# Denmark - United States Department of State

- Denmark HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Denmark				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: Denmark																																					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																																																																																																																		Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																																	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				On December 7, the Danish Parliament passed a law criminalizing the burning of significant religious texts with a penalty of up to two years in prison.  The law received criticism for limiting freedom of speech and expression.There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses.The government had mechanisms in place 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.																																				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 constitution and law prohibited such practices, and there were no credible reports that government officials employed them.On November 14, the Health Agency published a report stating that coercion continued to be utilized with 165 more such incidents for adults than in the previous reporting year.  On November 24, the UN Committee against Torture published a report raising concerns regarding persistent use of coercion measures in psychiatric institutions.  In August, the National Auditors also raised concerns regarding the extensive use of coercion in the psychiatric system.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Except for the extensive use of solitary confinement, no prison or detention center conditions raised human rights concerns.On November 22, the UN Committee against Torture raised concerns regarding the government’s plans to lease a prison facility in Kosovo.  The committee noted moving third-country nationals outside the country to await deportation could have negative impacts on inmates’ access to healthcare and family visits.Abusive Physical Conditions:  The law allowed a maximum of 14 days in solitary confinement, except in special cases.Administration:  Authorities conducted investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment.  There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.On October 3, the European Court of Human Rights ruled the country had violated article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment.  The case concerned the use of pepper spray against the applicant by two guards while held in an observational cell in prison in 2017.  Additionally, the court found the investigation had not carefully addressed whether the legal procedural safeguards for the use of pepper spray complied with the convention.  It therefore ruled authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.Independent Monitoring:  The parliamentary ombudsman also functioned as a prison ombudsman.  The government permitted additional monitoring visits by independent human rights observers and media.Improvements:  In November, the Correctional Service presented new guidelines for staff to better accommodate gender minorities in the Danish correctional system.  These guidelines included knowledge and tools to help correctional officers better protect gender minorities from harassment and discrimination.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution and 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						The law allowed police both to begin investigations and to make arrests on their own initiative based upon observed evidence or to enforce a court order following an indictment filed with the courts by public prosecutors.The law mandated that citizens and documented migrants taken into custody appear before a judge within 24 hours.  The judge could extend police custody for a further 72 hours.  Authorities could hold irregular migrants up to 72 hours before bringing them before a judge or releasing them.  In all cases the law required police to make every effort to limit detention time after arrest to fewer than 12 hours.  A migrant generally was classified as irregular when the individual did not have the required authorization or documents for legal immigration.  In addition, the Ministry of Immigration and Integration could suspend the requirement for a 72-hour case review if the volume of asylum requests exceeded the ability of the government to complete reviews within 72 hours.  Authorities could extend detention beyond 72 hours to conduct additional research in cases where the migrant’s country of origin or identity could not be positively verified.According to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, police could administratively detain a person who endangered public order, the safety of individuals, or public security for a period not exceeding six hours or, in the context of public gatherings and crowds, 12 hours.Authorities generally respected the right of detainees to a prompt judicial determination and informed them promptly of charges against them.  There was no bail system; judges decided either to release detainees on their own recognizance or to keep them in detention until trial.  A judge could authorize detention prior to trial only when authorities charged the detainee with a violation that could result in a prison sentence of more than 18 months or when the judge determined the detainee would seek to impede the investigation of the case, be a flight risk, or be likely to commit a new offense.  The standard period of pretrial custody was up to four weeks, but a court order could further extend custody in four-week increments.Arrested persons had the right to unsupervised visits with an attorney from the time police took them to a police station.  The government provided counsel for those who could not afford legal representation.  Detainees had the right to inform their next of kin of their arrest, although authorities could deny this right if information regarding the detention could compromise the police investigation.  Detainees had the right to medical treatment, and authorities generally respected this right.  Consular access to detainees was provided.  Police could deny other forms of visitation, subject to a court appeal but generally did not do so.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution and law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and an independent 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										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution and law prohibited such actions and there were no reports that 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 constitution and law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right.  