# Czech Republic - United States Department of State

- Online Press Briefing with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy Jennifer Bachus Brussels HubMODERATOR:  Okay, and good afternoon from the State Department’s Brussels Media Hub.  I would like to welcome everyone joining us for today’s virtual press briefing.  Today, we are very honored to be joined by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy Jennifer Bachus. Finally, a reminder that today’s briefing is on the record.  And with that, let’s get started.  Thank you so much for joining us today, and I’ll turn it over to you, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bachus, for your opening remarks.  MS BACHUS:  Thank you very much.  It’s a real pleasure to be on this call with you all as, if you’ve read my bio, you know I have spent significant time in Europe, so it’s an area I know and appreciate quite well.  I’m also very excited to be able to do this call this week because I hope you all have seen that we released the U.S. International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy this week.  The Secretary of State spoke at RSA and sort of announced this.   To sort of spend a couple of minutes on this before I get into the main purpose of the call today, the strategy is recognizing the growing role that technology and technology policy is playing across foreign policy issues, and it focused on building what we’re calling broad digital solidarity to work with international partners to advance a digital future that is rights-respecting for tech safety and security online and leverages technology to address some of the most profound global challenges.   Essentially, digital solidarity is a willingness to work together on shared goals, to stand together, to help partners build capacity, and to provide mutual support.  It recognizes that all who seek to use digital technologies in a rights-respecting manner are made more secure, resilient, self-determining, and prosperous when we work together to shape the international environment and innovate at the technological edge.  So, we have three guiding principles that are laid out by this strategy and four action areas.  I will not spend more time on that unless you all want to, but just to say that this concept of digital solidarity aligns very closely with what we’re here to talk about today, which is the attack that Germany came to us to – that the United States joined Germany in attributing malicious cyber activity.  Just a little bit of background:  Due to our longstanding close relationship with Germany that’s been built up over a decade of close cooperation, Germany came to us after it detected malicious cyber activity carried out by the Russian group APT28 that was targeting a German political party.  It came to us; it asked us to join in attributing this activity; it gave us information that we were able to verify; and we were very pleased to be able to support this attribution both bilaterally and through NATO.  And as I’m sure you saw in our statement, we came together with the EU and NATO Allies condemning the activity and supporting efforts to counter disruptive cyber activities and hold malicious cyber actors accountable.   I know there are some questions to this extent, but maybe I’ll just start out by saying that APT28, which has a lot of other known acronyms – Fancy Bear, Strontium, Forest Blizzard – is part of the Russian Federation’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, GRU, and is a well-known malicious cyber entity with a very long history of engaging in destabilizing and disruptive behavior.   I think it’s also important to recognize the United States has previously indicted and sanctioned actors associated with APT28 for their involvement in a wide range of malign cyber activities such as the sustained hack-and-leak operations that targeted the World Anti-Doping Agency and cyber activities aimed at interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.  Of course, these are just a few of the many malign, disruptive, and destabilizing activities associated with APT28.  And we’d just note that this pattern of behavior blatantly disregards the framework of responsible safe behavior in cyberspace, which was affirmed by all UN member states. I will stop there.  I know some of those – some of my opening statement hopefully answers some of the questions you all have, but happy to go into more detail.  MODERATOR:  Okay, thanks very much.  We will now turn to the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  Okay, so the first question goes to Lisa O’Carroll at The Guardian, Europe/UK.  “Have you any knowledge of APT attacks on other countries other than Germany and Czechia in the EU?  How concerned are you about attacks on infrastructure and transport such as jamming air traffic control?”   MS BACHUS:  So we recognize or we understand that there were attacks in Czechia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden that have all been targeted by this malicious cyber actor.  On the question of our concern on critical infrastructure, I will say, broadly speaking, we have seen increasing efforts both by state-sponsored actors such as APT28 as well as non-state actors such as ransomware actors targeting critical infrastructure, and therefore we continue to encourage all critical infrastructure owners to continue to upgrade their basic cybersecurity. I don’t have any specific information on the question of jamming and traffic control.   MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thanks very much.  Let’s move on to one of the next questions.  So, we have Jakub Lucky from Czech Radio.  And the question is: “What kind of cooperation has there been with Czechia?”   MS BACHUS:  So great question.  I served in the Czech Republic for three years, so I can tell you from personal experience have a very close and deep relationship with the Czech Republic on all things cyber related.  We actually held our first cyber dialogue with the Czech Republic – I believe it was last month – which was held on the margins of the 5G Cybersecurity Conference.  So for a long time we, of course, exchanged information, supported the Czech agencies in their own investigations, and just broadly had deep cooperation both at the sort of law enforcement level as well as the diplomatic level.  And so we will – we have and we will continue to have such a strong relationship, recognizing that the Czech Republic itself has very strong cyber actors.   MODERATOR:  Great.  Thanks very much.  Let’s go on to our next question, and it is from Karol Darmoros from Polish Radio in Poland.  And the question is: “Recent North Atlantic Council’s statement concerning malicious activities points directly to Germany and Czechia.  Does the U.S. see specific threats to Poland in this area?  Could you elaborate on this?  Is Belarus, with its relatively strong IT sector, a possible Russian proxy?” MS BACHUS:  We do not have specific information about this threat actor and doing similar to what it did in Germany and Czechia.  But, of course, I think we all need to recognize that there are malicious, persistent cyber actors out there who will continue to seek opportunities to carry out destabilizing cyber intrusions.  And therefore, as I said earlier, it is critically important that every country continues to improve its cyber hygiene, that it continues to undertake the sort of needed basics that are being done. Again, we’ve had very strong, longstanding cooperation with Poland.  My boss, Ambassador Fick, was in Poland a few months ago.  I had a series of engagements with the Polish Government.  We know the Polish Government is taking this very seriously, and we would encourage them to continue to do so.   In terms of the relationship between Belarus and Russia, I personally don’t have any further comment on that.  We see that there are malicious cyber actors that are spread in many countries around the world, and, again, this is why it’s so critically important that every country does the sort of cyber 101 that’s necessary to strengthen its own systems.   MODERATOR:  Okay.  Great.  Thanks very much.  Let’s go to the next question.  So, we have Momchil Indjov from Club Z Media in Bulgaria: “Do you have any information about any cyber attack of the APT28 against Bulgaria?  And if so, could you provide any details?” MS BACHUS:  So, again, I – we do not have specific – in this particular situation we do not have specific information on Bulgaria; but, again, I think that the – that it is a very pernicious actor which is likely to seek any accesses it can, regardless of which country it is.  So, I have no specific information when it comes to Bulgaria, but that doesn’t mean that the APT28 is not active in Bulgaria.   MODERATOR:  Thanks very much.  Okay.  We do have quite a few questions here, so let me go on to another one here.  And we have Llazar Semini, Associated Press out of Albania.  And the question is: “Earlier this week Kosovo suffered a cyber attack from what they said was a Russian hacker.  Are you aware of that incident?  Any specifics?  And is Kosovo considered a target for Russia?”   MS BACHUS:  I am not personally able to attribute the attack in Kosovo to APT28.  Again, we have seen the actor actively engaged in activities throughout Europe, and so it is possible that APT28 has been active in Kosovo.  We have similarly spent significant time and energy trying to support Kosovo in strengthening its cybersecurity, and we will continue to do so.   MODERATOR:  Great.  Thanks very much.  Okay.  So, we have another question here, and this question comes from Stella Venohr from DPA in Germany.  And the question is: “To what extent is cyberspace considered national territory?  So is there a scenario in which a Russian cyberattack could fall under Article 5 of NATO?””   MS BACHUS:  First of all, I would say that we believe that there is a critical importance to the open, interoperable, secure, and reliable internet, which means that information will continue to flow across borders.  The question of whether a cyber attack falls into Article 5 is one that’s been discussed for many years.  I think that ultimately it would depend upon the level of the activity.  There is those that create destabilizing downstream impacts onto, for example, critical infrastructure; there are those that are hack-and-leak operations.  So there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to the question.  It really would depend on what is the actual ultimate activity, what is the outcome of the attack, and what is the impact on civilian or other infrastructure. So again, I know people want answers on when does it reach into Article 5.  I will say this is an ongoing conversation that we have throughout the Alliance.  We do recognize that there is the possibility that significant malicious, cumulative cyber activities might in some circumstances be considered an armed attack that would lead to the invocation of Article 5, but this would be on a case-by-case basis and, again, it would require a real analysis. MODERATOR:  Thanks very much.  And let’s move on to the next question.  We have Alexej Hock from CORRECTIV in Germany.  And the question is: “Could you please provide a few details about how APT28 is disguising its own infrastructure, and how attribution works then?” MS BACHUS:  So, there are a variety of ways that actors such as APT28 disguise their activities.  And essentially, they – in this particular case, APT28 was using the exploitation of a particular cybersecurity vulnerability, which I can name if anyone actually cares.  It’s CBE-2023-23397.  Essentially, what it was, was there was a network of hundreds of small office and home office routers, and these were being used to carry out the attack. So, there was work that was done with the U.S. Department of Justice in Germany to help remediate this network and to block the GRU from regaining access to the remediated devices.  We will continue to take action against APT28 to protect itself   – to protect ourselves, our citizens, and foreign partners, and we will continue to do so. I don’t know if I missed the last part of that question.  I apologize if I did. MODERATOR:  No, I think you did get the whole question, so thanks very much.  I’m going to move to one of the next questions that we have here.  And so we have Maggie Miller from Politico, and the question is this:  “Various European countries are seeing attacks from Russia in recent weeks.  Can you talk about the trend in attacks by Russia against Europe?  And how are you expecting Russian cyber attacks to evolve against Europe this year?” MS BACHUS:  Thank you, Maggie, always good to have questions from you.  I think that, yes, we are seeing an increase in the frequency and type of activity coming out of Russia.  This, I think, aligns with its full-scale invasion and illegal war in Ukraine, and I think we can expect that this will continue to happen. And I think that the reality is, is that Russia does try to calibrate what it’s doing to avoid escalatory impacts, but nonetheless is carrying out destabilizing intrusions into cyber networks around Europe and into the United States, as well.  And so I think this is a trend that we expect will continue.  I think it aligns similarly with what has become a really frightening increase in the amount of ransomware attacks, as well. And again, it just goes to show the importance of addressing known vulnerabilities of the private sector and the public sector, catching these vulnerabilities, working together to find them, to remediate them, and then also just to do the basics when it comes to cyber hygiene.  I think the only way to address this is to continue to up our preventative game. MODERATOR:  Okay, thanks very much for that answer.  We’re going to go now to an actual live question from Lisa O’Carroll from The Guardian Europe/UK. QUESTION:  Thank you for the second chance.  It’s actually a follow-up, really, to that previous question.  What is your nightmare scenario?  There’s an election coming up here in four weeks’ time, and we all know and can see the disinformation is proliferating, and the cyber attacks and ransomware.  Our own company is being – has been a victim of ransomware 18 months ago.  It’s a pretty severe attack.  What is the nightmare scenario that you have in Europe at the moment that you’ve game-planned for? MS BACHUS:  It’s a really good question.  I think I’m always worried about giving a nightmare scenario because, if you give a nightmare scenario, does that then give ideas to our adversaries on what to do? I think, of course, we’re both concerned about influence, operations which we see coming out of Russia, and particularly in this massive election year, both in the UK but also in the United States, in Europe, and elsewhere.  It’s a huge election year for us.  So, I think you have the question of malign influence, and then you have the question, of course, of destabilizing cyber intrusions.  I think we will continue to be concerned, as you noted, both about state-sponsored but as well about ransomware actors carrying out such attacks. And I think that we’ve seen – I mean, in the United States we’ve already seen some really terrible ransomware activity.  The attack against the U.S. health care industry, which essentially brought down the ability of people to make appointments, to receive prescriptions, et cetera, I think these are already some pretty bad scenarios that are impacting our everyday life.  I think we could see that on a large scale, again, not necessarily from state actors, but also potentially from non-state actors.  And I think that it’s critically important that we recognize that these vulnerabilities can be used by both, and that’s why it’s so critically important to address them. So, I guess I would not have a specific nightmare scenario I would want to highlight, but to just say that there’s already a lot of very bad scenarios out there that we need to continue to guard against. MODERATOR:  Okay.  And it looks like we have two more questions, and we have just about enough time to answer two more questions, so that fits well.  So let me get to the first of the final two questions.  And this comes from Novika Mikhailovic from an outlet in the Western Balkans, and the question is:  “How resilient to cyber attacks from Russia are the Western Balkan countries?” MS BACHUS:  I would say the Western Balkan countries have done a lot of work to increase their cyber hygiene, but I think that there is more work to be done – not just in relation to the attack that happened this week in Kosovo, but also to the massive cyber intrusion that occurred in Albania, I guess almost two years ago.  