeah, that’s correct.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: That’s what I meant to say. But a number of them are ongoing. So –QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. But some – so you have reached a conclusion on some specific events up until now, where there has been no violation, right?MR MILLER: Yeah, but that’s not to say that all those have gone through an entire process, because some of them – this is what I was trying to say in answer to Simon’s question. There are different levels of review, right.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.MR MILLER: And you can imagine, like, a filtering process, if you look at something and it’s something you can throw out right away, they’re not a – an allegation that’s not substantiated, and some that require more. And so we have had those, and then there are others that require more fact-finding and more review, and those are ongoing. That’s &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t the whole point of the NSM – and I think what Senator Van Hollen, to come back to that, what he’s trying to do by getting you to agree to this – is to put some kind of deadlines and reporting requirements on it? But what you’re describing is kind of a process that never has to come to any firm conclusions about anything.MR MILLER: So, no. I wouldn’t agree with that. If you look at the actual language of the NSM, it does require a report on May 8th, and that language does spell out things that we need to assess and things that we need to include in that report when it comes to credible allegations and how we are handling those. And I just can’t offer any more definitive guidance today about what that report is going to look like. Because again, remember, this is a brand new process. We’ve never done one of these reports before. This memo has only been around for 47 days now. So then we have an active process to figure out what that’s going to look like. But I can tell you that we will follow the obligations of the memo and send that to report – report to Congress by May 8th.So with that – with that, we’ll end today. Thank you, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:13 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Singapore																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – March 25, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; March 25, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; March 25, 2024																																																					March 25, 2024																																																								1:07 p.m. EDTMR MILLER:&nbsp; Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION:&nbsp; Good afternoon.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Especially for those of you I see – actually just one of you – who traveled with us on this most recent trip.&nbsp; Humeyra, hope you got some rest over the weekend.&nbsp; I don’t see anyone else; Matt’s not here.&nbsp; Hope you got some rest over the weekend, and I &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; (Off-mike.)MR MILLER:&nbsp; Looks like your colleagues who were on that trip did not show up today.&nbsp; So anyway, I don’t have any opening statements, so Humeyra, you want to start us?QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah, sure.&nbsp; So on Rafah, Matt, Israeli delegation’s not coming here.&nbsp; How will the U.S. be able to present its alternative proposals to Israel, since they’re not going to be here this week?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I saw the statement from the Government of Israel.&nbsp; I would say it was a bit surprising and unfortunate.&nbsp; The UN Security Council resolution that passed today from which the United States abstained, there were issues that we had concern – issues with which we had concerns related to that resolution, the fact that it did not condemn Hamas’s terrorist attacks of October 7th; that’s why we didn’t vote for it.&nbsp; But the reason we didn’t veto it is because there were also things in that resolution that were consistent with our long-term position; most importantly, that there should be a ceasefire, and that there should be a release of hostages, which is what we understood also to be the Government of Israel’s position.&nbsp;&nbsp;So it is a bit surprising and unfortunate that they are not going to apparently attend these meetings.&nbsp; Because, as you heard the Secretary say in Tel Aviv on Friday after he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government, we believe that, number one, a full-scale invasion of Rafah would be a mistake.&nbsp; It would be a mistake not just because of the civilian harm that it would cause, which would be immense – there are somewhere around 1.4 million people in Rafah now, and the Government of Israel has not presented a credible plan to evacuate those people to other areas and take care of them once they were moved – but also – and this was, I think, an important thing that the Secretary said – we also think that this type of invasion would weaken Israel’s security.&nbsp; It would make Israel less safe, not more safe.&nbsp; It would undermine its standing in the world.So we are ready to present to them plans that we believe would achieve their legitimate goal, which is the defeat of Hamas, but would do so in a way that does not cause undue civilian harm and does not weaken Israel’s overall security.&nbsp; So we will look forward to continuing to have those discussions with them.QUESTION:&nbsp; But I mean, do you have a plan right now, like, when that would happen?&nbsp; Would that be over the phone?&nbsp; Would Secretary Blinken go?&nbsp; Would you try to – and also has there been any communication with the Israeli Government at a high level following this decision?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So a few things in order.&nbsp; So first of all, we started these discussions with them last week in Tel Aviv.&nbsp; As you know, the Secretary discussed the potential invasion of Rafah with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the war cabinet in Tel Aviv, and laid out our very serious concerns.&nbsp; Defense Minister Gallant is here today; he’ll be meeting with the Secretary in a little over two hours, and I would expect that will be the subject of conversations in that meeting.&nbsp; And I understand he has a meeting with other officials in the government over the course of today and tomorrow.&nbsp; So we will have those discussions there.And then I am sure we will find other ways to make our concerns known to the Government of Israel at very senior levels, but I don’t have anything to announce with respect to that today.&nbsp;&nbsp;And then with respect to your final question – so we have had ongoing communications with officials from the Israeli Government about this UN Security Council resolution going back multiple days, going back to last week.&nbsp; And we had talked about different versions.&nbsp; As you may recall, there was a different draft that was put forward first that called for a permanent ceasefire, which is not something that we supported.&nbsp; We, as you know, want to see an immediate ceasefire, but linked to hostages, and then we want to build that into something more enduring.&nbsp; So we had been in close contact with them about this resolution.&nbsp; And as I said, we believe this resolution is consistent with our policy on this matter, and consistent with what we believe to be the Government of Israel’s policy, so we have had conversations with them over the last 24 hours, and I’m sure those will continue.QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah, just – just one – a couple of other things.&nbsp; Just to be sure, so will the Secretary discuss with Defense Minister Gallant the alternatives that the United States was going to – no?MR MILLER:&nbsp; That will not be the main – I am sure that it will come up to some extent, but we do not have a presentation, a detailed presentation along those lines planned for this meeting today.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; And I hope you don’t call this a hypothetical; this is now very much a high possibility, that everybody has the sense that whatever happens regardless of you presenting alternative options or not, Israel will just go ahead with this offensive the way it sees it appropriate.&nbsp; They have said this publicly.&nbsp; Actually, Prime Minister Netanyahu said it on the day that Secretary Blinken – we were there on Friday – we will go alone if need be.&nbsp; So what is the – is the United States going to try to stop it if that would be the case?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I think I would answer that by saying we will make clear to them what the Secretary made clear on Friday, which is that we believe this type of full-scale invasion would be a mistake.&nbsp; It would be a mistake not just because of the extraordinary impact it would have on the somewhere around 1.4 million civilians who are in Rafah now, but it would also be a mistake because it would harm Israel’s overall security.&nbsp; We think there is a better way to do it that would accomplish, as I said, what is a very legitimate national security goal of Israel’s, which is to defeat the Hamas battalions that remain in Rafah.So we will continue to make that case to them.&nbsp; I expect that we will have other ways to do so over the coming days, but I would not want to make any predictions about what will come after that.&nbsp;Matt.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So last week when you guys presented your resolution at the UN, there were complaints from people who said that it delinked the ceasefire from the release of hostages, and U.S. officials were rather vociferous in saying that that is not the case.&nbsp; However, what you guys abstained on today does appear to delink them.&nbsp; Is that your understanding of &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we don’t believe it delinks them.&nbsp; You see in the same paragraph it – the resolution calling for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages.&nbsp; It’s not the exact language that we would have put forward, obviously, because the language that we would put forward is the language that we did put forward last week, but it is language that is consistent with our policy to call for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages, and that’s why we did not exercise a veto today.&nbsp;As I said, we did have concerns about the lack of other provisions in the resolution, but as it pertains to a ceasefire and the release of hostages, both the things that we called for were there in the resolution.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; The other provisions you’re referring to – is there something more than just a condemnation of Hamas?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; That is the – that is our &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Or were they plural?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; That is our chief objection.&nbsp; I’ll refer to the UN ambassador &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, but the abstention means that you’re &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; &#8212; for any &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; okay with it, you’re willing to go along with it.&nbsp; And so what do you expect now to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I think &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you expect that Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I do not.&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And then do you expect that Hamas is going to release hostages?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m glad you get – you mentioned that, because one of the things that we have objected to for some time is that most of the people that call for a ceasefire we believe are calling for Israel to unilaterally stop operations, and not calling for Hamas to agree to a ceasefire where they would release hostages.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Well, I think it goes both ways, doesn’t it?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So – it could.&nbsp; But so the &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So wait, wait, wait, wait.&nbsp; The &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No, the – but the resolution today is a non-binding resolution, but we do think &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So what’s the point?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Well &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Why did you &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; &#8212; you could ask that &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Why did you abstain?&nbsp; Why didn’t you veto?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; We didn’t veto because we thought the language in it was consistent with something that – the language as it relates to the ceasefire and release of hostages was consistent with the longstanding United States position.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So you don’t believe anything is going to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I think that separate and apart from this resolution, we have active, ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is the – an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages.&nbsp; I don’t – I can’t say that this – this resolution is going to have any impact on those negotiations.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; But those negotiations are ongoing.