An independent media, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for media members.Freedom of Expression:  The law prohibited any public speech or the dissemination of statements or other pronouncements that threatened, derided, or degraded a group because of gender, race, skin color, national or ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation.  Authorities could fine offenders or imprison them for up to two years.The law criminalized the explicit condoning of incest, pedophilia, and polygamy and the incitement of terrorism, murder, or rape in connection with religious training.  Punishment included an unspecified fine or imprisonment of up to three years.On December 7, the Danish Parliament approved legislation to ban the “improper treatment of scripture of significance to a recognized religious community.”  The law prohibited such acts committed in public as well as the distribution of recordings of such acts committed in private.  The law allowed for such acts if done as a minor part of a larger work of art.  The legislation was a response to a series of Quran burnings staged in front of embassies of Muslim-majority countries throughout the year.  The law included a punishment consisting of a fine or up to two years in prison.  The legislation received criticism for limiting freedom of speech and expression.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.Human rights groups expressed concern regarding the expanded access to citizen databases and data mining conducted by the Danish Public Benefits Administration as part of the government effort to prevent welfare fraud.  The judicial think tank Justitia, which focuses on human rights and fundamental freedom rights issues, called this expansion “systematic surveillance,” and maintained it was disproportionate to the scale of welfare fraud.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution 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 rights.Exile:  Three Danish children remained in the Roj camp in northeast Syria with their mothers, who were stripped of their Danish citizenship and were thus ineligible for repatriation.  After the Supreme Court reinstated one mother’s Danish citizenship in March, the government offered to repatriate her and her two children, but she declined the offer.  The second non-Danish mother was not offered repatriation and did not consent to her child being repatriated without her.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.In 2022, the government drafted legislation to suspend asylum rules for persons fleeing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so they would not have to be part of the asylum system.  The law in Denmark and the Faroe Islands granted temporary residence permits for displaced persons from Ukraine who were either Ukrainian citizens or recognized as a refugee in Ukraine, along with their nuclear families.In October, the General Court in Holbaek denied the prosecution’s request to deny public access to a case involving the forced removal of a Somali woman who was refused asylum.  Since 2016, cases of forced removal of Somali refugees have broadly not been open to the public due to a confidential repatriation agreement with the Somali government limiting public knowledge of the conditions, agreements, and legal certainty that apply to these cases.  The General Court in Holbaek found the prosecution’s argumentation based on the interests of “foreign powers” insufficient.  The use of confidentiality in these cases was criticized for being excessive as well as being in breach of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had established a system for providing protection to refugees.  The government limited the rights of persons with subsidiary or temporary protection to family reunification, restrictions not applied to persons recognized as refugees.  For example, persons with subsidiary or temporary protection were required to wait at least three years before applying for family reunification for their spouse or cohabitating partner and minor children.  In contrast, persons with refugee status could apply for family reunification at any time.Refoulement:  In March, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld a government decision that considered Latakia in Syria to be safe for return, having previously decided Damascus and its surrounding governate were safe for return and putting asylum claims of Syrians from those regions at risk.  The government did not forcibly return rejected asylum seekers to Syria in part because Denmark did not have diplomatic relations with Syria.  The government also acknowledged most Syrian asylum seekers from these regions were still entitled to asylum based on individual circumstances, including length of time in Denmark.  In 2022, the Refugee Appeals Board reversed all but 33 rejections for Syrian asylum seekers.In October, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights released a report expressing concern that the government’s plan to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda risked violating legal obligations that include the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.Access to Basic Services:  The law allowed municipalities to accommodate refugees only in temporary housing.Durable Solutions:  The parliament continued to approve funding for up to 500 resettlement places per year.  The government’s policy encouraged repatriation of refugees rather than their integration into society.  The state provided financial assistance to refugees or asylum seekers who chose to return home.  It paid for their travel and provided a small sum of money to help them resettle in their homeland.  The government provided similar financial incentives to nonrefugee or non-asylum-seeking residents who chose to return to their homelands.Temporary Protection:  In 2022, the government provided temporary protection to approximately 50 individuals who may not have qualified as refugees.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons										Not applicable.																																				g. Stateless Persons										According to UNHCR, as of June 2022, 11,644 stateless persons lived in the country.  Stateless persons could apply for citizenship if they had lived in the country for at least eight years.