I know Montenegro has also had cyber intrusions that have been quite destabilizing.  I think that there is continued basic work that needs to happen throughout the Western Balkans.   I can tell you the United States and Europe have come together to try to continue to improve the ability of the Western Balkans to protect its own infrastructure; we will continue to do so.  It’s an area that we have devoted significant resources to and that we will continue to do so, again, in close cooperation with the EU and European member states. MODERATOR:  Okay.  And if – if we can, we’ll go to the final question for today’s briefing.  And it’s a question – so a second question from Alexej Hock from CORRECTIV in Germany.  And the question is:  “Are the activities of APT28 hack-and-leak activities?  And do you have any signs that correspondence from the hacked mail inboxes of the SPD in Germany is being used already?” MS BACHUS:  I think that I would defer on that question to Germany.  We – we – our role in this really was to support and to reaffirm Germany’s information.  So, I would recommend you engage with the German Government on that question. MODERATOR:  All right.  And unfortunately, that’s all the time we have for today.  Thank you for your questions, and thank you, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bachus, for joining us.  But before we close the call, I’d like to see if our speaker has any final remarks or wrap-up thoughts for the group. MS BACHUS:  Thank you very much.  We came here today to talk about what’s really malicious cyber activity.  But I just hope you all walk away recognizing the critical importance that – of the collaboration between the United States and Europe both to address when these types of incidents occur, but also to try to prepare for them, try to prevent them, and essentially to come together around a shared vision of the internet and how we can work together.  I think that this collaboration between the United States and Europe ultimately makes both sides stronger and allows us to continue to stand up for the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, which is a critically important element of our shared commitment to a stable cyberspace.   So, thank you very much for joining us, and thank you very much for your interest in what’s a critically important topic.   MODERATOR:  Great, thank you.  So shortly we’ll send the audio recording of this briefing to all the participating journalists, and we will provide a transcript as soon as it’s available.  We’d love to hear any feedback at TheBrusselsHub@state.gov.  Again, that’s one word, TheBrusselsHub@state.gov.   So, thanks again for everyone’s participation, and we hope you can join us for another press briefing soon.  This ends today’s press briefing. # # # 
- The United States Condemns Malicious Cyber Activity Targeting Germany, Czechia, and Other EU Member States Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe United States strongly condemns the malicious cyber activity by Russia’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), also known as APT28, against Germany, Czechia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden.  We join Germany in attributing specific malign activity carried out by APT28 that targeted a German political party.APT28, also known as Fancy Bear, Strontium, and Forest Blizzard, is a well-known threat actor with a long history of engaging in malicious, nefarious, destabilizing and disruptive behavior.  The United States has previously indicted and sanctioned actors associated with APT28 for their involvement in a wide range of malign cyber activity, including cyber activities aimed at interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, and sustained hack-and-leak operations targeting the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) that intended to undermine and sow doubt in the integrity of the organization.The U.S. Department of Justice has worked with Germany to remediate a network of hundreds of small office/home office routers that APT28 was using to conceal and carry out malicious activity, including the exploitation of CVE-2023-23397 against targets in Germany.  The DOJ action further blocked the GRU from regaining access to remediated devices.Russia’s pattern of behavior blatantly disregards the Framework for Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace, as affirmed by all United Nations Member States.  The United States is committed to the security of our allies and partners and upholding the rules-based international order, including in cyberspace.  We call on Russia to stop this malicious activity and abide by its international commitments and obligations.  With the EU and our NATO Allies, we will continue to take action to disrupt Russia’s cyber activities, protect our citizens and foreign partners, and hold malicious actors accountable.
- Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Lewis Travels to Sweden and Czechia Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Jessica Lewis travels to Sweden and Czechia, April 27-May 1, 2024, where she will meet with senior civilian and military officials, as well as defense industry executives to discuss regional security cooperation and supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s aggression.In Stockholm, Sweden, Assistant Secretary Lewis will meet with our newest NATO Ally to build on longstanding defense cooperation to meet shared regional security challenges. In Prague, Czechia, Assistant Secretary Lewis will meet with senior military officials as well as defense manufacturers to address the urgent need for enhancing the Alliance’s defense capabilities.For further information, please contact the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at PM-CPA@state.gov and follow @StateDeptPM on Twitter.						Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Bureau of Political-Military Affairs																								Czech Republic																								Office of the Spokesperson																																Official International Travel																															Sweden
- Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 25, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024																																																					April 25, 2024																																																								1:19 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: How is everyone doing? I don’t have any comments at the top. Olivia, would you like to start us off?QUESTION: Sure. It’s lonely up here today.MR PATEL: I know.QUESTION: I’ll start you off with something &#8212;MR PATEL: Your colleagues in the wire services must be – like, there must be a great food truck out there or something, wherever they are. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I wanted to start with – so tomorrow will mark one week since Secretary Blinken said that he had made determinations regarding a review of potential Leahy Law violations by Israeli military units before October 7th. He said at the time that we would see the result in the coming days, and I’m just wondering if you have an update on the timing of such an announcement or unveiling.MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates for you on timing. What I can say – and you’ve heard me say this before – is that we take extensive steps to fully implement the Leahy Law for all countries that receive – that receive applicable U.S. assistance. That, of course, includes Israel, with whom we have a longstanding security relationship. The Leahy Law also has clear legal standards, and the department applies those to all countries.In terms of process, you saw the Secretary address this not just in Capri, but when he was here in the briefing room on Monday, that we will have more to share, I’m sure, in the time ahead, but I don’t have anything for you beyond that.QUESTION: Okay. When the National Security Advisor was asked yesterday about reports in the Israeli media that the U.S. may reverse course and not actually issue any punitive action in association with these determinations, he deferred to this building. So I wanted to present the question to you, and whether you have any response to those reports in Israeli media that the U.S. may not actually take punitive action.MR PATEL: Look, we – in any country in which we have a security relationship, we will apply the tenets of the Leahy Law fully. The law is pretty clear in terms of what those standards are, and those standards are applied across the board to every country in which we have a security relationship with. That will be the case anywhere where we find there to be action or activity that is in violation of the Leahy Law. I’m not going to speak specifically about any particular country, as that would be very much before the process, but we have every intention to fully enforce and implement this law where it is applicable.QUESTION: Okay. I have two questions on the region, and then one on Africa.MR PATEL: Why don’t you start with – stick with the region, and then we’ll work the room and then come back to other parts of the world.QUESTION: Sounds good.MR PATEL: I will get to you Said, just as I have done every day that I’ve been up here. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, which we understand was being reviewed by the FBI yesterday, I’m just wondering if you can say today whether that video was authenticated or any new information derived from that review.MR PATEL: I imagine the FBI is still undertaking their analysis and undertaking whatever steps that they – are involved with them, in close coordination with the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. What I will use this opportunity to do is just echo again that it is high time that every hostage be released. There has been a deal on the table that Hamas continues to move the goalposts for. And so we would stress the dire circumstance and the dire importance for this to be done, and to be done so immediately. The fact – going back to October 7th, we have been clear and clear-eyed about the fact that every hostage needs to be released.But on this specific video, this is deeply troubling, horrific, but I don’t have any other specifics on the circumstances around the video or the individual, beyond saying that Hersh should be home, he should be with his family, and he should be released.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: And the last one is on Rafah. And there’s this swirling commentary and developments, again, overseas as to whether something is imminent or not. I’m wondering whether you’ve gotten any clarity from Israeli officials about the plan, whether an actual plan for humanitarian or military operations has been presented; and if not, is there one on the books in the foreseeable future?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on our engagements, specific engagements with the Israeli Government. You saw last week the Strategic Consultative Group had a meeting with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and others. These conversations will continue to be ongoing. I – my understanding is that subject matter and technical experts will continue to have meetings at their level. But beyond that, we continue to not hesitate about being clear-eyed about any opposition that we have as it relates to a military operation in Rafah that does not address for the very serious humanitarian concerns that we have, that you’ve heard me talk about, you’ve heard Matt talk about, Ambassador Satterfield just the other day as well.QUESTION: Thank you. One more if – when you can.MR PATEL: Yeah. Nadia, go ahead.QUESTION: I want to ask you about a colleague of yours, Hala Rharrit, who was the most senior spokesperson in the region and a diplomat who served the State Department for 18 years in different places – Hong Kong, Yemen, South Africa. She resigned, and basically she said that she’s been calling the administration to restricting in arms to Israel. She’s resigning in protest about your policy towards Israel. And she warned of that this policy will endanger diplomats like herself and U.S. troops in the region; it’s against U.S. interests in the region.So what’s your message to somebody like her, and many in the State Department, that the normal channel that you give them to express their opposition and their views is not going anywhere? It’s basically they’re just allowing them to speak but there is no change of policy.MR PATEL: So let me say a couple of things there, Nadia. First and foremost, we’re talking about a personnel matter, so I’m not going to delve into the specifics.QUESTION: But this person, she’s an official.MR PATEL: We’re talking about a personnel matter, and so this is something that I’m not going to speak about specifically. I have seen the reports. On someone’s decision to remain working for the U.S. Government or not, that is ultimately &#8212;(Video plays in background.)MR PATEL: Do you want to turn that off, whoever’s got this briefing on speaker?QUESTION: Apologies.MR PATEL: Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I lost my train of thought.QUESTION: It’s okay, you can start again.MR PATEL: As it relates to this personnel matter, I’m not going to speak to the specifics. But look, firstly, we have been – there is a process, there are channels that we’ve spent a lot of time in this briefing room talking about for which our workforce can share their points of view when they disagree with a certain policy or a certain action that the U.S. Government is taking. You’ve heard us talk about the dissent channel; that option, that channel continues to be in place. The Secretary reads every single one of those dissent channel cables and dissenting viewpoints from across the administration. We continue to welcome them and we think that it helps lead to stronger, more robust policy making. And the Secretary wants to hear differing points of views. He believes it makes him a better, stronger leader of this department, and a better and stronger policy maker.Ultimately, anybody’s decision on whether they want to continue to be – remain employed somewhere or not, that is ultimately a decision for them to make. That’s not anything for us to speak to. That’s a very personal process.What I can say that when we’re talking about the region: We are very clear-eyed about our goals and what we want. We want to see the hostages released. We want to see a ceasefire that is coupled with the release of hostages and the influx of humanitarian aid to continue to help alleviate the ongoing crisis that is in Gaza. We also want to see Hamas defeated. We want to ensure that Gaza can no longer be a launching pad for terrorism against the Israeli people. All of these things we want to see happen, and we are working tirelessly day in, day out to achieve this goal.And lastly, I’ll just say, Nadia, when it comes to the safety and security of our diplomats, this Secretary has no higher priority than that, and that is factored into our decision making when it comes to any kind of foreign policy that we pursue, whether it be in the Middle East or whether it be in other corners of the world.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday the Israeli prime minister called for a crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters in the United States of America. Do you find this to be a gross, I mean, a galling interference in American affairs, especially from a leader of a country that had just received $26 billion of American taxpayer money? Do you find that to be annoying or in any way interfering in the affairs of the American public and criticizing their right to demonstrate?MR PATEL: Well, Said, I will leave it to the prime minister’s office to offer any clarification on his comments, but I don’t believe he called for a crackdown. Let me just say, though, that &#8212;QUESTION: He literally called for a – he literally called for a crackdown.MR PATEL: Let’s be – let’s be real about the facts, Said &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: &#8212; which is that in the aftermath of October 7th, we are very much seeing a surge in antisemitism across the world.QUESTION: Right. I’m not trying to &#8212;MR PATEL: And its tragedy demands action.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Beyond that, though, we of course support the right of anybody to peacefully protest, to demonstrate, to make their voices heard, to express themselves in a peaceful and nonviolent way.