&nbsp; They’ve been ongoing over the weekend and they’ve made progress.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; So I don’t expect you to answer this now, but maybe just stick this in&nbsp; your pocket.&nbsp; If that’s the case, what the hell is the point of the UN or the UN Security Council?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we think it plays an important role on a range of – a range of security &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Oh, it does, even though its action does absolutely nothing?&nbsp; I mean, and that you’re going to get what you would like to see not out of the UN, but out of discussions in Doha?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we believe it’s important that the UN speak – the UN Security Council speak on matters of international security.&nbsp; It’s why we’ve been engaged in this process.&nbsp; It’s why we thought we were going to have a successful vote on Friday that Russia and China unfortunately and quite cynically vetoed, but I do believe that ultimately, if we were able to achieve a ceasefire and the release of hostages, it’s going to come not through a UN process but through the process with which we’ve been engaged – yes – in Doha.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Could I just follow up on that?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Just to put it in other words, I mean, do you expect not just Israel but Hamas – do you expect compliance that Israel would actually – and Hamas for that matter – would actually say, hey, look, here’s a ceasefire in the month of Ramadan?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I don’t think you’re going to see Hamas complying with any United Nations Security Council resolutions.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; But do you want them to?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; But I would say – as I said, it’s a non-binding resolution, but we do believe that the ceasefire and release of hostages that the resolution calls for is not only the United States position but has been Israel’s position.&nbsp; This is what Israel has been trying to achieve through these negotiations.&nbsp; So I would hope that we could get to that agreement through these negotiations, and I would hope we get that in the near future.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Let me just put it one more way. I mean, if the fighting continues, I mean on both sides, is that – again, saying it’s non-binding, but is that a violation of the Security Council resolution?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Again, it’s a non-binding resolution and I would defer to international lawyers to speak in detail to that question.&nbsp;Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Matt, I know what you said yesterday, that Israel told him that they will no longer allow UNRWA convoys to enter northern Gaza.&nbsp; I mean, if we add to this that there are so many incidents where Israelis fired on people queueing for aid in northern Gaza, do you – do you still believe or do – is it still the U.S. assessment that Israel is not using food or assistance as a tool of war?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we have not made an assessment or draw the conclusion that they are in violation of international humanitarian law when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.&nbsp; That said, we do believe there is very much more that they can do to let humanitarian assistance go in, both through Kerem Shalom and Rafah and also through the new 96 gate that opened up week before last, to allow convoys to move directly into the north without having to transit the somewhat perilous route inside Gaza.&nbsp; So we do believe that there is more that they can do, probably more that they can do – and I should say it’s not just with respect to UNRWA but with respect to other UN agencies that are operating and providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza today.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; The budget deal that was passed in the Congress also prevents you – prevent the United States Government from funding UNRWA.&nbsp; And you’ve been asked about this here in this – asking you on this podium before, and you said that you wanted – you don’t want to talk about something that didn’t happen.&nbsp; But now it seems that it’s happening.&nbsp; What is your plan to give aid to Gaza now that you cannot deal with UNRWA?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So first of all, I should make very clear that we’re going to comply with the law.&nbsp; And you’ve heard me speak about the fact that we had to prepare for the possibility that this might become law because it’s something that you’ve seen members of Congress propose, and you’d seen it in a bill that had previously passed the United States Senate.&nbsp; So we have been working to identify alternatives to provide humanitarian assistance to UNRWA.&nbsp;&nbsp;UNRWA will continue its work.&nbsp; There are other countries that are funding UNRWA.&nbsp; There are other countries that have lifted their pauses on funding of UNRWA over the past few weeks, and we expect that their important work will go forward.&nbsp; As for the United States, we still will provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.&nbsp; That is our commitment, it’s something that we have done for decades, and it’s something that we will continue to do.&nbsp;&nbsp;And so we have had a process ongoing to identify how we can best deliver that funding and that assistance outside of UNRWA if Congress did take the step that it has now taken, and I expect you’ll see us move along in that process over the coming weeks and months.&nbsp; But UNRWA is not now the only humanitarian provider that’s operating in Gaza.&nbsp; We’ve seen, for example, the World Food Program that has run some of these convoys that have moved up inside Israel and crossed into northern Gaza through the 96 gate.&nbsp; So we’ll look to work with WFP and other programs – UNICEF, perhaps – on ways to get the humanitarian assistance that we can provide, that we can fund, in to the people who need it.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; One last question, Matt.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; I’m seeking if you have any comment about the video that Al Jazeera broadcast on Friday about Israeli drone attacking Palestinian, five men, with drone missiles.&nbsp; I don’t know if you’ve see the video or not, but clearly in the video, at least from the way that we see it, they were unarmed, they look civilian, and they were targeted numerous time by rockets from a drone.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’ve seen the video.&nbsp; I’m not able to offer an assessment as to the identity of the individuals in the video or any of the circumstances surrounding it.&nbsp; But it is something that we’ve asked the Israelis for more information about.&nbsp;Said.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; A couple of follow-ups.&nbsp; Now, you were saying, I think in response to Humeyra, on you will show the Israelis ways to target Hamas without having a full invasion.&nbsp; Is that what you said, sir?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; We’ve made that clear for some time.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, all right.&nbsp; You made that very clear.&nbsp; Does that mean that the United States will actually go into combat against Hamas?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No.&nbsp; That is not at all what that means.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; What does that mean?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; It means that we will provide advice to Israel &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; – about ways that they can accomplish their legitimate objective &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; – which is to defeat the remaining Hamas battalions that are operating in Rafah, but without a full-scale invasion that would lead to mass humanitarian suffering.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; But we have been very clear that there will be no U.S. combat troops on the ground.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And that would be also and the sharing of intelligence and things of that nature?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Those are conversations we’re going to have privately &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; You have practically &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Hold on – with the Government of Israel.&nbsp; I’m certainly not going to read them out here.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; I have a couple questions to you on the resolution.&nbsp; Now, does this resolution have any practical future?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; What do you mean, does it have any practical future?&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; I mean does it have – I mean, it’s a nonbinding resolution, right?&nbsp; So does it have – could it be like a step forward towards a bigger binding resolution?&nbsp; Is that how you see it?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m not going to speculate about what steps the United Nations Security Council are going to take next.&nbsp; But we have been clear about what we are trying to achieve with respect to the conflict in Gaza, and that is to achieve an immediate, sustainable ceasefire linked to the release of hostages that we can then build into something more enduring.&nbsp; That has been something we have been pursuing for some time.&nbsp; It’s something that we have pursued in negotiations in Doha over the weekend.&nbsp; And as I said, we believe that we’ve made progress in that, including progress in – over the weekend.&nbsp; And we’ll continue to pursue it.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; Now, a couple more things on UNRWA in response to Ahmad’s questions and so on, on UNRWA.&nbsp; Now, Israel, with the new law, that defunding UNRWA has become law, they can say we don’t want any UNRWA operations anywhere in Gaza or the West Bank, where that – are really totally dependent on the UNRWA operation.&nbsp; I know you mentioned the World Food Program and so on, but it does not have the kind of mechanism and logistics in place and the history behind it that UNRWA has.&nbsp; So do you expect that the Israelis will just throw out UNRWA lock, stock, and barrel?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I am not going to make any predictions about what the Government of Israel – what steps the Government of Israel might take.&nbsp; I will make clear, as we have, that we continue to support the important work that UNRWA does to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; And lastly, I don’t know if you are following up on the West Bank.&nbsp; The Israelis confiscated or ordered an issue to confiscate 3,000 dunams.&nbsp; It’s the largest in many decades and so on.&nbsp; Do you have any comment on that?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; We have been very clear in our position that these settlements are inconsistent with international humanitarian law and that they are ultimately a barrier to peace.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; International law.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; International law.&nbsp; Excuse me.&nbsp; I’m so – I’m so used to &#8212; I’m so used to talking about humanitarian law in the context of the rest of this.&nbsp; International law.QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah, international law.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Extremely briefly, did you see this report about some Israeli general saying that he had been told by a State Department official that there was incontrovertible evidence that IDF troops had raped a Palestinian woman?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I did see that report.&nbsp; It is not accurate.QUESTION:&nbsp; What does that mean?MR MILLER:&nbsp; My understanding &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; What is not accurate?MR MILLER:&nbsp; My understanding of the meeting is that you had a State Department official who said in these meetings what we have said consistently publicly, which is that Israel must thoroughly and transparently investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing and assure – ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.&nbsp; That’s what the – what this official said, which is what we’ve said publicly.&nbsp; You’ve heard me say it from this podium many times.&nbsp; Nothing more.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Could I pick up another aspect of the Gaza – of the issue of NSM-20.&nbsp; Could we discuss that in terms of what &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Sure.QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; what the communication has been so far with Israel?&nbsp; `This was all done on – of course, over the weekend.&nbsp; Has Israel presented assurances, if you want to call it that, and what’s the U.S. response?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; So there was a deadline actually yesterday for us to receive assurances from all seven countries, not just Israel but all seven countries, to whom the United States provides defense articles and are in active conflict.&nbsp; There is a separate provision of the memo that provides a separate timeline.&nbsp; I think it’s six months for countries to whom we provide defense articles but are not in active conflict.But for these seven countries – which are Colombia, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, and Ukraine – we have received written assurances that are required in the memo.