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: However, we also believe that harmful rhetoric – rhetoric whether it be rooted in antisemitism, Islamophobia – is incredibly problematic &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: &#8212; and needs to be condemned and called out against. But beyond that, as it relates to the individual policies that are being pursued in dealing with these demonstrations on individual college campuses, I would defer to the local jurisdictions to speak to that.QUESTION: I understand everything that you said, but I am asking you – there’s a foreign leader who’s saying that American law enforcement, including the National Guard, ought to crack down on Americans exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I’m asking you on this particular issue – not on October 7, not on all this that happened. I’m asking you: Do you find this to be appalling by a foreign leader in direct interference in the way Americans conduct themselves?MR PATEL: A leader can call on whatever they’d like, Said, but it’s – no one is naïve to the fact that utilization of the National Guard is ultimately a decision up to individual governors.QUESTION: I understand, but &#8212;MR PATEL: And so beyond that, the prime minister is welcome to make whatever comments he’d like. When it comes to what is happening in this country, we’re going to remain focused on that.And specifically on some of the spread of antisemitism that we’re seeing, this is something that this President takes incredibly seriously, and that’s why he has implemented the first-ever national strategy to combat antisemitism. Other kinds of harmful, hurtful rhetoric that we have been seeing as well in the aftermath of October 7th, rooted in Islamophobia, rooted in stigmatism around Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans – that is also equally problematic and needs to be condemned as well.QUESTION: Yes. I &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up &#8212;QUESTION: No, no. Hold it. Please, I am not done. I’m not done. I am not done.QUESTION: I wanted a quick follow-up.QUESTION: Hey, I’m not done. Please, I’m not done. I want to ask you – I understand. I understand the need to combat the despicable antisemitism and so on. I understand what the President is doing. I’m asking you: Do you reject the fact that a foreign leader is saying that the demonstrations ought to be put out – ought to be cracked down upon? That’s what I’m asking you. Do you reject that?MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, you reject people – I mean, you reject the U.S. Government cracking down on peaceful demonstrators, correct? Correct? You reject that?MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, this is part of what America is all about. I’m asking you, do you reject the interference of a foreign leader calling for the crackdown on full American citizens exercising their basic rights, their First Amendment right, to demonstrate? That’s what I’m asking you.MR PATEL: Look, the prime minister was commenting on something happening in this country.QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: I will say over the course of this &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not asking what the prime minister said. I’m asking you. You are here, representing the Government of the United States of America. And I’m asking you, you as an officer of this government, of this administration: Do you reject the interference of a foreign leader saying that you must crack down on Americans exercising their right to demonstrate? It’s a very simple question.MR PATEL: I wouldn’t equate that to interfering, Said. It is someone saying something. Ultimately, anybody who has a modicum of basic understanding of how the National Guard and how local law enforcement works, that ultimately – and since we’re talking about the National Guard, that that is a decision up to individual governments. Just like you all ask me about things that are happening in countries around the world &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; you ask the Secretary; you ask the President about events that are happening in countries around the world. We’re seeing leaders from around the world offer their comments on things that are happening in the United States. But when it comes to the actioning on those items, there are procedures in place. Ultimately these individual campuses can speak to what safety protocols that they have in place to ensure that students, faculty, and others are kept safe.What I am saying in a broad sense is that rhetoric that is rooted in antisemitism, rhetoric that is rooted in Islamophobia, rhetoric that is rooted in targeting individuals for – simply for just who they are is unacceptable. And we have seen that in some of these demonstrations. There is no doubting that fact either, Said.QUESTION: Right. Well &#8212;MR PATEL: Now I’ve taken a couple of questions on this. You’ve got a bunch of colleagues &#8212;QUESTION: No, I have a couple more questions. But I have one last comment. Don’t you feel offended by the fact that a foreign leader is trying to fan the flames against Palestinian Americans in this country? That’s exactly what he’s doing. You don’t feel offended by that?MR PATEL: Said, that is not how I would interpret the prime minister’s comments, and I defer you to his office to offer any clarification about what he said.QUESTION: Hold on. What about &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So on Monday, you released – a follow up on this – you released the human rights violations report, listing human rights violations in other countries, including violence against journalists, violations of like freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. But yesterday, in this country, at Texas University – we saw the footage circulated on social media showing violence against a journalist. There were also violence against protestors. Do you think that this undermines your human rights message in other parts of the world, in other countries?MR PATEL: So let’s just be pretty clear about what the Human Rights Report is and what it isn’t. It’s a congressionally mandated, statutorily required report that this department is required to put out on an assessment of human rights conditions set out around the world. It’s an assessment of the human rights conditions in other countries. There are a variety of other entities – please don’t interrupt me – there are a variety of other entities out there within this government whose job is to look at policies and procedures as they relate domestically. That is not the remit of this department.What I can say about the incident in Texas is that the administration is still learning more about these events. Of course, you’ve heard me say that peaceful protests are, of course, acceptable, and we fully appreciate and encourage Americans expressing their First Amendment rights and making their opinions heard in a peaceful, nonviolent way. But hate speech, violent rhetoric, including antisemitic or Islamophobic remarks targeting people for who they are is unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Do you think the U.S. should set an example to other countries when it is preparing Human Rights Reports every year?MR PATEL: We do not hold any country to a standard that we would not hold ourselves to. And that has – we feel that firmly and adamantly. And let me just say that we had this – iteration of this conversation a lot, dating back to October 7th. When it comes to the diplomacy that Secretary Blinken has been undertaking, having gone to the region now seven times, it is no surprise that there are countries and regional partners out there that might have a slightly different opinion on the policy that is being pursued as it relates to Gaza, that might have a different opinion on certain actions that the Government of Israel may or may not be taking. But in every single one of those countries, what they continue to stress to us is the indispensability of American engagement and American leadership. They want us at the table. They want us engaged. They want us part of the conversation when it comes to finding, determining a durable solution that’s going to bring greater peace and security into the region.Willy, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Appreciate it. Back to the protests, is this – you’re just a few blocks away from here of the consequences of what happens in this building, of the – of U.S. foreign policy are being played out on the campus of George Washington University. Is there a sense within this department that there is – some people are – and this might be perhaps too far a reach, but this is a Vietnam moment among this younger generation of Americans directly related to U.S. foreign policy. Is there any kind of influence that’s happening on these streets that’s – are their voices reaching the Secretary? Are they reaching people here inside this building?MR PATEL: Absolutely. When it comes to the voices within this workforce who may have dissenting or differing points of view, the Secretary is interested in that kind of feedback; he’s interested in their points of view. And I will just say that since October 7th, this department has engaged in a number of different ways with the various components of our workforce, with various components of our employee groups, for those who may be in the Foreign Service or Civil Service, including those who might be appointees. We have prioritized not just engaging with these various subsectors of our workforce, but also unlocking and showcasing and prioritizing resources that might be available for these various – for our workforce to help cope with and deal with what we all know and find to be a very deeply troubling and challenging time in the world.As it relates to what is happening on college campuses, of course, we see what’s happening there too. But we’re also not naïve to the fact that when it comes to any of the foreign policy that we pursue, a hundred percent of the population is not going to agree with what we’re trying to accomplish. But we are clear-eyed in the fact that what we’re trying to pursue is in the best interest for the American people, and it is in the best interest of the national security of the American people. The things that we’re talking about – the defeat of Hamas, a two-state solution, increased humanitarian aid, further regional peace and stability when it comes to the Middle East – all of these things are in the interest of the American people, and we are continuing to pursue those lines of efforts. That is why the Secretary has been going back and forth between the region, meeting with partners in other parts of the world to talk about these very challenging issues and how we are going to work collectively to find a solution. That’s what all of this is about.Go ahead, with the glasses.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: The Gaza civil service today held a press conference this morning, which was televised, and they said that evidence showed that many of those pulled out from the three mass graves that they found, including children, were tortured before being killed. Some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity that they accused Israeli forces of. They called for an independent forensic investigation. This administration repeatedly says that it asked Israel – the Israeli Government – to investigate itself.As a mediator for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, how does it ever make sense that the United States asked the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust? What’s wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation? I mean, if there – if the results of such an independent investigation prove the accusations to be baseless, then that would be in Israel’s favor, wouldn’t it?MR PATEL: So as it relates to the continued reporting about – we’re seeing about these mass graves, first, National Security Advisor Sullivan spoke a little bit about this yesterday, but we continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that’s why yesterday you saw the National Security Advisor call for this to be thoroughly investigated. We want to see these facts looked into. And simultaneously, we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. The IDF has spoken to this in some sense already, but we are continuing to press them for additional information.QUESTION: But why not have an independent, forensic scientific – which the Palestinians are calling for?MR PATEL: We think this does need to be thoroughly investigated, but in terms of the modality, we continue to want to see some additional information from the Government of Israel before we make other assessments.QUESTION: But you’re asking the accused to investigate itself.MR PATEL: We believe that through a thorough investigation, we can get some additional answers. We’re also hoping to continue to get more information from the Government of Israel on this.QUESTION: But to his &#8212;MR PATEL: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: On the humanitarian side of this subject, is there a vetted – a list of vetted NGOs that can deliver aid through the – via the Mediterranean route right now? And the reason I’m asking is because apparently the Freedom Flotilla was delayed for a few days over there, although apparently now they do have a date to deliver their aid, and it was said that the delay was due to U.S. and Israeli and also German pressure.MR PATEL: So first, when it comes to humanitarian partners in the region, there are a number of those that have been operating there already and have a full sense of the scope of the situation on the ground, whether it be bodies within the UN, World Food Program, et cetera. As it relates to the Freedom Flotilla, look, we welcome any country or any entity wanting to do more to help alleviate the suffering in Gaza. We just believe that this kind of assistance that is ultimately destined for Gaza, it needs to be transmitted through the legitimate crossings and established channels. That is the best way to ensure the safety and security of not just the aid but also the safety and security of the workers who are involved in the implementation of this delivery and ensuring that the aid gets to the places that it needs to go.Michael, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. First, I want to thank you and your staff for putting together a great Take Your Child to Work Day program this morning. It was really appreciated by a lot of people.MR PATEL: Our pleasure.QUESTION: And with your indulgence and as we discussed, I have a question for you and then we’ll have a second question from over here.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: My question is that yesterday, House Speaker Johnson said on a talk radio show that he had received an emailed written assurance from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan regarding an assurance that U.S. aid that had been passed by Congress in the supplemental would not be restricted from an Israeli battalion that is reportedly being considered for penalty under the Leahy Law. So my question to you is: Has there been any assurance by the White House that would restrict the terms of any Leahy Law finding that the department might reach about that particular unit?MR PATEL: Sure. So, first, I’m just not going to speak to the specifics about our correspondence with members of Congress and congressional leadership. What I can say about the Leahy Law and how it works is that it is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a particular country. What it is – when something is found to be in violation of the Leahy Law, what it is is a restriction of the provision of applicable U.S. assistance on that particular unit or component under the umbrella of that security apparatus. So whatever may or may not happen is not – does not have bearing on the longstanding security relationship we may have with that country. It would be – if we are to find a violation, it would be a restriction on a particular unit or component.I think your junior advisor might have a question.QUESTION: Thank you. Yeah, with the indulgence of my colleagues – Calvin, do you want to ask a question?QUESTION: I know we’re talking about Gaza right now, but what, like, kind of weapons – do they have like – does Ukraine have enough weapons to, like, defend themself for, like, right now?MR PATEL: That’s such a great question. That’s such a great question, and I’m so glad you asked that, Calvin. I think your dad missed the daily press briefing yesterday, but that’s all right – (laughter) – where we announced this, but we were really happy on the heels of &#8212;QUESTION: I was watching online, Vedant. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: I think we’re – we were really happy that on the heels of the national security supplemental that President Biden signed, that we were the same day able to announce $1 billion for Ukraine, additional security assistance that included arms, training, and other kinds of military assistance around – related to these drawdowns. Some examples of what were part of that package included Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and additional rounds, high-mobility artillery rocket systems, 105mm artillery rounds, and 60mm mortar rounds. All of these things, Calvin, are part of our longstanding effort that has been in place since February of 2022 to continue supporting our Ukrainian partners as they defend themselves against Russia’s incursion on their territorial integrity and sovereignty.Go ahead. Next – yeah. Yes, you.QUESTION: Thanks. On Georgia – so today, the European &#8212;MR PATEL: Oh, can we – I think we’ve got a couple requests to stay in the Middle East, and then we’ll come right &#8212;QUESTION: I have four more questions on Israel. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: All right – go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: On the Mideast, just two things I’m trying to get an answer for. One of the thing is this country prides itself on the First Amendment right, which is the freedom of expression, and in this – what we see now in this polarization and the protest movement in the universities – how can the State Department send a clear message that people have the right to protest peacefully and criticize Israel legitimately but not being labeled as antisemitic? Because this antisemitic things have been used loosely for anybody who criticize Israel, considering that most of – a large number of the demonstrators are Jewish. The Jewish voices for peace are demonstrating in universities, whether it’s in Columbia, in D.C., or elsewhere. So this is a message that have been used by lawmakers in Congress and also when – other people here, whether you hear it on TV or in American media. So how can you send a message to say that it is legitimate to criticize Israel, but it’s not, obviously, everybody condemn antisemitism or Islamophobia as it stands? This is – it’s not even open for question. This is we know – this is a message that’s been repeated over and over again. But how can you separate the two? That’s what I want to get to the bottom of.MR PATEL: Well, Nadia, we believe that the two issues are incredibly separate. Let me just say, though, that what you’re asking about is not totally or necessarily in the remit of the State Department. I certainly understand your question, and in answering yours and your colleagues’ questions about the demonstrations and protests that we’re seeing, I’m certainly not implying that any kind of criticism or critique of any kind of policy that a particular government is pursuing or not pursuing is equitable to antisemitism or Islamophobia or anything like that.But it is true also, Nadia, that as part of these demonstrations happening on various college campuses, happening in various places, we have seen rhetoric, language, commentary that is incendiary, that is offensive, that is rooted in antisemitism. And we’ve also seen things in the same place that is rooted in Islamophobia or the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans. That’s not hyperbole, that is – I needn’t point you any further than the public reporting of what we’re seeing at – as these demonstrations.It is totally fair and on the level for anybody to use their First Amendment rights to express their point of view peacefully on a particular foreign policy that the United States might be pursuing, that any government on the face of this planet might be pursuing. But it is also a moral imperative to ensure that in the midst of those demonstrations and in part of that process, charged, offensive language does not become part of that discourse.QUESTION: Sure. And finally, how can you avoid being accused of double standard if you condemn the Iranian regime for cracking down on peaceful demonstrators and you refuse to condemn another leader – in this case, a friend, an ally, Israel – who is calling on you to crack down on – the U.S. crack down on peaceful demonstrators?MR PATEL: Look, Nadia, again, as it relates to these calls for use of the National Guard, whether it be from a foreign leader or from others within the U.S. Government &#8212;QUESTION: Or the Speaker of the House.MR PATEL: &#8212; these are ultimate decisions for individual governors to make. It’s not really something that we would have a role in from the Executive Branch. Beyond that, as it relates to the National Guard, also I’m sure my colleagues at the Defense Department can speak to some of this specifically.I will also say that there is not any moral equivalency, Nadia, between what we see the Iranian regime do – they are one of the biggest abusers and perpetrators of violations of human rights going back decades – versus a foreign leader opining on things that may or may not be happening in a country, which is something I do from up here, the Secretary does, the President does, Matt does. All the spokespeople in this administration who speak on topics of foreign policy are asked about topics happening in other parts of the world.QUESTION: Can I follow up &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Sure. Sure.QUESTION: Okay. David Satterfield, Envoy David – in his last appearance warned that there is a strong possibility of famine in the north of Gaza. Yesterday Gian Carlo Cirri, the head of the WFP, he says we are six weeks away from famine. Are you aware of these reports, and what is the position of the United States in terms of having some sort of urgent plan to deal with this?MR PATEL: Well, Said, I’m pretty sure I’m aware of these reports because I was standing right there when David Satterfield said them.QUESTION: Right. Right.MR PATEL: You saw the ambassador speak pretty clearly about the positive steps that we are seeing on the humanitarian ecosystem, things that we believe are moving in the right direction – some gates opening up, some ports opening up, some additional flows of trucks. But I cannot stress this enough – and I’m sure if the ambassador was here with me, he would not – he would say the same thing – more needs to be done. Absolutely more needs to be done to avert this pending crisis in Gaza. We need more deconfliction mechanisms in place; we need aid entering at a higher rate. We need all of these things to happen, and we’ll continue to push our partners in Israel, we’ll continue to push other partners and other humanitarian actors to do so.I will also just use this opportunity that – to note that just this morning we announced Lisa Grande as our new special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues. She has more than three decades of experience on working on these kinds of challenging, large-scale, complex operations. She’s done so for the United Nations. She joins us just coming from the U.S. Institute of Peace. We’re very eager for her to get started immediately. I believe today was her first day, and I know she will continue to build on the foundation that Ambassador Satterfield and his team laid.QUESTION: Will she be contacting WFP on this very issue?MR PATEL: I have no doubt that she will be engaging directly and immediately with the variety of humanitarian partners that we work with on this.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. So a few months ago we were told that the United States is waiting for the internal investigation report by Indian Government on assassination attempt of Gurpatwant Singh Pannum New York. Now when this report is out, India admits the involvement of their agents in that assassination attempt, but we don’t have – we don’t see any trial or punishments. So what is your comment on this report, and how would you make Indian Government accountable of these crimes?MR PATEL: So I’m not aware of the report that you’re referencing. But look, we have – this is ultimately a Department of Justice matter, and I will defer to them and let them speak to this.QUESTION: Sir, Australian journalist says she is being pushed out of India. Avani Dias said that she had been denied a visa renewal for weeks because of her reporting on Sikh separatist movement. Do you have any comment on the free speech in India?MR PATEL: So look, the Government of India can speak to its own visa policy. That’s not something I’m going to opine on from here. Broadly, we have been clear with countries around the world the integral role that a free press plays in the fabric of democracy. That’s why we come up here and take questions regularly. But I will let the officials in India speak to the specific &#8212;QUESTION: So my last question, if you allow me.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Sir, after these sanctions on suppliers to Pakistan ballistic missile program, we can see some kind of tensions in both the countries. We have seen some, like, very harsh statements from Pakistani Government officials. Is there something going on between U.S. and Pakistan right now?MR PATEL: Absolutely not. You’ve heard me say this before: Pakistan continues to be one of our most important partners in the region. There continues to be a lot of cooperation that we have with the Government of Pakistan, especially in the security space, especially in the trade sector. Azi, I think it was you that asked about a week and a half ago about the finance minister who was here holding consultations with members of the State Department. This is a robust relationship and we’ll look to continue strengthening it.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple things for you on Russia and the region, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Before that on housekeeping. The department’s Global Engagement Center, its funding didn’t make it through the supplemental. What is the Secretary’s view on that? Are you guys trying to reauthorize it, or where’s the policy?MR PATEL: So the – first, the Global Engagement Center, my understanding is that it is another congressionally mandated entity of the State Department. They continue to do important work, especially in the face of combatting disinformation and misinformation in other parts of the world. As it relates to additional congressional engagements about funding levels for programs within the State Department, I just don’t – I don’t have that level of technical breakdown for you.QUESTION: Please take it for me if &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: And what level of concern on potential Russian attempts to disrupt European elections? We just recently had the Czech Republic uncovering Russian operation inside Czech Republic and targeting elections across Europe. Now elections are coming up. Any concern on your end?MR PATEL: This is something that we have engaged directly on with our partners in Europe on, particularly our partners in the EU, about being clear-eyed about when it comes to any kind of potential election interference from adversarial actors like the Russian Federation. I don’t have a specific assessment to offer for you, Alex, but this is something that both we and our partners in Europe have been engaged on directly.QUESTION: Thank you. Picking up off on Calvin’s question on supplemental &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure. Let me finish Alex, then I’ll come to you, and then we’ve probably got to wrap shortly after that. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Yeah, on supplemental that Calvin asked about.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Portion of it is about frozen assets, and you already probably have heard about Russian deputy foreign minister today threaten the United States by saying that if you follow through that law, then we’re going to shut down our embassy in Washington, D.C. If they want to leave, is it time for the U.S. to say “be my guest?”MR PATEL: I appreciate you giving that opportunity, Alex, but let me just say that when it comes to sovereign assets, these are things that we’re continuing to pursue through our partners in the G7. And we are assessing what options and avenues are feasibly possible in the various legal and judicial systems that exist in the various countries that make up our coalition, and I just don’t want to get ahead of the process. We’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Israel?MR PATEL: Georgia. Go ahead.QUESTION: Georgia. Thank you. Today the European Parliament voted to reject opening EU accession talks with Georgia while the Russian draft law is in place, and also urged the EU and all its partners to consider sanctions. As I have information, there is a serious discussion in Congress on how to react to the actions of the Georgian Government as well. Can you confirm that, or do you have any close and real serious discussion with the Congress on this matter?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to comment on any consultations on Congress. But look, we’ve spent a number of weeks now talking about this draft law, and I will echo what you’ve heard me say before: We find the contents of this legislation incredibly troubling. It is akin to the kinds of legislation that we see in the Kremlin and in other countries in the world who have a track record of cracking down on media organizations, cracking down on civil society actors, cracking down on nonprofits. We think that this kind of legislation is inconsistent with the EU’s own stated goals, which is something aspirationally Georgia itself has stated it’s interested in.QUESTION: Israel.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, thanks.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: How has the signing of the law yesterday, which included the TikTok measure, changed the Secretary and State Department officials’ conversations in China, or has it?MR PATEL: I would say it’s not. The – it’s not changed, because this has been a longstanding position of not just this President but also Secretary Blinken, the contents – or the specific legislative contours of that provision. We’ve been clear about the substance of our national security concerns, and I just want to reiterate: This is not about the American people using TikTok; it is about ownership of TikTok by the People’s Republic of China. And that is why we agreed with this call for divestment because it’s clear that we have to ensure that the data, the privacy of the American people is not owned by an adversarial actor that could potentially use it against us.But look, behavior and actions like this from the PRC have always been part of our conversations in our ongoing relationship with them, and I have no doubt that these things will continue to come up. But this has been a longstanding position for – you – I’m pretty sure you saw the President came out almost very quickly after this provision was first introduced, basically saying that he would sign this should it pass, which he obviously did.Yeah.QUESTION: And does the U.S. think that the PRC’s position or objections to the potential of banning an app somewhat – somewhat hypocritical?MR PATEL: I’m not going to opine on it or categorize it from here, but our view is that there’s some clear runway here on what TikTok is – should be able to do. It provides for 270 days for a qualified divestment with a potential extension for another 90. And as it relates to the PRC’s claims that they wouldn’t allow something like this to happen, we believe that it should and we believe that this divestment should move forward.Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Follow-up on this. As far as TikTok is concerned, India has banned already two years ago. Why it’s taking so long for the United States when everybody knows that this is a national security threat? And if anybody from the department have spoken with the Chinese Communist Party or Chinese leaders about this, and what’s behind – there’s a lobby or somebody is benefiting from this and that’s why they don’t care about the national security issues in the U.S.?MR PATEL: So I will leave it to our partners in India to speak to their own efforts, but what I can say about the United States is that legislation is not the only sort of safeguard measure that we have when it comes to protecting things like our privacy and cyber security. I will just say when it comes to government devices and government assets, there has been a longstanding policy of the inability to use TikTok on those kinds of devices to ensure safety in the cyber security and tech space. So there’s a number of things like that in place to make sure that we’re protected.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Second question, sir.MR PATEL: I’m going to – I’m going to work the room, right &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL:  &#8212; and then Olivia, and then we probably have to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: So there are reports that U.S. military personnel are expected to leave Chad in the coming days, possibly as soon as this weekend. Can you say whether there are any diplomatic efforts underway to stop that from happening? And then more broadly, is the department working at all on an urgent basis to quell what appears to be this swell of pro-Russian, anti-American sentiment coursing throughout significant counterterrorism partners like Chad?MR PATEL: Yeah, let me – let me address that in two parts. So first, our military deployments anywhere around the world, they operate at the invitation and with the support and partnership of host nations. U.S. forces in Chad have supported regional and international counterterrorism operations against violent extremism in the Sahel and the Lake Chad region for years now. We are in ongoing conversations with Chadian officials about our security partnership. Our understanding is that Chad is focused on preparing for its upcoming presidential elections on May 6th, and so we anticipate these consultations and the parameters and discussions around our security cooperation will continue and grow in the ensuing time after those presidential elections.And as it relates to your broader question, we have been clear that the U.S. has a deep commitment to expand our partnerships with – between the United States and African countries, African institutions, and the people of Africa. This was a key pillar of the African Leaders Summit that was held about a year and a half ago. One of the key things that we continue to remain focused on, especially in the West African and Sahel region, is the security partnership, a focus on counterterrorism, and again, our military deployments there are at the invitation and in the support and partnership of these host countries. And we’re going to remain focused on working with additional partners, seeking out additional partnerships, and doing what we can to focus on these issues of security as well as overcoming economic and other development challenges as well.QUESTION: Is there any redoubling or intensification of efforts just given recent developments?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific engagements to read out. What I can say is that Deputy Secretary Campbell I expect to travel to the region in the coming months, specifically in the context of Niger, to continue to have these kinds of conversations and to continue to strengthen our relationships there.All right. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Chad																								China																								Czech Republic																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Czech Republic HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Czech Republic				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: Czech Republic																																					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																																																																																	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																																																																											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																																																																											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																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in the Czech Republic during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:  extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence and sexual violence; threats of violence motivated by antisemitism; and crimes involving threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons.The government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.In April the country’s Constitutional Court rejected an appeal by the family of a Romani man who died in 2021 while or after he was restrained by several police officers.  The court held the General Inspectorate of Security Forces (GIBS) did not act unlawfully when it concluded in March 2022 that the police officers’ behavior did not rise to the level of a felony.  The court further determined the cause of death was heart failure resulting from intoxication with methamphetamine, in accordance with an expert forensic analysis.  Following the Constitutional Court decision, in August, two European nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working on behalf of the Romani man’s family brought a case against the country at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).In December the ECtHR ruled against the country in a case brought by the sibling of a psychiatric patient who died from cardiac arrest after police tased him three times and doctors sedated him during a violent incident at a psychiatric clinic in 2015.  The ECtHR found the clinic and police failed to use appropriate de-escalation techniques, undermining the country’s “positive obligation to provide [the patient] with adequate care and preserve his life.”  It also identified procedural deficiencies in the GIBS’s subsequent investigation of the incident.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited such practices, but there were credible isolated reports of inhuman treatment by police and prison guards.  Impunity was not a significant problem in the security forces.In February the GIBS completed its investigation into the alleged abuse of a prisoner in the Pardubice prison in 2022.  The prisoner was handcuffed for 25 hours and did not have a mattress in the cell.  He was diagnosed with a severe disability but was not placed in a specialized section.  The GIBS concluded the case did not rise to the level of a criminal offense and referred it back to the Pardubice prison for disciplinary proceedings.In May the trial began of eight guards from the Valdice prison for abuse of official authority.  Of the guards, six were accused of allegedly punching a prisoner in the face, breaking his leg, and intentionally inhibiting his breathing; two other guards were accused of willfully ignoring these abuses.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						The most significant concerns regarding prison conditions included overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions in some prisons, mistreatment of inmates, lack of medical staff, lack of support programs and services inside prisons, and generally unsatisfactory conditions for inmates with physical or mental disabilities.Abusive Physical Conditions:  Prison overcrowding was a problem, with several prisons at more than 110 percent capacity.The Czech Helsinki Committee (CHC) conducted a monitoring study between October 2022 and January 2023 in 10 prisons, including interviews with approximately 100 staff members and 500 inmates.  CHC experts expressed concern regarding prison over population, inadequate support staffing, lack of employment and social opportunities for inmates, poor quality food, and insufficient efforts to prepare prisoners for parole and prevent recidivism (which stood at nearly 70 percent).The ombudsman visited several pretrial detention centers and observed cameras used to monitor some cells, a lack of daylight, limited ventilation, limited time for prisoners outside cells, and few employment opportunities for the accused.Administration:  Authorities conducted investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment.  Specialized public prosecutors regularly inspected prisons, and the Ombudsman’s Office made random checks and investigated credible allegations of inhuman conditions.Independent Monitoring:  The government permitted independent monitoring of prison conditions by local and international human rights groups, including the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and media.Improvements:  The prison service established new regulations describing conduct and record keeping relating to body searches, although the ombudsman noted the new rules did not meet all international standards.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court.  The government generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						In most cases, police used judicial warrants to arrest individuals accused of criminal acts.  Police could make arrests without a warrant when they believed a prosecutable offense was committed, when they regarded arrest as necessary to prevent further offenses or the destruction of evidence, to protect a suspect, or when a person refused to obey police orders to move.The law required police to refer individuals arrested on a warrant to a court within 24 hours.  A judge had an additional 24 hours to decide whether to continue to hold the individuals.  For suspects arrested without a warrant, police had 48 hours to inform them of the reason for the arrest, question them, and either release them or refer them to a judge who had to decide within 24 hours whether to charge them.  Authorities could not hold detainees for a longer period without charge.The law provided for bail except in cases of serious crimes or to prevent witness tampering.  A defendant in a criminal case could request a lawyer immediately upon arrest.  If a defendant could not afford a lawyer, the government provided one.  The court determined whether the government partially or fully covered attorney’s fees.  Authorities generally respected these rights.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.  In most instances, authorities respected court orders and carried out judicial decisions.In April the High Court in Olomouc upheld the appeal of judge Ivan Elischer of the High Court in Prague and remanded the case back to the Prague Municipal Court.  The municipal court found Elischer guilty of abuse of authority, accepting bribes, unauthorized access to the computer system, and embezzlement and sentenced him to nine years in prison.In June the appellate body of the ECtHR overturned on procedural grounds a 2022 ECtHR ruling that the country violated an enforcement officer’s right to a fair trial because the disciplinary panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, which fined the enforcement officer for professional misconduct, did not meet the ECtHR’s parameters for independence and impartiality and the right to an appeal.  The appellate body further found the enforcement officer’s original complaint regarding the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings “manifestly ill-founded,” as the disciplinary court’s methods were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										The government had laws and mechanisms in place for property restitution, including for some restitution of private and religious property confiscated during the Nazi occupation or the Communist era.  Although it was possible to file claims for artwork confiscated by the Nazis, the claims period for other types of property seized during the Holocaust era had expired.  Local NGOs and advocacy groups reported that while the government made progress on resolution of Holocaust-era claims, including by foreign citizens, there were some outstanding claims.In February the Ministry of Culture returned art objects seized from a Jewish entrepreneur in 1939 to his U.S.-based descendants.  The pieces were identified in the National Gallery and the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague.By law religious groups received an annual installment of the 59 billion koruna ($2.7 billion) to be paid over a 30-year period in compensation for property seized during communism that could not be returned.The Department of State’s Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act Report to Congress, released publicly in 2020, can be found on the Department’s website at:   https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports the government failed to respect these prohibitions.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right.  An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for media members.  The law provided for some limitations to this freedom, including in cases of hate speech, Holocaust or genocide denial, and denial of communist-era crimes.Freedom of Expression:  The law prohibited speech that incited hatred based on race, religion, class, nationality, or other group affiliation.  It also limited denial of genocide, including the Holocaust, and communist-era crimes.  Individuals who were found guilty could serve up to three years in prison.  The law also applied to online, print, and broadcast media.In 2022 courts convicted 23 persons of expressing sympathies for movements seeking to suppress human rights and freedoms; nine for defamation of a nation, ethnic group, race, or religion; three for denying, questioning, approving, or justifying genocide; two for instigation of hatred toward a group of persons or suppression of their rights and freedoms; and one for establishment, support, and promotion of movements aimed at suppression of human rights and freedoms.  The respective crimes could have been committed in previous years.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media:  The law prohibited elected officials from controlling media entities while in office.  In August the president signed legislation tightening rules on media ownership by politicians and expanding the regulations to include the office of the president.  Under the amended law, politicians could not transfer media ownership to relatives or trust funds.  The law was dubbed “Lex Babiš” in reference to former Prime Minister and presidential candidate (and current member of parliament) Andrej Babiš, whose company, Agrofert, owned two prominent newspapers and other media outlets until placing control of these assets into trust funds in 2017.  The amended law did not apply to online media, an omission observers assessed as a major shortcoming.  In September Babiš’s ANO political party filed a motion with the Constitutional Court challenging parts of the law.An amendment to the Television Act and Radio Act signed by the president in August aimed to strengthen public media governance by revising the nomination and dismissal processes for supervisory boards, including a requirement for the Senate to have input into membership in the television and radio councils.In July a European Commission report acknowledged improvements to public media governance but expressed concern regarding a lack of transparency in press ownership in the country despite legislation passed in 2022 intended to strengthen the media regulator’s access to corporate ownership data.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content, and there were no credible reports the government monitored private online communications without appropriate legal authority.  In August the Supreme Administrative Court upheld an earlier ruling by the Prague Municipal Court that government efforts to block disinformation websites in connection with Russia’s full-scale invasion Ukraine were lawful.  The court noted the government requested but did not enforce the temporary blocking of eight known pro-Kremlin propaganda outlets and internet providers acted voluntarily.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution and law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these related rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, asylum seekers, and other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had an established system for providing protection to refugees and other endangered foreign nationals.The Ministry of Interior funded a private law firm to provide legal assistance to migrants.  NGOs complained the assistance provided by the law firm was insufficient and inferior to the services provided by NGOs prior to 2022.  NGOs also reported difficulty accessing the detention facility at the Prague airport and criticized the length and substance of some asylum claims decisions.  