&nbsp; In each case, these assurances were made by a credible high-level official in the partner government who has the ability and authority to make decisions and commitments about the issues at the heart of the assurances.&nbsp; And the next step, as provided in the national security memorandum, is that we will be compiling a public – compiling a report and issuing it to Congress by May 8th.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; So you – so they’re credible assurances.&nbsp; I know you’re aren’t saying anything about just Israel, but all of these countries involved.&nbsp; I mean, obviously the – there’s a lot of interest in Israel in light of what’s happening in Gaza.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.QUESTION:&nbsp; So it’s in the interest of the United States that what Israel is doing, it’s credible in terms of their assurances, but U.S. weapons.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; So first of all, I should be clear that these assurances are prospective.&nbsp; But of course our view on them is informed by our ongoing assessments of Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza.&nbsp; So we have had ongoing assessments about their compliance with international humanitarian law.&nbsp; I’ve spoken to them from this podium before.&nbsp; We have the CHERG process, that is examining specific incidents.&nbsp; We have not found them to be in violation of international humanitarian law, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance.&nbsp; So we view their assurances through that ongoing work that we have done.And I should make clear those ongoing assessments are not something that started because of the national security memorandum, and they’re not something that stop because we got these assurances from Israel yesterday.&nbsp; They will be ongoing.&nbsp; When we get credible reports or credible allegations of misconduct, we look at them through the process that we have ongoing, and ultimately we will make the appropriate conclusions.&nbsp; And to the extent that we are able to do so in the report that’s due on May 8th, they will be provided to Congress through that report.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Sorry, I just heard – you said every – all seven countries had submitted?MR MILLER:&nbsp; All seven, yes.QUESTION:&nbsp; I mean, you yourself have discussed the civilian casualties, the civilian toll there in Gaza.&nbsp; So I mean, is that consistent with that?&nbsp; I mean, so you think that even though there’s a civilian toll, that the U.S. – that the use of U.S. weapons – that they’re credible assurances that have been given there?&nbsp; Is that not inconsistent at all to say that they’re &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So they have given us assurances.&nbsp; I would say, when it comes to finding a violation of international humanitarian law, that requires a fact-intensive analysis of relevant factors related to international humanitarian law.&nbsp; So you’ve heard me speak to this before:&nbsp; If you’re to assess whether a particular strike is in compliance with international humanitarian law, you have to know who was the target of the strike.&nbsp; You have to know what steps they took to minimize civilian harm.&nbsp; You have to know to what extent they were successful.&nbsp;&nbsp;And so we have ongoing processes to look at those things, and those were processes that started before this memorandum was signed by the President.&nbsp; They were processes that were ongoing before we received these assurances.&nbsp; And they’re processes that will continue to be ongoing.&nbsp; But as of yet, we have not made a conclusion that Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So could I follow up, Matt?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you have this – does this response from 11 NGOs saying that Israel is in breach of the national security memorandum, does that feed in at all to the U.S. assessment?&nbsp; Is the U.S. listening to NGOs that have had experience or on-the-ground experience in Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we welcome reports.&nbsp; We welcome credible information from NGOs or anyone else who has credible allegations about potential violations of international humanitarian law.&nbsp; And we would urge NGOs or anyone else to submit them to the United States Government, to submit them to the State Department, and it’s part of what we will look at in our ongoing assessments.&nbsp;&nbsp;Anything else on Gaza before I move on?&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yes.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Janne, I know you’re not asking about Gaza.&nbsp; (Laughter.)&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Yes, this is North Korea.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.&nbsp; I’ll come back to you.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Following up on the UN Security Council resolution, you said that it’s nonbinding, but some others are also arguing that it is binding, like other – several other UN Security Council resolutions.&nbsp; Has there been any – is there an ongoing discussion about this at the UN between the U.S. representatives and others on that?And also the – I remember it was last November the UN Security Council also adopted a resolution calling for extended and urgent humanitarian pauses and corridors in Gaza, which was binding and which was rejected by Israel, like several UN Security Council resolutions in the past.&nbsp; So will the U.S. encourage Israel to comply with UN resolutions and international law if Israel is not above the law?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So with respect to the first resolution, it is our interpretation of this resolution that it is non-binding.&nbsp; And for any detail on that, I would refer you to the office of our ambassador to the United Nations, who can of course speak in more detail of how we’d reach that conclusion.&nbsp; With respect to the other resolution, of course we always expect all of our partner nations to comply with international law, and I’ll leave at that.&nbsp;&nbsp;Gaza?&nbsp; Gaza.&nbsp; Gaza.&nbsp; Go ahead, Michel.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; What did the Secretary discuss this afternoon with the Israeli defense minister?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So it will be a continuation of the discussions that we had on Friday in Israel when the Secretary met with the Israeli war cabinet.&nbsp; Defense Minister Gallant was in those meetings where we talked about our concerns about Rafah.&nbsp; We talked about the need to increase the level of humanitarian assistance making it into Gaza and make sure that, that increase in assistance is sustained.&nbsp; And then I’m sure that the defense minister will have other things on his mind, and we’ll have a readout of the meeting afterwards.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; In this – in a video statement that he made in front of the White House, Minister Gallant has said:&nbsp; We have no moral right to stop the war until we return all the abductees to their homes; stopping the war in Gaza before a clear decision is made endangers Israel’s security and may bring us closer to war from the north.MR MILLER:&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you have – do you have any comment on that?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I haven’t seen his full statement, so I’m always reluctant to respond when I see a – or when I have a brief quote read out to me of what may be a larger statement.&nbsp; But of course we want to see all the hostages returned home.&nbsp; That has been something we have tried to achieve from the beginning, and of course it was the negotiations that led to the first pause that – in which the United States was an active player that secured the release of over 100 hostages.&nbsp; And the United States has been actively engaged, including this weekend, to try to secure the release of every remaining hostage, and we will not let up on that goal.&nbsp;&nbsp;I would add, as you heard me say, that we also – I’ve said this two or three times already, but when you hear officials from the Israeli Government say that they want to see the defeat of the Hamas battalions in Rafah and they will not stop the war before that, we also want to see the defeat of those Hamas battalions in Rafah.&nbsp; We share that same goal, but we think it’s a false choice to say that there’s not a better way to do it than smashing into Rafah in a way that would lead to an inordinate amount of human suffering.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And what about when he said that any ceasefire will endanger Israel’s security and may bring us closer – as Israel is – to war from the north?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So, again, I’m a little reluctant to respond specifically to that comment because I haven’t seen the rest of what he – the defense minister said.&nbsp; But it has been the position of the Government of Israel to try and reach a ceasefire that would secure the release of hostages.&nbsp; That’s what they’ve been pursuing in these hostage negotiations; it’s what we’ve been pursuing.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Shannon, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Just to put a fine point on the resolution, you said a couple times that you were surprised by the Israeli Government’s reaction to the U.S. abstention, but we do know the U.S. was involved in negotiations basically up to the vote.&nbsp; So is there some kind of disconnect for that surprise to be there?&nbsp; Did Israel not say they were against this kind of resolution?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m not going to get into our private conversations with officials from the Government of Israel, but we had been in close contact with them about this resolution going back into last week.&nbsp; We obviously were in contact with them about the resolution that the United States put forward that was ultimately vetoed on Friday.&nbsp; And when you kind of come down to brass tacks, the text of the resolution is something that calls for what we believe has been the Government of Israel’s position, which was a ceasefire and the release of hostages, so that’s why we found their statement today unfortunate and a bit surprising.&nbsp;&nbsp;All right.&nbsp; Is this Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I just want to finish up – finish up – go ahead.&nbsp; I want to – and then I’ll come to you next, Ryan. Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; I have two questions on Gaza.&nbsp; And the first question, you said to Mr. Said there will not be, like combat or any military troops on the ground.&nbsp; But do you will have military advisors and intelligence advisor on border from Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I would defer to the Pentagon to speak about – in detail about military matters.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; The second question on Palestine and the resolutions.&nbsp; Like I mean, last question from me like 10 days ago you told me like there – there are many Arab countries that recognized Israel, even the border issues.&nbsp; Israel doesn’t have a border.&nbsp; So why USA doesn’t, like, take initiative and recognize Palestine, regardless this border issue, and, like, recognize it as a state and that may be – like help people feel that there is a hope that they will have a country, whether it is, like, one-state solution, two-state solution &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; It is – it &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Like as Arab countries recognized Israel without borders &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; Because &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; why don’t you recognize Palestine without borders?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Because it has been the longstanding position of the United States that recognition of a Palestinian state is something that should be negotiated between the relevant parties.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ryan, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So with Netanyahu cancelling this delegation and promising to go into Rafah anyway, is the U.S. taking any precautions to make sure that U.S. weapons are not going to be used in that invasion that he is promising?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So let me answer that in two ways.&nbsp; Number one, to say – which is – it has always been our expectation that United States weapons be used in full compliance with international humanitarian law.&nbsp; I know that’s a different question than what you asked, but I think it’s important to put on the record.&nbsp;&nbsp;With respect to what might happen in an ultimate invasion of Rafah, I said this a little bit in response to Humeyra’s question – I really don’t want to get ahead of the facts.&nbsp; We do still expect to have discussions about this matter with the Government of Israel.&nbsp; We believe there is a better way to do it.&nbsp; And beyond that, I don’t want to speculate about what may happen down the road.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And real quickly.&nbsp; I don’t know if you’ve seen this report, but Shin Bet has sort of threatened an American citizen who posted, I think, on social media about the location of Netanyahu’s son.&nbsp; Is that okay?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah, so I’ve seen the reports.&nbsp; I – we’ve not talked to the individual in question.&nbsp; I don’t – we don’t have the ability or have not yet verified, on behalf of the United States Government, the underlying allegations.&nbsp; But I would say that as a general matter the United States would oppose any effort by any foreign government attempting to intimidate any individuals in the United States from engaging in protected free speech activities.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Not Gaza.MR MILLER:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; Wrap up Gaza &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Do you want – all right, let’s move – all right, go ahead.&nbsp; Go ahead.&nbsp; We’ll move on.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Mexico, the President Lopez Obrador was interviewed over the weekend and explained some hesitancy to go after cartels at the request or at the behest of foreign governments.&nbsp; He called it part of his “Mexico first” policy.&nbsp; I wanted to see if you had any response to that.&nbsp; And then separately, a little more specific, there was some investigative reporting over the weekend that drug cartels are targeting seniors, Americans and Canadians, with timeshares, and extorting them to sell – or pressuring them to sell and then extorting them with upfront fees.&nbsp; I wanted to see if you were aware of that issue, if you had any comment outside of the standard Travel Advisory.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I don’t have any comment on the second.&nbsp; I have seen those reports but I just don’t have a comment.&nbsp; With respect to the first, I’m not aware what the specific comment refers to, but the United States has been – made very clear that we want to work with the Mexican Government to stop cartels from smuggling dangerous drugs into the United States.&nbsp; And we’ve had long – a longstanding productive partnership with the Government of Mexico to accomplish just that.&nbsp; You’ve seen the Secretary travel to Mexico a number of times to further our work together to try and take on the cartels that are trafficking fentanyl and other drugs that do so much harm to the American public.&nbsp;&nbsp;Janne.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; Two questions on Russia, North Korea, and Ukraine.&nbsp; North Korea announced that they expected Russia to recognize it as a nuclear state.&nbsp; And the Russia’s Kremlin said that the escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula was due to United States deterrence power.&nbsp; He also said that the Russia would guarantee a nuclear umbrella to North Korea.&nbsp; So if Russia alone guarantees North Korea’s nuclear weapons, do you think North Korea will be recognized as a nuclear state?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I will say what we have said before but – that is we are committed to the complete and total denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.&nbsp; And of course we continue to remain concerned about the growing and burgeoning partnership between the Russian Government and North Korea.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Ukraine, Russia used a a large number of North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine.&nbsp; However, Ukraine Government announced that defective with North Korean-made weapons.&nbsp; How does the U.S. assess North Korea’s weapons?&nbsp; Do you have any (inaudible) this?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I don’t have any particular assessment to offer from here.&nbsp;&nbsp;Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matthew.&nbsp; Welcome back.&nbsp; A couple of questions on Russia-Ukraine.&nbsp; Staying on Moscow first and the Friday attack.&nbsp; Kremlin continues to either pin the blame on Ukraine without evidence, and Putin’s ambassador to Washington has denied the fact that the U.S. has tipped off prior to the attack.&nbsp; Can you please walk us through sort of the &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m sorry, what was the – with respect to &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; There was a tip-off from the U.S. – he denied that there was any tip-off from Washington.&nbsp; Can you please walk us through some of your communications with the Russians in the run-up to last Friday?&nbsp; And what do you know, when did you know it, and how did you communicate?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So two things.&nbsp; With respect to the first question, there was no Ukrainian involvement – period.&nbsp; You’ve seen the Ukrainian Government make that clear?&nbsp; And of course, with respect to these statements the Russians have offered zero evidence, because there is no evidence of Ukrainian involvement.&nbsp; With respect to the warnings that we provided to the Government of Russia, yes, we did offer warnings to the Government of Russia in early March about a planned terrorist attack in Moscow, specifically potentially targeting large gatherings, including concerts.&nbsp;&nbsp;We gave them that private warning consistent with our duty to warn that we have when we see – or when we gather intelligence of terrorist attacks or potential terrorist attacks.&nbsp; You might recall that several months ago, we warned the Government of Iran about a potential terrorist attack by ISIS-K in Iran, one that ultimately, quite tragically, also came to be true.&nbsp; And it was because of that warning that we passed onto the Russian Government that we issued a security warning on March 7 where we, again, said to U.S. citizens that we had information about a planned terrorist attack in Moscow, potentially including – potentially targeting large gatherings, including concerts.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Was it communicated through diplomatic channels, through the DOD, or &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m not going to speak to the specific channels through which we communicated.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; As you know, France today raised its threat security level to the highest.&nbsp; Is there any concern on your end that U.S. interests, U.S. companies –&nbsp;diplomats&nbsp;– might be under increasing danger abroad&nbsp;– in Europe,&nbsp;in this case?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Look, we always encourage United States companies operating overseas to be vigilant to threats in their area, and we issued security alerts in various countries around the world, but I don’t have any updates to offer today.QUESTION:&nbsp; And back to Ukraine, heavy bombardments we have seen during past five days in a row – what is your reading of Putin’s motivation at this very moment?MR MILLER:&nbsp; His motivation?QUESTION:&nbsp; And is it – maybe because he is encouraged by the fact that Ukraine is – has a shortage of air defense.MR MILLER:&nbsp; So look, I think Vladimir Putin’s motives have not changed.&nbsp; He wants to conquer Ukraine and subjugate the Ukrainian people.&nbsp; He’s made very clear that his motivations haven’t changed, and you’ve seen him publicly reference just in the past 10 days or so that he has no interest in negotiating with Ukraine right now because he’s seeing the ammunitions shortages that they are suffering.&nbsp; So from the perspective of this administration, it only highlights the need for the United States Congress to pass the President’s supplemental funding request and provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.QUESTION:&nbsp; I’ve got one more, if you don’t mind.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Let me – let me go – that’s three, Alex, and we’ve been – we’ve gone around a lot.&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Please come back to me too, please (inaudible).MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m not making any promises.&nbsp; (Laughter.)&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; The Polish Government says that for the third time already, a Russian cruise missile flew through Polish airspace, and the Russian ambassador was called in and he just refused to show up.&nbsp; Do you have to – do you have any response to that?&nbsp; And did you have any contacts with the Polish authorities regarding that incident?MR MILLER:&nbsp; We have been in close communication with the Polish authorities about this matter, and we have said to them the – privately what I will reiterate publicly from this podium, which is our commitment to NATO and the security of our NATO Allies, which of course includes Poland, is ironclad and it will not waver.QUESTION:&nbsp; So would Poland be within its right to strike it down next time that &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m just not going to speak on behalf of decisions made by a foreign country.Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; In 30 days, the Iraqi prime minister will be here in Washington D.C., and the Iraqi foreign minister (inaudible) Secretary Blinken.&nbsp; What the Iraqi official says that they are saying that we are in negotiation with the U.S. Government and in post U.S. coalition forces to defeat ISIS relations with the U.S.&nbsp; Is there any discussion with the Iraqi Government about the post-U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I don’t want to get into our private conversations.&nbsp; We do have the meeting with the foreign minister come up – coming up, and we will have a readout of that meeting afterwards.QUESTION:&nbsp; And have you got any understanding with the Iraqi Government, especially about the HMC meetings about the future and the evolution of your forces in Iraq?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I just don’t have any announcements with respect to meetings.Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Just a little bit more on Gaza, Matt.&nbsp; You talked about relationship with Poland, right?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.QUESTION:&nbsp; You called it ironclad.&nbsp; So how would you characterize the relationship with Israel right now?&nbsp; Is that ironclad as well?MR MILLER:&nbsp; We have a close relationship with the Government of Israel.&nbsp; They are a major non-NATO ally of ours.&nbsp; It’s why you’ve seen us in such close communication with them.QUESTION:&nbsp; Sure.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Secretary’s been to Israel seven times now since October 7th.QUESTION:&nbsp; Think six.MR MILLER:&nbsp; There are things with – there are broad areas on which we agree.&nbsp; The defeat of Hamas is one of them, a commitment to Israel’s security is another, and then there are of course areas where we have disagreements.QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you think there was any negative impact after the – the disagreements have been piling up, but today we saw Israel threatening to do something if U.S. policy wouldn’t change or if U.S. wouldn’t act in a certain way that it wants, and U.S. didn’t act that way and they followed through on their threat.&nbsp; And right now a conversation that Washington thought was important is not happening.&nbsp; How would you – is there any lasting impact on this, or how would you characterize the relationship right now based on that?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I will leave it to professional pundits to make those types of characterizations.&nbsp; I will just talk about &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; I’m not seeking professional pundits’ opinion.&nbsp; I’m seeking &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No, no, no, I understand.&nbsp; I will just talk about the facts of our relationship, which is we have very direct, candid discussions.&nbsp; I was sitting in the meeting between the Secretary and the prime minister and the war cabinet on Friday, and I can tell you those conversations are at times quite direct on areas where we have disagreement, and that – disagreements, and that has been the case not just back to October 7th but since before October 7th.And it is – I’ll just say it is partly because of our longstanding relationship with Israel.&nbsp; It’s a relationship that is not just between this administration and the Israeli Government; it is a relationship that goes back between multiple governments, administrations both in the United States and Israel.&nbsp; It’s a relationship between the American people and the Israeli people, and so it is because we have that kind of longstanding relationship that we can be pretty frank with each other.QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.MR MILLER:&nbsp; We don’t make threats to them.&nbsp; We don’t expect them to make threats to us.&nbsp; We have direct, honest conversations about areas where we disagree, and of course honest conversations when we agree.QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp; You said you’d expect to present the alternatives for Rafah at some point.&nbsp; I mean, are you – is the U.S. determined to present them no matter what?&nbsp; I guess what I’m trying to understand is do you think Israel is genuinely willing to hear them out, or did you get any sense from them that this week was a bit of an exercise and the UN resolution saga gave them an out out of this.MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m not going to speak for what the Government of Israel intends or what they – but I will say that when we met with them in Israel on Friday, they made clear that they did want to see the options, the alternatives that the United States was going to present.