Observers said the quantity and quality of asylum claims dropped during the year and attributed the trend to the new system.Durable Solutions:  The Ministry of Interior operated an effective voluntary return program to help individuals return to their country of origin.Temporary Protection:  The government provided temporary protection to some individuals who might not qualify as refugees.  As of November, approximately 370,000 Ukrainians maintained temporary protected status granted by the government when they fled Ukraine following Russia’s invasion.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons										Not applicable.																																				g. Stateless Persons										The Ministry of Interior reported 921 stateless persons or persons for whom nationality was not recorded in the country at the end of 2022, the latest data available.  UNHCR listed 1,625 persons as stateless in its 2022 statistics for the country, including refugees, asylum seekers, and those with long-term visas or permanent residence.  The ministry reported two stateless persons were granted subsidiary protection in 2022.  The law allowed for stateless persons to acquire nationality.Local NGOs reported applicants for stateless status generally were not provided temporary identity documents, depriving them of immediate access to the housing, employment, education, and health care to which they were entitled under the law while waiting for their permanent identity documents.  This often complicated the status determination procedure, as authorities refused to give them the necessary correspondence.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution and law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  National elections held for the presidency in January were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups:  The law did not limit the participation of women or members of historically marginalized groups in the political process, and they did participate.  Nevertheless, participation by women and historically marginalized groups in elected bodies was low in comparison to their estimated percentage of the population; two of 17 cabinet ministers were women.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the law effectively.  There were isolated reports of government corruption.  Several high-level political figures were under investigation in various regions for manipulating public contracts and abuse of official power.Corruption:  Corruption was a problem among law enforcement bodies and at various levels of bureaucracy.  The most common forms of corruption included:  leaking information for payments; the unauthorized use of law enforcement databases, typically to search for derogatory information; acceptance of bribes in connection with criminal proceedings and other procedures (e.g., issuance of permits); and unlawful influencing of law enforcement procedures.In July the European Commission released its annual rule-of-law report, in which it criticized the country for the slow speed of investigations in high-level corruption cases.Observers criticized the government’s ability to remove principal prosecutors from office without cause, which compromised their independence and impartiality.  Observers also criticized the lack of regulations on lobbying.In January a court acquitted former Prime Minister and current member of parliament Andrej Babiš of alleged EU subsidy fraud in the so-called Stork’s Nest case.  The prosecutor appealed the decision in April.  In September the Prague High Court upheld the appeal and returned the case to the first-instance court to be reopened.For additional information concerning corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases.  Government officials were often cooperative and responsive to the views of these groups, although some politicians disparaged NGOs in public remarks.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The Office of the Government had commissioners for human rights and Roma minority affairs, as well as several advisory and working-level bodies related to human rights, including the Government Council for Human Rights, the Council for Roma Minority Affairs, the Council for National Minorities, and the Board for Persons with Disabilities.  Observers praised the December 2022 establishment of a commissioner for Roma minority affairs but noted it was a part-time position and inadequately resourced.  Throughout the country, community-based volunteers worked as Roma “ambassadors” on behalf of the commissioner to de-escalate conflict and liaise between Roma communities and authorities on housing, education, and debt problems.The Ombudsman’s Office operated without government or political party interference and had adequate resources.  The Ombudsman’s Office issued quarterly and annual reports to the government on its activities in addition to reports and recommendations on topics of special concern.  Human rights observers generally regarded the Ombudsman’s Office as effective.  NGOs, the Romani community, and some politicians criticized incumbent Ombudsman Stanislav Křeček, however, contending he had previously downplayed the extent of discrimination towards Roma and other minorities and did not take their concerns seriously.  A September report by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights urged more efforts to tackle hate speech and prejudicial comments by public officials.  The country had separate ombudspersons for the security forces and for education.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law prohibited rape of a person, regardless of gender, including spousal rape, as well as domestic or intimate partner violence, and provided for a penalty of two to 10 years in prison for violations, with longer sentences in aggravated circumstances.  The law included a narrow definition of rape requiring the presence of violence or the threat of violence, which was out of line with the definition of rape included in the Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, which the country signed in 2016.  Although the government enforced the law effectively, some police officers and judges implicitly condoned gender-based or domestic violence.  NGOs continued longstanding advocacy efforts to revise the definition of rape to include nonconsensual sex, rather than just violent sexual assaults.  Women’s advocates pointed out that rape survivors who did not resist rape out of fear for their life or safety often lacked evidence that both the investigators and the courts typically required (e.g., bruises, bleeding, and other injuries).Observers reported prosecutors and judges in rape cases sometimes lacked knowledge on the subject and cited a shortage of experienced judicial experts.  Penalties were often low, and only half of all sentences included prison time.  Judicial training on how to work with survivors of abuse was available, but observers said judges resisted making such training mandatory.Perpetrators of spousal rape, including brutal attacks, were frequently given inadequate sentences, including probation.  Observers acknowledged that when conditional sentences were combined with restraining orders, they were more effective at protecting survivors from perpetrators.  In August a man accused of raping six children agreed to a plea agreement and received a suspended sentence.Domestic violence was punishable by up to four years in prison, with longer sentences in aggravated circumstances.  Police had the authority to remove violent abusers from their homes for 10 days.  The law stated a removal order could remain in effect for up to six months, including extensions.  The government generally enforced the law effectively.The government supported shelters and NGOs working with survivors.  It also funded a widely used hotline for gender-based violence crimes, including domestic violence.  The government trained police officers on responding to domestic violence.In August the police president asserted in an interview that “very often women’s reports of sexual violence are made up,” and that he encountered such false accusations “at least twice” in his 30-year career.  He later apologized for the comments after coming under criticism from several government officials and civil society representatives.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment:  The law prohibited sexual harassment and treated it as a form of direct discrimination.  Although the government generally enforced the law effectively, approximately one-third of women in a 2021 survey reported instances of verbal harassment and nonconsensual touching.  Police often delayed investigations until the perpetrator committed serious crimes, such as sexual coercion, rape, or other forms of physical assault.  Offenders convicted of stalking could receive sentences of up to three years in prison.There were NGO reports of alleged hate crimes, including hate speech, targeted at women based on gender, which were not taken seriously or handled adequately by police and the courts.Media reported on several cases of university faculty sexually harassing mainly women students, with experts suggesting a recent uptick in reported sexual harassment at universities reflected students’ increased confidence their complaints would be taken seriously.  In recent years, several universities established ombudsperson’s offices and other tools to combat the phenomenon.Discrimination:  The law granted women and men the same legal status and rights, including under family, religious, personal status, labor, property, nationality, and inheritance laws.  Women sometimes experienced employment and wage discrimination, which disproportionately affected Romani women.  The government generally enforced the law effectively.The government acknowledged the country lagged behind other EU member states in gender equality.  Observers cited obstacles to achieving gender equality, including women holding most household and child-care responsibilities and facing professional and societal stereotypes.A survey published by the ombudsman in June found 61 percent of women were questioned regarding their family life in a job interview despite it being forbidden under the law.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Transgender individuals were required to be medically sterilized to receive legal gender recognition in violation of a 2017 ECtHR ruling.By law women who were involuntarily sterilized between 1966 and 2012 were entitled to compensation of 300,000 koruna ($14,000); however, observers claimed implementation of the law was problematic.  In response to lawsuits by several applicants, first-instance courts ordered the Ministry of Health to help applicants prove their claims.Individuals had access to safe, effective, and affordable methods of family planning and contraception.  The government did not allow women access to artificial insemination if using the cells of an anonymous donor without the written consent of their partner, and by law medical providers could use artificial insemination only for opposite-sex couples.Women had access to health care services for pregnancy and childbirth and to provide parents with the best chance of having a healthy infant.  Some observers reported Romani women faced obstacles in access to health care in general, including reproductive health care.The government provided access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence, as well as access to emergency health care, including services for the management of complications arising from abortion.  Emergency contraception was available, but women had to pay for it themselves.  Postexposure prophylaxis was available free of charge through public insurance in rape cases.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The law prohibited discrimination and hate speech against members of racial and ethnic minority groups.  The government generally enforced the law effectively.The situation of the Romani minority was one of the country’s most pressing and persistent human rights problems.  Despite partial successes, marginalization, social exclusion, and territorial segregation of some Roma occurred.  Moreover, Roma faced daily prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination in education, housing, and employment.  A report published in September by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights noted persisting discrimination against Roma in education, housing, the labor market, and in their interactions with police.  Observers attributed a decline in complaints to the Ombudsman’s Office of discrimination based on Romani origin to several controversial statements concerning Roma by Ombudsman Křeček.Approximately one-third of Roma lived in socially excluded communities and faced difficulties obtaining both public and private housing.Construction began on a memorial to Romani Holocaust victims on the site of a World War II concentration camp in the town of Lety.Minister of Labor and Social Affairs Marian Jurečka attracted condemnation for an August Instagram post depicting a Romani man with a can of beer alongside text calling for an end to public benefits abuse.  Romani community organizations and other politicians criticized Jurečka for stoking societal divisions and using harmful stereotypes.Two senators from parties in the governing coalition drew criticism in July when they told a media outlet many Roma did not seek work and preferred to live off welfare benefits.  Romani community members responded to the comments by posting on social media photos of themselves at work.  The senators later said their remarks were misrepresented and taken out of context.NGOs noted an increase in anti-Ukrainian attacks.  In one incident in August, a man allegedly physically assaulted two women in front of their children after asking them, “Are you from Ukraine?”Government and civil society representatives noted rising tensions between the Romani and Ukrainian communities following two violent confrontations over the summer, including the fatal stabbing of a Romani man in Brno in June during a brawl with another man reported by media to be Ukrainian.  Officials created an ad hoc working group to combat social media disinformation aimed at stirring further conflict and asserted extremists were seeking to use the situation to drive anti-Ukrainian sentiment.																																				Children										Education:  School segregation of Romani children was a persistent problem.  A 2007 ECtHR ruling required the government to prevent the inappropriate placement of Roma in segregated schools and to integrate them into schools with the general population.Observers criticized the government’s failure to implement an inclusive education environment, including use of a controversial diagnostic tool to assess children’s mental and intellectual abilities and a ministerial decree limiting the use of supporting measures and assistants.  According to a survey issued by the ombudsman in September for the 2022-2023 school year, 26 percent of primary school students attending segregated programs were Roma, while Roma students comprised only 3.5 percent of the total primary school population.  A European Parliament resolution in October calling for member states to eradicate “persistent segregation” of Romani children in education made specific reference to the country’s “failure to correctly implement the Racial Equality Directive” and called its measures “neither comprehensive nor&#8230; effectively implemented.”Child Abuse:  The law prohibited child abuse and required citizens to report suspected cases of child abuse.  Prison sentences for persons found guilty of child abuse ranged from five to 12 years.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The minimum legal age for marriage was 18.  The law allowed for marriage at age 16 with court approval.  The law was enforced effectively by the government.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited commercial sexual exploitation of children and the possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography, which was punishable by imprisonment for up to eight years.  The minimum age for consensual sex was 15.  Sexual relations with a child younger than 15 were punishable by a prison term of up to 12 years, or more in the presence of aggravating circumstances.  The law prohibited all forms of trafficking and prescribed punishments of two to 10 years in prison for violations, with longer sentences in the presence of aggravating circumstances.  The most frequent cases involved distribution of child pornography.  These laws were generally enforced.  