&nbsp; We think it’s important too that they see those options, because we do believe that the path that they are currently on towards a full-scale invasion of Rafah is one that would weaken Israel’s security and hurt the Palestinian people and cause inordinate human suffering that doesn’t need to happen.&nbsp; So we will continue to have conversations with them about this.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And after today it’s still your understanding that they’re still willing to hear out those alternatives?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I – this is something that just broke in the last few hours, so I’m not going to speak to what future conversations that we’re going to have with them, but we talk to the Government of Israel every day at different levels.&nbsp; The Secretary has conversations with officials in the Israeli Government.&nbsp; Our ambassador is in and out of the Israeli Government all the time, talking about things that they want from us and oftentimes presenting things that we want them to do.&nbsp; And I do expect that those conversations will continue on multiple levels between our government and theirs about multiple topics, including a potential invasion of Rafah.&nbsp;Shaun.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Completely different topic – Senegal.&nbsp; The election results, after quite a bit of controversy on it, the outgoing president, President Sall, has congratulated the opposition candidate, Mr. Faye, on this.&nbsp; Do you have a reaction?&nbsp; Is it a happy ending?&nbsp; Is it democracy triumphing?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we congratulate the people of Senegal on their enthusiastic participation in yesterday’s well-run election.&nbsp; We look forward to congratulating Senegal’s new president once the results are official.&nbsp; And we note that both domestic and international observers have characterized election day as predominantly peaceful and that election officials, polling staff, party agents, and security forces were generally professional.&nbsp; The commitment of the Senegalese people to the democratic process is part of the foundation of our deep friendship and strong bilateral ties.&nbsp; So yes, when you ask the question about are we pleased with how this has proceeded, look, you had several months ago, a month ago, six weeks – I don’t remember the exact timing – potential suspension of elections.&nbsp; We made very clear that we wanted to see elections take place as soon as possible, and you saw ultimately the courts in Senegal make that clear, and we’re pleased that those elections have proceeded.&nbsp;Nick, I call on you with some trepidation.&nbsp; Whenever someone leaves the room and then comes back to ask a question, I get – I get worried what’s coming at me.&nbsp; But go ahead.&nbsp; I hope I don’t regret this.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; This is on Afghanistan, and it’s a little old.&nbsp; There’s a SIGAR report that said of the 2.9 billion that the UN has provided to Afghanistan since the U.S. withdrawal there, some of that – including U.S. taxpayer money – has gone into Taliban-controlled banks.&nbsp; Are you familiar with that report?&nbsp; And &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I have – yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; what’s being done to prevent stuff like that from happening?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So let me take that question and get back to you.&nbsp; I have seen the report.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m sure there’s more we have to say about it, but let me just take it back and get you a complete answer.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Follow-up?&nbsp; Follow-up, Matt.&nbsp; Thanks.&nbsp; Follow-up.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; In light of the Moscow attack, does the United States have any plans to boost security cooperation with Moscow?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No, obviously, I think.&nbsp; So when it comes to the attack, a few things.&nbsp; Number one, you saw the Secretary in a statement that he issued on Saturday express his deep condolences on behalf of the United States to the loss of life and the suffering by the Russian people.&nbsp; Number two, when we have – if we have – intelligence in the future like the intelligence we had with respect to this attack, we will of course make it available to the Russian Government because we don’t want to see terrorist attacks be successful anywhere in the world.&nbsp; We don’t want to see the Russian people suffer.&nbsp; We have never had any quarrel with the Russian people.&nbsp;&nbsp;So we will of course provide – if we have intelligence information about potential attacks, we will provide that information to the Russian Government just as we provide it to the Government of Iran, a country with which we have deep, lasting disagreements – because we don’t want to see the people of Iran suffer.&nbsp; And just like as our quarrel is not with the Russian people, our quarrel is not with the Iranian people.&nbsp;Hold on, I’m still answering another question.&nbsp;But that said, obviously we are not going to boost our security – or boost any security agreements or start any security agreements with the Government of Russia, a government that we have seen invade one of its neighbors unprovoked, kill thousands and thousands of people for no reason at all except to pursue the personal conquest objectives of the Russian president.&nbsp; So no, we will not be taking that step.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; One more?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; One more.&nbsp; As you probably know, Volodymyr Zelenskyy presidential term expires on May 20th, and there is no election on the horizon.&nbsp; Will Zelenskyy still be the legitimate president of Ukraine for you past May 20th?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So ultimately these are questions for the Ukrainian people to decide.&nbsp; We want to see presidential elections and all elections in Ukraine.&nbsp; But we recognize that it’s a difficult thing to conduct in the middle of the war.&nbsp; This isn’t a question that’s unique to Ukraine; it’s a question that pertains to any country that is in the middle of a war, especially when you don’t just have the question of soldiers on the front lines being able to vote – you have the question of how you deal with these occupied territories where the Russian military is occupying Ukrainian land and would prevent Ukrainian citizens from making their voices heard in the election.&nbsp; So it’s a very difficult issue to work through, and ultimately it’s a decision for the Ukrainian people to make.&nbsp;Go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Which?MR MILLER:&nbsp; No.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; There is the fear among Palestinian that the new planned seaport will be built by U.S. Army, will be used as a U.S. military base, and also will be used to displace Palestinian from Gaza to other country, and also indicate that Rafah will be attacked because the aid, it’s much easier to bring it through the Egyptian borders, not from the port.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So two things.&nbsp; One, with respect to the pier that the U.S. military is constructing, it is for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.&nbsp; It is not to displace the Palestinian people.&nbsp; It is not to facilitate the arrival of U.S. troops in Gaza.&nbsp; The President has made clear that there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Gaza.&nbsp; It is just to deliver much-needed humanitarian assistance.The second point I would make is what you have heard from the President to the Secretary on down to little old me, and that is that the provision of humanitarian assistance through that port is the same as the provision of humanitarian assistance that we’re providing through air drops.&nbsp; It is meant to supplement, not replace, the delivery of humanitarian assistance through Rafah, but also through Kerem Shalom and through the 96 gate that Israel has recently opened to provide humanitarian assistance directly to the north.&nbsp; Those cannot be turned off; they have to be not just kept open, but they have to be increased and sustained so – because ultimately that is the best way to deliver humanitarian assistance.&nbsp; But the other options we’re pursuing are to supplement that assistance.QUESTION:&nbsp; And also not to take the gas in Gaza, or &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; And not to what?QUESTION:&nbsp; The gas in Gaza, in the Sea of Gaza.MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m not sure to what you’re – the gas?&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; The gas, yes.MR MILLER:&nbsp; The gas?&nbsp; No, no, of course not.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with that.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; The other question, please.&nbsp; Is it logic to cut off the fund for the UNRWA, regarding to UNRWA, even if there is 12 employees, they are cooperate with Hamas in October&nbsp;7th, there is more than 30,000 served employees in UNRWA.&nbsp; So is it logic to cut off that arm because this reason?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So –QUESTION:&nbsp; Unless there is another reason to get rid of the UNRWA and to release or to get rid of the refugees’ issues?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we have made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does.&nbsp; We paused our funding because of the very serious allegations that UNRWA found credible; it’s not just that Israel found them credible, it’s that UNRWA did.&nbsp; But as it pertained – I think you’re probably referring to the action that the United States Congress took.&nbsp; We ultimately will follow the law because that’s our duty to do so.All right, we’ll take one more up front, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thanks, Matt.&nbsp; Can you give an update on the number of evacuees from Haiti and on the helicopter lifts, and whether you anticipate any more charter flights to be going from&nbsp;Cap-Haïtien for Americans?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; So we have three flights, helicopter flights leaving today.&nbsp; We have four that are planned for tomorrow.&nbsp; We have facilitated the safe departure of over 340 U.S. citizens out of Haiti since March 17th.&nbsp; That includes approximately 250 U.S. citizens who have departed Port-au-Prince, and another hundred that have departed through Cape – Cap-Haïtien.&nbsp; We continue to explore other alternatives to evacuate American citizens from Haiti, but I don’t have anything further to announce today.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; With that, we’ll wrap.&nbsp; Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 1:59 p.m.)						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Haiti																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Poland																								Russia																								The Secretary of State																								Senegal																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – March 20, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 20, 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 20, 2024																																																					March 20, 2024																																																								12:34 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Wednesday. I don’t have anything off the top today. Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. I guess starting with Gaza.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: NSM-20 – follow up on that. I mean, there’s – the clock is ticking for a Israeli response, and not just Israel but – can you say what extent now has Israel submitted a response? Has there been any correspondence with the department?MR PATEL: So as I said yesterday, I’m just not going to speak to the specifics of any singular country at this moment. This is a broad memorandum touching various different corners of the world. And to take a step back, since the signing of the national security memorandum on February 8th, partner countries deemed to be in active armed conflict have 45 days to share letters of assurances. And upon receipt of each of those, the United States will assess whether or not a partner country – whether those assurances are credible and reliable.And so that work is ongoing, and implementation of that national security memorandum is ongoing, as is the assessment of those assurances from partner countries. So I just – I don’t – I’m not going to get into more specifics. I know Camilla asked about this yesterday.QUESTION: Right. The Secretary, of course – it’s been announced he’s going to continue on to Israel this week. Do you expect this to be a – to be one of the issues that’s raised, I mean, this response on NSM-20?MR PATEL: Well, we expect him to talk a wide – about a wide range of issues. The Secretary, as you note, is headed to Israel at the end of this week. He’s going to discuss with the Government of Israel, its leadership, the ongoing negotiations to secure the release of hostages. He’s going to discuss the need to defeat Hamas, including in Rafah, in a way that we believe will hopefully protect civilian populations, does not hinder the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and advances Israel’s overall security.He’s also going to discuss the United States and international efforts to dramatically increase and sustain delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians, who are suffering from a lack of adequate food supplies. That’s obviously been a immense priority for us. And he’s also going to update Israeli leaders on his talks in the earlier part of this week with Arab leaders to build a lasting peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians, and the broader region.QUESTION: Just one for me before I pass it on, but the – Rafah, how much do you figure of that will be in the discussions? I mean, there’s – there have been calls from the U.S. quite explicitly to hold off without a plan for civilians in Rafah. Do you expect the Secretary to speak in depth about Rafah with the Israeli leaders?MR PATEL: I don’t have a percentage or an assessment to offer, Shaun. But we have been very clear that we believe that in order to undertake any kind of operation in Rafah, it would require a serious and significant plan, one that addresses the varying and complex humanitarian challenges that are posed in the Rafah region, talking specifically about more than 1 million people who are seeking refuge in the area, it continuing to be an area that is a conduit for the flow of humanitarian aid.So I have no doubt it will be one of the things that will be discussed, but also, as a reminder, National Security Advisor Sullivan spoke to this earlier in this week. We expect a team from Israel to meet with members of the interagency in the United States to also discuss ways in which we believe that Hamas can be defeated, but done so in a targeted and more precise manner, and hopefully does not impact or have any negative impact on Palestinian civilians.Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Netanyahu has said that he will soon approve a plan for the evacuation of Palestinian civilians from fighting areas after having green-lit the military’s operational plans for Rafah. Has the U.S. seen any of these plans yet?MR PATEL: I have not seen – I don’t have any plan to read out or to offer an assessment on. But let me be very clear, and this has come up a couple of times this week: There should be no full-scale military operation in Rafah without a credible and executable plan to protect the civilian population. Part of that also, and this has been a – something that the Secretary has made clear and reiterated in some remarks he gave in Tokyo last year, that we do not support the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza to outside of Gaza. That’s not something that we would support or condone.QUESTION: And sorry, just not looking for any assessment, but have you actually received these plans from Israel?MR PATEL: I’m not aware. I’m not aware of that.QUESTION: And I have a few more on Haiti, but if you have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yes.QUESTION: Still on Rafah for one second?MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Will the Secretary be in the conversations next week with administration officials with the Israelis who are coming here to discuss Rafah?MR PATEL: I don’t have – one, I don’t have specific scheduling to offer on, like, when those conversations will take place. Two, I don’t have an exact delegation makeup both from the United States side or the Israeli side. But what I can say is that I have no doubt the State Department will be deeply engaged in those conversations. I do not believe that they will be happening at the Secretary’s level, but of course we are deeply engaged on this issue from across the department.QUESTION: And just on Rafah generally, you guys have repeatedly talked about the importance of protecting the civilian population there. And given the outreach to Israel to discuss this plan in more detail, is the administration in a position where you guys would be willing to provide resources to Israel to actually protect the civilian population if they’re going to go ahead with this operation? Or is the onus on Israel to do that with their own resources?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the – these conversations, Kylie. As you know, over the course of – since October 7th, but even prior to that, we have a longstanding relationship with Israel in terms of provisions of security assistance and things like that. What we hope to happen through this conversation is for there to be a clear and direct engagement on how they are thinking about this and offer some insight into advice on how we would approach this situation were we in that position.And so I don’t want to get ahead of that conversation, and if in the course of that it is determined that our Israeli partners need X, Y, and Z, that is of course a conversation that we’ll continue to have.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR PATEL: Can I – then I’ll go to you. Go ahead, Camilla. Still on Gaza, I assume?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: No? Okay, then go ahead, Said.QUESTION: First, I wanted to ask about a colleague of mine in Gaza. He’s in fact the bureau chief of Gaza for our newspaper, and the editor-in-chief for the electronic version. His name is Mahmoud Abu Awad Abu Musab, but I’ll send you his name and his picture. He was taken by the Israelis on Sunday night, Sunday or Monday morning, and we lost his whereabouts. We don’t know anything about him. Then there was a picture published with him stripped naked along with other men and so on.So my point is: When will the United States demand and say that this cannot keep on going, where journalists that are credentialed, that have worked there for year after year, decade after decade, well-known to the Israelis – well-known to the Israelis – why do they keep taking them, targeting them, killing them, imprisoning them? With impunity? Why is that not outrageous to you?MR PATEL: Said, when we talk about continuing to press Israel to enhance its mechanisms to better protect civilians, we of course are also talking about extending that to journalists as well. We are always concerned for the safety of journalists, especially in conflict zones, especially in somewhere like Gaza, where journalism plays a critical role. And as Secretary Blinken has said, journalists – including many Palestinians in Gaza – are doing extraordinary work under the most dangerous conditions. And we’ve been unequivocal here. We also have been clear and reiterated the fact that Israel needs to abide by international humanitarian law, especially as it conducts these operations. And that’s something we’ll continue to reiterate with them.QUESTION: Yeah, well, honestly, Vedant, this slap-on-the-wrist kind of language is not going – in any way, shape, or form – to sway the Israelis, or to pressure them, or to make them do stuff. You should – everybody believes that a civilized country like the United States of America, who is basically the umbilical cord for Israel to do everything under the sun, can stand and say: This should not go on.MR PATEL: We &#8212;QUESTION: This should not go on. Not just “we urge them not to harm them” and so on because this is obviously a systematic – I mean, when you – when 150 – I don’t know how many, 150 journalists are killed &#8212;MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and imprisoned and taken, and so on, this is not just something that happens.MR PATEL: It doesn’t sound like you have a follow-up question, so let me just jump in and say from the President on down, we have reiterated that Israel needs to – it has a moral and strategic imperative to do more, and to do everything it can to work on and bolster its deconfliction mechanisms, to take additional steps to protect civilians and minimize civilian casualties. And that, of course, includes and extends to journalists, who we believe are doing important and vital work in the region.QUESTION: A couple of things on Rafah. It has been assessed that it is impossible to evacuate Gazans from Rafah – there’s about a hundred – 1.4 million and so on. And it seems that the United States is having meetings next week, or the administration will be having meetings with Ron Dermer and Hanegbi to discuss Rafah. So if you are convinced, and that’s what we get, at least the suggestion is that it is really very difficult, very – it’s impossible – why cannot this be made, like, restatement or the standard U.S. position? The standard U.S. position that Rafah should not be invaded?MR PATEL: Said, it is our position that such an operation should not and cannot be conducted without a credible and serious plan, a plan that needs to account for and address the varying humanitarian factors in the Rafah region: firstly, the more than 1 million people seeking refuge in the area; two, it continuing to be an area that is a conduit for humanitarian aid. It is out of serious concern for these two factors that we have not been unambiguous about our concerns as it relates to an operation in Rafah, and we’ll continue to have these conversations with our Israeli partners.Anything else?QUESTION: After weeks – my last one – after weeks of this Rafah dilemma has been going on, is there a conceivable way to remove such a huge amount of people and move them safely, in your view or anybody’s view?MR PATEL: When we’re talking about dealing with the more than one million people who are seeking refuge in Rafah, Said, we’re certainly not being prescriptive about how to go about and do that. And when it comes to the movement of the Palestinian people, especially those residing in Gaza, we’ve been very clear that the forcible movement or the forcible removal of them is certainly not something that we would support. But beyond that, I don’t have – we’re not aiming to be prescriptive here, Said. We’re going to continue to have these conversations with our Israeli partners on what we believe can hopefully be a path forward that will help defeat Hamas, but also be mindful of these varying humanitarian factors.On Gaza? Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So you said that you expect Israel to act in line with international law. And last month you announced publicly that you are assessing whether or not Israel is complying with the international law and you’re also assessing the use of U.S. weapons in Israel’s war. Have you come to any conclusion, and do you have any expectation of that, how long it might take to – for this investigation?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates – I don’t have any updates to offer in that space. When we talk about that ongoing work, we’re talking about it in the context of how this kind of work is ongoing in all conflict areas where we’re assessing the circumstances and anecdotes on the ground, and we’re assessing what is happening. And of course there are a number of vectors and a number of lines of efforts within the State Department to assess those kinds of things. We’ve talked about a couple of them from up here: processes like the Leahy process, the – processes like CHIRG. And some of that work is just going to continue, and I don’t have any update to offer on that.QUESTION: Just one more on that. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam said that they submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Government regarding Israel’s violations of international law, and this includes the misuse of U.S. weapons and blocking the U.S-funded humanitarian aid. Have you (inaudible) – what is your assessment of this report? Because this includes like serious allegations like use of white phosphorous in Lebanon, in Gaza, and attacking ambulances, hospitals, and blocking the U.S. humanitarian aid. Do you have any response?MR PATEL: I’ve seen the open-source reporting of it as it relates to the report. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer on that, specifically as it relates to the national security memorandum and its linkage to that report. And just speaking to Shaun’s question, the implementation of the NSM is ongoing, and so I don’t have anything else to offer on that.Anything else on Gaza before – I want to make sure &#8212;QUESTION: One more Gaza one? Yeah.MR PATEL: I mean, we can do as many as you want. I just want to stay on topic.On Gaza – can I do Camilla first because she &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, of course. Yeah.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just following up on Said’s question.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You and Matt have stood at the podium and you have confirmed that there are incidents that are raised with the Israelis every time something happens in Gaza that you guys want answers on. Every time a journalist is subjected to inhumane treatment or there’s evidence of that, or a journalist is killed in Gaza, is this treated the same way where you go to the Israelis and you ask them what has happened? And is there a list of journalists that you guys have asked about, especially ones that are colleagues of ours in Gaza who are working with us on this story every day? And have you had any response from the Israelis on any individual case in regards to Gaza?MR PATEL: There are – there certainly are. There certainly are specific incidents, especially as it relates to journalists, in which we have asked our partners in the Government of Israel for more information.QUESTION: Have they given any &#8212;MR PATEL: And in instances we have gotten more information on the specifics to those circumstances or things of that nature. I’m not at liberty to speak to some of those given privacy concerns, but this is something that we raise, and we raise it as – at the seriousness that we raise others issues that we have concerns about and we’re seeking more information on.QUESTION: And would this be – for Said’s colleague, would this be a case in which you would raise it with the Israelis?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the specifics around this case. I’m happy to check, but I don’t want to speak to something in that specificity that – when I don’t have information in front of me.QUESTION: Just for the record, if this were a CBS colleague in Gaza, we would be expecting that to be something that would make the list of things to be raised with the Israelis. And then I can turn to Haiti after Gaza.MR PATEL: Kylie.QUESTION: With regard to the ongoing operation on the largest hospital complex in Gaza, obviously it was the same location where the Israelis carried out another operation in November. So I just wonder, if they’re having to go back again, if there are concerns about the efficacy of their operations as they continue to go after what they say are terrorists in this hospital?MR PATEL: So I will let the Israelis speak to their own operation and how they’re conducting it as well as any assessment that they have made that would make – that goes into their reasoning for why they’re deciding to conduct such an operation. What I will just say is that there continues to be plenty of open-source reporting out there of Hamas using civilian institutions – like hospitals, like schools – as command and control nodes, as areas in which hostages are being held, as areas that lead into their tunnel networks. So that is not something that is surprising to us. There is a clear track record of that. But as it relates to this specific – this specific operation, I’ll defer to the – to our Israeli partners.QUESTION: Just one more on Gaza?MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Realizing, of course, it relates to another country’s policies &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but do you have any comment on Canada saying they’re going to stop arms shipments to Israel?MR PATEL: That’s for our Canadian partners to speak to, and it’s a sovereign decision of theirs to make. The United States has been clear – you saw the President speak to this not too long ago – we continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and have been clear that we must do so while also being very clear the moral and strategic imperative our partners in Israel have to protecting the lives of civilians. And our position hasn’t changed.QUESTION: And has there been discussion with the Canadians on this, on &#8212;MR PATEL: I – we talk to our Canadian partners all the time. I’m not aware of a specific conversation to read out though.On Gaza, Daphne?QUESTION: Haiti.MR PATEL: I want to make sure there’s – I think folks still have questions on Gaza, but then I will – we’ll have time to talk Haiti.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: I have this and – maritime corridor, when will it be ready?MR PATEL: So that is something that we’re continuing to work on around the clock. Since the beginning of this conflict we have been leading efforts to get lifesaving humanitarian aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering. You saw at State of the Union the President announced this undertaking that he has directed the U.S. military to establish, and so that work is happening. I don’t have any other details to offer. But on the construction or any updates on the pier itself – the temporary pier itself, rather – I’m sure my Department of Defense colleagues would be happy to speak to that.QUESTION: And on Secretary’s trip to the region &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; will he be meeting Arab foreign ministers in Cairo tomorrow other than the Egyptian foreign minister?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get too much ahead of the Secretary’s schedule and will let his visit to the specific countries play out, but we fully expect him to engage with Arab leaders while he’s in the region.On Gaza, Nick? Okay. All right, anything else on Gaza? Okay. Camilla has been patiently waiting for Haiti. So go ahead – or Daphne, whoever wants to go.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on Americans trying to leave Haiti? Are there any more U.S.-organized flights planned?MR PATEL: So as of March 20th, the U.S. Government is facilitating the safe departure of U.S. citizens from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. We are in the process of organizing government-chartered helicopter flights from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, where U.S. Government personnel are present to provide consular assistance. And from Santo Domingo, American citizens will be responsible for their own onward travel to the United States.I assume your next question is going to be is – will there be more of these, and that is going to depend on the demand, the situations on the ground, the reliability of commercial transportation. Our hope is to keep these options available for American citizens who need it, and the feasibility and the assessment of that work is going to be ongoing.QUESTION: And how many Americans are on the flights today?MR PATEL: So I – for operational security reasons, and they’re ongoing, I don’t want to speak with greater specificity. But we do expect these helicopter movements to make multiple trips in order to try and get as many American citizens as we can today, while also continuing to look at what options might be available and how – what options might be available for reoccurring movements in the days ahead and even beyond.QUESTION: Okay. And then just on that transition council, any update on its formation? And are you concerned by how long this is taking?MR PATEL: Well, certainly every day counts, and our hope is that conversations are continuing with the membership of the transitional presidential council. We understand that Haitian stakeholders are very closely finalizing membership and remain in active discussions with CARICOM. And we think that this needs to happen swiftly because it is clear to us that this Haitian-led process is key for paving the way for free and fair elections, as well as the deployment of the Multinational Security Support Mission as well.Anything else on Haiti? Yeah, go ahead, Camilla.QUESTION: Just on the helicopters.MR PATEL: YeahQUESTION: Granted that it’s a – sensitive security wise, but are you able to comment at all on, like, concerns around helicopters taking off from Port-au-Prince and back – going that particular route from the capital where there’s &#8212;MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly first, and you’ve heard me say this before, Haiti is a Level 4 Do Not Travels country. It’s been so since 2020. The violence on the ground in Port-au-Prince has been dire. The security situation is certainly one of high risk. But I will also just say that we would not conduct such an operation if we did not feel that it was safe to do so and that we did not have the expertise to conduct something like this. So I will just leave it at that given security concerns.And of course the situation on the ground is one of the biggest factors into determining the frequency at which we can do this and what other options might be available to American citizens, including potential commercial options.QUESTION: And can you give any update on numbers of Americans interested in getting assistance or departure &#8212;MR PATEL: So again, when – remember, when we’re talking about the crisis intake form, we’re talking about a wide population of American citizens. Some are interested in exploring departure options. Some just want to stay in touch with the United States of America or the embassy. Some want expertise advice on how they may be able to remain safe, and others may not be in a place for safe departure now but may be down the line. So it’s important we talk about this population in the broad sense that it is, but our – the number of Americans who have reached out to us through this form is approaching 1,600.QUESTION: Can I just ask a clarifying question on the &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: How we can discuss the movements given that they’re ongoing? So we can say that they’re ongoing today and then the department is exploring options for continuing them as soon as tomorrow? Is that accurate?MR PATEL: The – we are exploring what options are possible for continuing them. And should the circumstances be proper, it’s very likely that they will continue. But again, I want to take this one day at a time given the very fluid situation on the ground.QUESTION: One more clarification &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead, Nick.QUESTION: Because you said we are in the process of organizing government-chartered helicopter flights. Have they already started or are they starting later today, or &#8212;MR PATEL: That is what I am intentionally being vague about given operational security. So hopefully we’ll have more for you later today, but again, this is – the safety and security of American citizens is – we have no higher priority than that, and so wanted to make sure that you all had clarity on what we were doing while also maintaining the security for this operation to be conducted.Anything else on Haiti before we close out? Okay, Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple of separate topics. On Ukraine, a UN human rights report says that Russia is using fear to control occupied territories. Can I get a reaction?MR PATEL: Look, Alex, I have not seen that specific report, but it should be no surprise to anybody that the Russian Federation is using – partaking in repressive tactics to silence the voice of dissenters, to silence the voices of opposition. And again, when it comes to these territories, let me just be unequivocally clear: They are Ukraine, and we’ll continue to support our Ukrainian partners as they continue to defend and fight for their territorial integrity and sovereignty.QUESTION: Polish foreign minister today was quoted as saying that success in Ukraine against Russian occupation is a question of U.S. credibility. Do you agree with that assessment that U.S. credibility is at stake here?MR PATEL: I would – I think that when it comes to our credibility, you needn’t look any further than the immense support that the United States and its allies and partners have provided to our Ukrainian partners since February of 2022, and that work is going to continue and we’re going to continue to do so in close coordination with our allies and partners. It is because – of course, the courageousness and the heroism of the Ukrainian people, but also the convergence with our partners in Europe and others around the country that we have been able to continue to support Ukraine in the way that we have and it has been able to defend itself so fiercely.QUESTION: And I have a couple more on human rights, if I may. There were expectations that annual Human Rights Reports will be released either during or before democracy summit. Is there any reason for a delay?MR PATEL: I don’t have any scheduling items to offer. I have no doubt that we will share the Human Rights Report with you all at some point soon.QUESTION: And broadly speaking, I’ve seen this morning the White House’s fact sheet on the democracy summit. Why do you think it was a successful summit? There are reports out there that it was a low-key – outcome was not really comparable with the previous year. Is it a successful summit this year?MR PATEL: We certainly would say it was a successful summit, and I know that the Secretary really appreciated the opportunity to be there and appreciated the Republic of Korea for hosting. The – I will also add that, outside of the Secretary, there continue to be or have been senior officials in Korea continuing to participate in this summit, folks like Under Secretary Zeya. The Secretary, as you saw, Alex – I spoke a little bit about this earlier this week – had the opportunity to give a set of remarks on information integrity, which we think is one of the most critical aspects at the nexus of democracy when we’re talking about it, and I’m sure we’ll have more to share on this space going forward.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Go ahead – I’m going to work the room a little bit, Alex. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much. La Repubblica today reported that Secretary Blinken blocked the release of a G7 statement condemning the presidential election in Russia. Can you confirm that? Can you explain the decision?MR PATEL: I have not seen that report and I don’t believe it to be true, and we have taken a number of steps in close coordination with our G7 partners as well as independently to hold the Russian Federation to account for its actions and its infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.QUESTION: And one more: On Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the United States stands ready to engage in bilateral arms control talks with China and Russia without any preconditions. Do you know if Washington has put forward any propositions to Moscow or Beijing?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any meetings or engagements to read out, but I’m happy to check.Go ahead. Yeah, you. Yes. Yes.QUESTION: So recently Prime Minister Modi has visited the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and as a reaction, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has said that China “strongly deplores and firmly opposes” the Indian leader’s visit to east section of China-India boundary. I want to get your comment on that.And secondly, China’s encroachments into other lands have – it seems like have encroachments happening within the Indo-Pacific as well, particularly in places like Solomon Islands, and now we’re seeing all over Micronesia. It seems like the folks on the ground are demanding for a counter to China’s encroachments into their sovereign territories. Can I also get your comment on that as well?MR PATEL: So let me take your first question. The United States recognizes Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory and we strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to advance territorial claims by incursions or encroachments, military or civilian, across the Line of Actual Control.I think I’m going to need you to repeat your second – your follow-up.QUESTION: So, very simply, Chinese encroachments into the Indo-Pacific has been very visible, especially in the past few months, and many folks within the Solomon Islands to Fiji all the way to places within the Micronesia have been demanding for a counter to the spread of Chinese influence in their area. A lot of them are also wondering what the U.S.’s position is on this.