The law did not provide for a sex offenders registry.Two men were arrested in September in connection with an investigation into a criminal group suspected of sexually abusing children targeted through clubs and recreational activities.																																				Antisemitism										There were an estimated 10,000 Jews in the country, approximately 3,000 of whom were registered members of the Federation of Jewish Communities.  Expressions of antisemitism in public were rare, but small, well-organized right-wing groups with antisemitic views were active.  Antisemitic hate speech on the internet increased and constituted the majority of antisemitic incidents in the country.  The Ministry of Interior monitored the activities of such groups and cooperated with police from neighboring countries as well as the local Jewish community.  In April a district court convicted two persons of Holocaust denial for a video they filmed next to the former Terezín Ghetto denying the Nazi genocide of Jews.  The court gave them 10-month and eight-month suspended sentences.The Federation of Jewish Communities assessed global events, including the October attack by Hamas on Israel and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, contributed to an increase in antisemitic incidents.Under a five-year counterextremism and hate crime strategy, the government conducted a public awareness campaign on disinformation and online extremism and provided specialized training to law enforcement personnel.For further information on incidents in the country of antisemitism, whether or not those incidents were motivated by religion, and for reporting on the ability of Jews to exercise freedom of religion or belief, please see the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s annual 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:  No laws criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, cross-dressing, or other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors.  There were no reports that seemingly neutral laws were disproportionately applied to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.Violence and Harassment:  Police registered 13 crimes motivated by anti-LGBTQI+ hatred in 2022.  In a 2022 study conducted by the Queer Geography association, 52 percent of respondents said public expressions of anti-LGBTQI+ hatred or aversion were widespread.  A third of respondents assessed attacks or harassment of LGBTQI+ persons as widespread.  An NGO identified 28 reports of sexual orientation or gender identity-based prejudicial violence in the first half of the year but noted many incidents went unreported or were reported long after they occurred.Authorities took action to investigate, prosecute, and punish those complicit in violence and abuses by state or nonstate actors against LGBTQI+ persons.Discrimination:  The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics, but did not provide equal rights.  The law also prohibited discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons in housing, employment, and access to health care, and the government generally enforced the law.Experts criticized the fact the country did not have specific hate crime provisions in its criminal code covering sexual orientation and gender identity.  Laws allowed registered partnerships of same-sex couples but not marriage.  The law on victims of crimes covered lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, but they were not considered “particularly vulnerable persons” and were not entitled to additional legal protections, unlike children, seniors, victims of trafficking or terrorism, and rape and domestic violence victims.In a 2022 survey, 43 percent of LGBTQI+ respondents said they had been discriminated against or harassed in the past five years.  Nearly half of transgender persons reported experiencing discrimination in health care or in social services during the year.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  Authorities required transgender individuals to be sterilized to receive legal gender recognition.  Gender affirming surgery was allowed only for single or divorced persons who had a minimum of one year of hormonal therapy and were “acting” as the desired gender.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  The law did not prohibit so-called conversion therapy practices to try to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, but there were no reports of such practices during the year.  Observers reported some persons traveled to other countries where these practices were more widespread to undergo such practices.There were no reports of surgeries performed on children or nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  There were no laws or other restrictions on speaking or reporting on LGBTQI+ topics or on the ability of LGBTQI+ organizations to legally register or convene events such as Pride.  Prague’s annual Pride festival culminated in a parade attended by an estimated 60,000 persons.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities faced problems accessing public buildings and public transportation on an equal basis with others.  The country did not have a unified law governing access for persons with disabilities.  Instead, pieces of legislation in various areas (education, transport, health, construction) contained accessibility provisions linked to technical or EU-approved standards.  Experts reported only buildings built since 2009 or modifications to older buildings required compliance with these standards.  Government websites generally lacked videos in sign language and materials in easy-to-read formats for persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities.Television broadcasters and on-demand media providers submitted to the Broadcasting Council action plans to improve accessibility through closed captioning, audio description, and sign language.A September report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights recommended shifting from institutionalized social and health care for persons with disabilities toward a community-based approach that promoted persons with disabilities’ inclusion and independence.  Despite this recommendation, the government admitted persons with disabilities into institutions.  Observers assessed little progress on deinstitutionalization.  In October the government’s failure to finalize a Deinstitutionalization Action Plan led to a halt on the distribution of certain EU funds for disability-related services.In June an ombudsman’s advisory body expressed alarm regarding the number of persons with disabilities who had their legal capacity restricted by the courts.  They noted prior research showing courts in the country disproportionately used such restrictions in lieu of other forms of comprehensive social support that would allow persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities to live more independently.  The most common restrictions limited these individuals’ ability to manage their property, conclude contracts, or make their own health-care decisions.According to the law, only children with “significant” disabilities could attend designated schools with specially trained teachers.  Many children with disabilities were able to attend mainstream primary and secondary schools and universities, but funding for additional educational support, such as teaching assistants and equipment, was insufficient.  The Government Committee for Persons with Disabilities and the Ombudsman’s Office recommended allowing for case-by-case supplementary support in cases when a school’s funding was inadequate to support some students’ special education needs.Disability was among the most common grounds for alleged discrimination in cases submitted to the ombudsman and the courts in 2022.Several court decisions affected the rights of persons with disabilities.  Responding to the case of a teacher who claimed she was fired due to her visual impairment, the Constitutional Court placed greater burden of proof on respondents to prove their actions were not taken on discriminatory grounds.  The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favor of a small, sheltered workshop employing persons with disabilities that missed by four days a deadline for requesting a state contribution to wage payments.  Observers said the decision would help combat what they assessed as punitive administrative practices by the Labor Office and Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs that negatively impacted small-scale employers of persons with disabilities.Institutionalized Children:  Legislation forbidding placement of children younger than three, with or without disabilities, in so-called infant care centers by 2025 led to a drop in the placements during the year.  Infant centers were government-funded institutions.  Government data indicated nearly half of infants in these care centers were Roma.  Experts claimed poverty, reluctance of foster parents to care for Romani children, and general discrimination against Roma contributed to the problem.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										Persons with HIV and AIDS faced societal discrimination, although there were no reported cases of violence.  HIV and AIDS were classified as a disability under the antidiscrimination law, which contributed to the stigmatization of and discrimination against HIV-positive individuals.  Individuals with HIV or AIDS often preferred to keep their status confidential rather than file a complaint, which observers believed led to underreporting of the problem.  The AIDS Help Society reported most insurance companies did not provide health insurance to persons with HIV and AIDS.  NGOs reported some physicians refused to treat HIV-positive patients.Fear, stigma, and basic misinformation often led to discrimination and the exclusion of persons with HIV within their private and work environments and limited their employment opportunities.  NGOs prepared a brochure for HIV-positive refugees from Ukraine containing practical information on diagnosis and treatment and regulations surrounding treatment.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided workers with the right to form and join independent unions of their choosing without authorization or excessive requirements.  The law provided for the right to associate freely for both citizens and foreign workers.  Unions were apolitical and independent of the state, and the state did not interfere in their internal affairs.The law allowed collective bargaining and prohibited antiunion discrimination.  The law required reinstatement of workers fired for union activity and protected union officials from dismissal by an employer during their term of union service and for 12 months after its completion.  Workers in most occupations had the legal right to strike if mediation efforts failed, and they generally exercised this right.The government effectively enforced laws protecting freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to strike for workers.  Penalties for violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining were commensurate with those for analogous crimes such as civil rights violations.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited the worst forms of child labor.  The minimum age for employment was 15, but employment of children between ages 15 and 18 was subject to strict safety standards, limitations on hours of work, and the requirement that work not interfere with education.The State Bureau for Labor Inspections (SBLI) effectively enforced these regulations.  Penalties were commensurate with those for analogous violations and were regularly applied against violators.  There were no confirmed reports during the year of the worst forms of child labor.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs established and enforced minimum monthly wage standards.  The minimum wage was greater than the “minimum subsistence cost,” which was defined as the minimum amount needed to satisfy the basic needs of a working-age adult for one month.The law provided for a 40-hour workweek, two days of rest per week, and a 30-minute break during the standard eight-hour workday.  Employees were entitled to at least 20 days of paid annual leave.  Employers could require up to eight hours per week of overtime to meet increased demand but not more than 150 hours of overtime in a calendar year.  Additional overtime was subject to the employee’s consent.  The labor code required premium pay for overtime equal to at least 125 percent of average earnings.Violations of wage, hour, and overtime laws were common in the wholesale, retail, food, hospitality, land transport, construction, machinery, and security services sectors.Occupational Safety and Health:  The government set occupational safety and health (OSH) standards appropriate for the country’s main industries.  In addition to responding to workers’ OSH complaints, responsibility for identifying unsafe conditions remained with SBLI inspectors, who had the authority to make unannounced visits and initiate sanctions.  Workers had the right to remove themselves from dangerous situations without jeopardy to their employment.SBLI inspectors typically focused on sectors with high-risk working conditions, such as construction, agriculture, forestry, handling of hazardous chemicals, and transport.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The government effectively enforced minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws.  Penalties for violations were commensurate with those for similar crimes, such as fraud or negligence.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.Inspections for compliance with the minimum wage and hour laws were one of the primary objectives of SBLI inspectors.  While SBLI inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions such as fines against employers, employees seeking enforcement of wage and hour laws would need to seek judicial recovery through the court system.  Inspection and remediation, and the number of SBLI inspectors, were sufficient to enforce general compliance with both wage and hour and OSH laws.According to the Center for Economic and Market Analyses, the informal economy accounts for approximately 10 percent of GDP.  A 2018 analysis estimated approximately 250,000 persons worked in the informal sector.  The government generally enforced labor laws in this sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			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																																																						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																																																						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																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Czech Republic