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: And so what – can I get your comment please?MR PATEL: Yeah. So when we talk about the Indo-Pacific, you have to remember we’re talking about a significant portion of the world’s population. We’re talking about one of the fastest growing economies, and I can’t think of a more important place where we want to make sure that the rules-based international order, the UN Charter, all of those things are being respected and abided by, and that’s been one of our tenets of our engagements in the region. The Secretary was just there in Seoul for this Summit for Democracy in the Republic of Korea, where he had the opportunity to meet with not just his foreign minister counterparts but also President Yoon.And over the course of this administration, there’s a number of steps that we’ve taken to bolster our engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. I’d remind you that just last year President Biden hosted the first trilateral summit at Camp David with our Japanese counterparts and our ROK counterparts. We have upped our engagement in the Quad. Secretary Blinken has had the opportunity to engage with his Quad counterparts a number of times since just when I’ve been on this job, but even more when you look at since the beginning of this administration. So it’s going to – something that we’re going to continue to emphasize and play a focus on.Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Yesterday, two U.S. retired generals – General Milley and McKenzie – testified at Congress about Afghanistan, and they said that they wanted 2,500 American troops in Afghanistan but the final decision was made by the President Biden and also State Department. And also I talked to some lawmakers, including Michael Waltz – they blamed President Biden and the State Department that made the final decision and the outcome was what we have seen in Afghanistan. So I would like to know what is the State Department’s reaction on that, and then if I may, I have another question too.MR PATEL: Okay. So I think it’s really important that we zoom out and widen the aperture to remember what it is that we’re exactly talking about, and we’re talking about the 20-year end of a complex war, America’s longest war. Thousands of troops were killed, many more thousands physically or mentally harmed, and we honor their service and mourn their losses and injuries with their families and loved ones. You have to remember that President Biden made the decision to end this war and has repeatedly said it was the right thing to do, and today our nation is stronger as a result.And as part of the robust, intense interagency process to end America’s longest war, the decision was made to keep an embassy and diplomatic presence in Kabul following the withdrawal of U.S. combatant troops. The embassy maintained an active emergency action committee planning process that convened repeatedly in 2021 to assess the situation on the ground. As many of you in this room so well know, embassies all around the world where we have diplomats maintain an EAC process, and a noncombatant evacuation operation was one of the tools available to an embassy, and Embassy Kabul was well versed in NEO planning. It had a plan and the generals testified to the existence of this plan yesterday. This is an entity that coordinated and met regularly. This kind of contingency and feasibility planning happens around the world.It’s also well documented that the U.S. did not want to publicly announce planning for or the start of a NEO so as to not weaken the position of the then Afghan government, potentially signaling a potential lack of faith. Again, our intention at the time was to keep open and operating Embassy Kabul, but by the summer of 2021, there was a task force stood up prepared to execute a NEO if and when it was called for.It’s also worth reminding and repeating that it was the previous administration that negotiated the Doha agreement with no subsequent plan for evacuating U.S. citizens or our Afghan allies and their families, and it was up to this administration, including from the garbled transition period, to do that. And in collaboration with our military colleagues, as the NEO was intended, we achieved the largest and most successful air lift in history, nearly 124,000 people on planes out of the country due to the Taliban’s overrunning of the city and the collapsing of the Afghan government.This occurred in a very fluid and dynamic and dangerous environment at the Kabul airport and included the death of 13 military colleagues of ours, hundreds of civilians, and injuries to many others, and those losses are tragic. Within weeks of the collapse of the Afghan government, the U.S. began relocation flights by continuing to protect Americans in harm’s way, as well as standing by our Afghan allies and their families.I’ll also note – and I know so many in this room are well aware of it – that Secretary Blinken also called for an after-action review to learn the important lessons and to fortify processes in how we respond to unexpected crises around the world and how we support American citizens and foreign nationals and others engaging with our diplomatic missions. This whole week I’ve been taking questions on places like Haiti, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza – these are all places in which – where we have taken lessons from this after-action report and implemented them to further improve in the areas of communication, resources, preparedness, and that work will continue. We’re going to work to better inform our response in times of crisis, and we’ve already taken more than 40 concrete actions and identified additional steps to guide itself.We’re also going to continue to comply with the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee’s legitimate oversight of the Afghanistan war, building on the dozens of witness and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony, and the tens of thousands of pages of documents that we have already made available and will continue to make available.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. So you talked about this previously as well. But I’m – so the Taliban announced reopening the schools for – only for boys again – a long story. So girls cannot go to school. I know – I’m aware that you have talked about this before. But my specific question for today is that: Is United States leverage declining over Taliban? If not, which kind of leverage is left to use in terms of convincing the Taliban to allow girls to go to school?MR PATEL: We continue to have a number of tools in our toolbelt at our disposal, and we have been clear that girls should have never been blocked from going to school in the first place. Advancing respect for the rights of Afghan women and girls is critical to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.Shaun, I saw that you had your hand up.QUESTION: Sure, sure.MR PATEL: Then I’ll come back to you, Leah. I’m sorry.QUESTION: I’ll just (inaudible) very quickly, a few different topics.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Indonesia. I saw there’s a statement from the Secretary this morning, but on Prabowo’s victory in the presidential race, of course it wasn’t so long ago that he wasn’t welcome in the United States due to human rights concerns. Are those going to figure into the relationship, do you think, with Indonesia, as he takes office?MR PATEL: So we extend our sincerest congratulation to the Indonesian president-elect, and we applaud, once again, the Indonesian people for the robust turnout and commitment to democracy and the rule of law. As close partners and friends under our comprehensive strategic partnership, we’re going to work hand in hand to better deliver for the future of our citizens, and we look forward to continuing to engage on that and partnering with the president-elect and his administration when they take office in October.QUESTION: Okay, and the rights concerns are not –MR PATEL: The is – look, just to take a bit of a step back, in any bilateral relationship that we have in countries around the world, we – when we have concerns about human rights or violations of other kinds, we raise those, and we raise those directly and candidly. And we’ll continue to do that when appropriate.QUESTION: Sure. I know also – a separate topic – I know probably from the podium you don’t want to engage too, too directly in campaign politics. But also regarding the previous administration, former President Trump has denounced the Australian ambassador here in the U.S., Kevin Rudd, saying that he should be – I think his term was, he’s not the brightest bulb or something. Is – does the U.S. have anything to say about that, and whether – about the relationship with Kevin Rudd (inaudible)?MR PATEL: Well, one of your colleagues just asked about the Indo-Pacific, and I would say that Australia is one of our most vital partners, not just when it comes to the Indo-Pacific but when we think about the world broadly. It is a country in which we share a number of likeminded points of view, and who also have done immense work to support our Ukrainian partners. And we’re going to continue to work closely and cooperate with them. I know Prime Minister Rudd, Ambassador Rudd, has been an important partner here in D.C. as ambassador, and I know folks around this building have enjoyed working with him and will continue to do so.QUESTION: Sure. Just &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Completely different part of the world. A follow-up to the question I asked yesterday on Serbia-Kosovo. Do you by chance have anything more to say about that – basically whether there’s an agreement arranged by U.S. for euros rather than Serbian dinars to and from Serbia?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on the processes, Shaun, other than the concerns that we raised yesterday. And we’re going to continue to work through the EU-facilitated dialogue, and we’ll let the process go from there.Leah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Back to the Indo-Pacific.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So on Monday the White House announced that President Biden will host the first trilateral U.S.-Japan-Philippines leaders summit on April 11th. Especially given China’s continued provocations in the South China Sea, could you talk a little bit about what the significance of this meeting will be and what signal it’s intended to send?MR PATEL: So you – this is happening on the margins of Prime Minister Kishida’s visit to the United States for his state visit, but the Secretary spent a lot of time talking about this in his trip to Manila. And part of it is when we talk about our approach to the Indo-Pacific, a big key piece of that is coordinating closely with our allies and investing in those allies and partnerships. And when it comes to Japan and the Philippines, they are some of our most key, integral, and vital partners in a number of areas – in addressing the climate crisis, security cooperation, economic cooperation, trade, and a number of other spaces. And we look forward to talking about and discussing a number of these issues, both bilaterally with them but also through this trilateral mechanism as well.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Today Mr. Donald Lu was appear in congressional committee, and a congressman asked a question about the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. He was asking that – if Pakistan is going to swap Dr. Afridi with Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who’s in the American jails. He couldn’t complete his answer because there were, like, many questions the congressmen were asking. So I’m – could you tell us that – is there any plan to swap Dr. Aafia Siddiqui with Dr. Shakil Afridi?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates as it relates to that. I didn’t catch that part of the hearing. But you have to remember that one of the – this department’s most important priorities is engaging with Congress on our foreign policy. This was a routine hearing, and Assistant Secretary Lu’s testimony provided insight on the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship as a whole and a number of areas where we are hoping to deepen our collaboration. And I believe we – he spent a little bit of time talking about the U.S.-Pakistan Green Alliance framework, also bolstering respect for human rights. And so we’ll look forward to continuing to engage in these kinds of hearings.Okay. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Australia																								China																								Haiti																								India																								Indonesia																								Israel																								Japan																								Kosovo																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Russia																								Serbia																								Ukraine