- Joint Statement on the Inaugural United States-Czech Republic Cyber Dialogue HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Joint Statement on the Inaugural United States-Czech Republic Cyber Dialogue				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();			}		});	}																										Joint Statement on the Inaugural United States-Czech Republic Cyber Dialogue																																		Media Note																														March 18, 2024																																							The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America and the Czech Republic&nbsp;on the occasion of&nbsp;the Inaugural 2024 United States-Czech Republic Cyber Dialogue.&nbsp;Begin text:&nbsp;&nbsp;The Czech Republic and the United States held their inaugural bilateral Cyber Dialogue on March 18, 2024, in Prague, Czech Republic on the margins of the Prague Cyber Security Conference.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Czech Republic and the United States noted the fifth anniversary of the endorsement of the Prague Proposals which&nbsp;represented&nbsp;a significant milestone in promoting the secure development of next-generation networks worldwide.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Czech Republic and the United States reaffirmed their shared commitment to advancing trusted Information and Communications Technology (ICT) infrastructure, including in the context of 6G networks and undersea cables.&nbsp;U.S. and Czech officials covered a wide range of cyber and digital issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both sides reiterated their commitment to promote an open, free, global, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet and a stable cyberspace, and to protect and respect human rights online. Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to counter authoritarian state actors’ malign behavior in cyberspace.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Officials stressed the importance of protecting the information-integrity environment and protecting against all forms of its erosion.&nbsp;&nbsp;They discussed the importance of building safeguards in digital public infrastructure to protect user safety and privacy while promoting inclusivity.&nbsp;&nbsp;Officials also exchanged best practices about protecting children in the digital space.&nbsp;Both sides noted growing malicious cyber activities from state and non-state actors against critical infrastructure.&nbsp;&nbsp;The United States and the Czech Republic exchanged views on recent developments in national strategies and policies.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both sides discussed avenues for increasing collaboration, including by strengthening information sharing between Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) on cyber threats and vulnerabilities, collaborating on cyber exercises, addressing the risks posed by AI in the context of cybersecurity, and confronting the challenges of quantum-resistant cryptography.&nbsp;Underlying the serious threat posed by ransomware, both sides discussed ways to strengthen cooperation in countering cybercrime and disruption of malicious cyber actors, including within the International Counter Ransomware Initiative.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Czech Republic recalled its recent participation in operation DYING EMBER, an international effort to remediate over a thousand compromised routers belonging to unsuspecting victims in the United States and around the world that were targeted by malicious, nation state actors in Russia to&nbsp;facilitate&nbsp;their strategic intelligence collection.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both sides discussed mutual actions to reinforce deterrence posture, including development of cyber capabilities, preparedness in cyberspace, and attribution of malicious cyber behavior.&nbsp;&nbsp;The United States and the Czech Republic underscored the importance of transatlantic cooperation in emerging and disruptive technologies.&nbsp;&nbsp;The sides decided to expand bilateral cooperation with a particular emphasis on AI and quantum technologies, including in the field of research and development in quantum sciences and quantum computing, and to explore new avenues for bilateral engagement of their respective research institutions and industries. Both sides also exchanged views on relevant regulatory approaches in the field of AI and decided to continue collaboration on promoting responsible AI innovation that respect human rights, safety, and shared democratic values, including within the Global Partnership on AI.&nbsp;&nbsp;On cyber diplomacy, both sides discussed the progress of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Use of ICTs in the context of international security, the status of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime, and the commitment to continue collaboration in international organizations.&nbsp;&nbsp;The United States and the Czech Republic decided to further coordinate efforts on resilience and cyber&nbsp;capacity&nbsp;building in other countries and regions, including but not limited, to Ukraine, the Western Balkans, Latin American and Caribbean regions, as well as the Indo-Pacific.&nbsp;Jennifer Bachus, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cyberspace and Digital Policy at the U.S. Department of State and Kateřina&nbsp;Sequensová, Director General for Non-European Countries, Economic and Development Cooperation launched the dialogue with opening remarks that highlighted the U.S-Czech Republic relationship and cooperation on cyber and digital issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;The dialogue was chaired by&nbsp;Liesyl&nbsp;Franz, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Cyberspace Security for the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy at the U.S. Department of State, and Ambassador Richard&nbsp;Kadlčák, Special Envoy for Cyberspace at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.&nbsp;&nbsp;The United States was also represented by the Department of Homeland Security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Commerce.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Czech Republic was represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, National Cyber and Information Security Agency, Office of the Government, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, Prosecutor General&#8217;s Office, National Organized Crime Agency, National Centre for Terrorism, Extremism and Cyber Crime, Ministry of Defense, Cyber Forces&nbsp;Command&nbsp;and intelligence agencies.&nbsp;End text.						Tags																													Artificial Intelligence																															Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																														Cyber Issues																																							Cyber Security																															Czech Republic																								Office of the Spokesperson																																Strategic Dialogue																																							Technology
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with Czech Foreign Minister Lipavský Office of the Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Call with Czech Foreign Minister Lipavský				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();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Call with Czech Foreign Minister Lipavský																																		Readout																														March 13, 2024																																							The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke with Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský today.&nbsp; The Secretary and the Foreign Minister reaffirmed our countries&#8217; resolute support for Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia’s aggression and discussed coordination on Czechia’s defense modernization.&nbsp; They discussed the importance of our shared democratic values, the strong U.S.-Czech relationship, and continued humanitarian support to Palestinian civilians.&nbsp; The Secretary and the Foreign Minister also explored deeper cooperation on energy issues and on supporting Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international fora.&nbsp;						Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Czech Republic																								Office of the Spokesperson																								The Secretary of State
- Czech Republic (23-922) – Defense Cooperation Agreement Office of Treaty AffairsDefense: CooperationSigned at Washington May 23, 2023; entered into force September 22, 2023.
- Shaping the Future of Nuclear Security Bureau of International Security and NonproliferationDarby FitzSimmonsRussia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 once again propelled nuclear security to the forefront of the global security conversation.  Russia’s unprecedented seizure of both the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants, the latter of which was heavily shelled, drew global condemnation and fears of a potential release of radiation.  Two years later, the safety and security of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant remains precarious.  Access to necessary cooling water is extremely limited, the list of overdue maintenance and repairs grows longer by the day, and the power plant is severely understaffed.  Russia’s occupation, including by military personnel, continues to defy the globally accepted principles and standards of nuclear safety and security which underlie the peaceful use of nuclear energy.  IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi and IAEA staff at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency In light of these events, collaborative international efforts to strengthen global nuclear security are needed now more than ever.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a central role in addressing this need.  Since its founding in 1957, the IAEA has assisted its member states in the promotion of the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear science, technology, and energy.  An indispensable pillar of the IAEA’s efforts is its dedication to nuclear security, ensuring that as more countries benefit from this essential technology, people, society, and the environment remain protected from threats posed by nuclear terrorism.  The IAEA relies on the support of its member states to carry out its critical work.  This May, the United States will join policymakers, government officials, industry, and nuclear security experts from around the world in Vienna for the fourth IAEA International Conference on Nuclear Security (ICONS) to discuss the future of nuclear security worldwide.    IAEA inspectors conduct verification activities on nuclear fuel at the Dukovany nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic. Promoting Nuclear Security  Held once every four years, ICONS is an important opportunity for the IAEA to promote and raise awareness of its nuclear security activities and programs.  The IAEA offers a range of services to its member states, including long-term planning on nuclear reactors, training in line with international nuclear security guidance, and workshops on various nuclear security management aspects.  ICONS also serves as a policy platform to discuss current security priorities, challenges, and approaches.  This year’s conference, titled ICONS 2024: Shaping the Future, will focus on the challenges and opportunities for nuclear security presented by emerging trends and technologies.  Experts from the public and private sectors will weigh in on issues surrounding new and evolving technologies with the potential to change the landscape of nuclear security, such as microreactors and artificial intelligence.  These policy discussions will inform preparation for the IAEA’s 2026-2029 Nuclear Security Plan.  It also marks the launch of the IAEA’s new Nuclear Security Delegation for the Future, a program which will bring together a small cohort of students and early career professionals from around the world to present on the future of nuclear security at ICONS 2024.  Not only is this a unique opportunity to spotlight and learn from the next generation of nuclear security experts, but it speaks to the heart of the IAEA’s mission: bringing together experts from around the world to work together on nuclear issues.  Shaping the Future  ICONS 2024 comes at a critical time for international nuclear cooperation.  From providing potable water, to combating zoonotic disease, to enhancing food security, nuclear technology has the potential to play a transformational role in international development.  However, these advancements must be paired with a global framework that prioritizes the highest standards of security – living up to the IAEA’s motto Atoms for Peace and Development. This is an opportunity for the United States, and all Member States, to reaffirm our commitment towards the promotion of the peaceful use of nuclear technology and a shared commitment to safety and security.  Through collective action, we can shape a future where peaceful nuclear technology can safely and securely transform global prosperity.  About the author: Darby FitzSimmons is an intern in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. 
- Joint Statement Endorsing Principles for 6G: Secure, Open, and Resilient by Design Office of the SpokespersonThe following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom on the occasion of endorsing principles for sixth generation wireless communication (6G).Begin TextThe Governments of the United States, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom concur on these shared principles for the research and development of 6G wireless communication systems; and recognize that by working together we can support open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, resilient, and secure connectivity. We believe this to be an indispensable contribution towards building a more inclusive, sustainable, secure, and peaceful future for all, and call upon other governments, organizations, and stakeholders to join us in supporting and upholding these principles. Collaboration and unity are key to resolving pressing challenges in the development of 6G, and we hereby declare our intention to adopt relevant policies to this end in our countries, to encourage the adoption of such policies in third countries, and to advance research and development and standardization of 6G networks that fulfill the following shared principles:1. Trusted Technology and Protective of National Security6G technologies that are supported by secure and resilient technology as part of a wider secure trusted communications ecosystem, facilitating the ability of participating governments and partners to protect national security.2. Secure, Resilient, and Protective of Privacy6G technologies developed by organizations that have systematic approaches to cybersecurity, including through the use of technical standards, interfaces, and specifications; approaches such as security-by-design, able to ensure the availability of essential services; and systems designed to fail safely and recover quickly.6G technologies that are reliable, resilient, safe, and protect the privacy of individuals.6G technologies and architectures that provide a high level of security on communication networks, including by mitigating potential risks posed by greater network complexity or larger attack surfaces.3. Global Industry-led and Inclusive Standard Setting &amp; International Collaborations6G technologies that are built on global standards, interfaces, and specifications that are developed through open, transparent, impartial and consensus-based decision-making processes.6G technologies that are built on global standards that respect intellectual property rights, that promote sustainability, accessibility, inclusive participation, interoperability, competitiveness, openness, and security.4. Cooperation to Enable Open and Interoperable Innovation6G technologies that use standards in line with principles laid down under the Global Industry-led and Inclusive Standard Setting &amp; International Collaborations principle and interfaces to enable seamless interoperability between products from different suppliers, including software and hardware.6G technologies that recognize the importance of international cooperation in promoting open, secure, resilient, inclusive, interoperable networks, such as Open Radio Access Networks, and safe, resilient, inclusive, and sustainable 6G ecosystem.6G technologies that benefit from joint research, development and testing, and which leverage innovative technologies such as virtualization, software-defined networking, artificial intelligence.5. Affordability, Sustainability, and Global Connectivity6G technologies that allow for energy-efficient deployments and operation, improving both environmental sustainability, reparability and recyclability of equipment, and the affordability necessary to support social sustainability.6G technologies that are accessible through mechanisms such as economies of scale, enabled by standardization and competitive environment, and able to bridge digital divides, delivering reliable coverage and consistent quality of experience, minimizing disparity in service levels wherever possible while allowing for innovative use cases.6G technologies that contribute towards empowering other industries and sectors to reduce their environmental impacts by promoting digital transformation.6G technologies that are widely available and accessible to developing nations.6G technologies that leverage non-terrestrial networks (NTN) such as satellite and High-Altitude Platform Station (HAPS).6. Spectrum and Manufacturing6G technologies that have secure and resilient supply chains.6G technologies that promote a globally competitive market along the ICT value chain and in all elements of the compute and connectivity continuum, with multiple software and hardware suppliers.6G technologies that could make use of new spectrum allocations or spectrum that has already been allocated for wireless services.6G technologies that use spectrum efficiently and incorporate spectrum sharing mechanisms by design to coexist with incumbent service providers.End Text.For more information, please contact CDP-Press.