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution and laws provided citizens, including residents of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the ability to choose their governments 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:  The most recent national elections in Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups:  In August, a study published by Analyze Denmark found persons with disabilities had lower turnout in Danish elections.  One in four persons surveyed said polling stations or postal voting stations were not accessible to them, and almost as many found the information provided prior to voting insufficient to assist them in planning their election participation.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the law effectively.  There were no reports of government corruption.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings.  Government officials were cooperative and responsive to the views of these groups.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The parliamentary ombudsman investigated complaints regarding national and local public authorities and any decisions authorities made regarding the treatment of citizens and their cases.  The parliamentary ombudsman could independently inspect prisons, detention centers, and psychiatric hospitals.  A European ombudsman monitored the country’s compliance with EU basic rights, a consumers’ ombudsman investigated complaints related to discriminatory marketing, and two royal ombudsmen provided liaison between the Danish central government and those in the Faroe Islands and Greenland.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  Danish law criminalized rape of a person, regardless of gender, including spousal rape and domestic violence.  Penalties for rape included imprisonment for up to 12 years for aggravated circumstances and up to six years for domestic violence.Greenlandic law criminalized rape.  Greenland’s Criminal Code did not specify minimum and maximum penalties, and sentences were decided by the court on a case-by-case basis.  The law was applied equally regardless of the marital relationship of the offender and the survivor.  The law provided that sentencing be based on the severity of the case as well as an individual evaluation of the offender.  Sentencing was typically between 12 and 18 months.  Denmark and Greenland both had consent-based rape legislation.Faroese law criminalized rape with penalties of up to 12 years’ imprisonment.  The law considered nonconsensual sex with a person in a “helpless state” to be sexual abuse rather than rape.  In certain instances, it also reduced the penalty for rape and sexual violence within marriage.The government effectively prosecuted individuals accused of rape.Under Danish law, a man who was the survivor of domestic violence was not afforded the same opportunities for help as a woman.  While the law provided women the right to be admitted to a women’s crisis center, men could only be admitted to shelters or male centers as “functional homeless.”  The law did not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland.  The Greenland Police acknowledged that instances of domestic violence were higher in Greenland than in other Nordic countries.  Local authorities believed domestic violence cases were vastly underreported, in part as many smaller Greenlandic towns lacked a permanent law enforcement presence.Discrimination:  The law provided the same legal status and rights for women as men, and those laws were generally respected.The law prohibited employment discrimination, and the government generally enforced these laws effectively.  Penalties for violations included fines and imprisonment and were generally commensurate with those related to civil rights.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.Danish gender equality law did not apply to Greenland or the Faroe Islands. Greenland law prohibited gender discrimination in the labor market.  The government of Greenland had an Equality Council, with a mandate restricted to gender equality, and the council was “not obliged to work at the request of citizens but can assess whether an issue requires its attention.”  If a complaint concerned discrimination by a public authority, citizens could complain to the parliamentary ombudsman.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.In May, the Ministry of Health announced that a team of researchers led by Ilisimatusarfik’s Center for Arctic Welfare in Greenland and the Center for Public Health in Greenland at the University of Southern Denmark would investigate the intrauterine device (IUD) case in which Greenlandic Inuit women and girls had IUDs inserted, many without consent, from the 1960s to 1991.  On October 1, 67 Greenlandic women sued the Danish government for damages of Danish krone 300,000 ($42,500) each as they were among the affected women.Women over the age of 18 had the right to an abortion prior to the end of the 12th week of pregnancy.  If a woman was younger than age 18 and unmarried, permission for the abortion had to be obtained from parents or guardians.  In exceptional cases, women younger than 18 could be exempted from needing parental consent.  The government provided access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence.Emergency contraception was available as part of clinical management of rape, including postexposure prophylaxis.In the Faroe Islands, abortions could only be legally carried out if one of four criteria were met, as assessed by a general practitioner:  (1) There was serious danger to the mother’s life or health; (2) the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest; (3) there was a risk the fetus suffered from a serious and incurable or physical illness; or (4) the mother was deemed unfit to care for her child.																Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination						The law prohibited discrimination and harassment based on race, skin color, or ethnic origin; religion or faith; or national or social origin.In August, the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) concluded Denmark’s existing legislation did not sufficiently protect Roma from discrimination and marginalization and called the national strategy for inclusion of Roma “unspecified and unambitious.”In April, DIHR launched a “Discrimination Line,” where individuals who believed they had been subject to discrimination based on age, religion, disability, race, ethnic origin, sexuality, gender, gender expression, gender identity, or gender characteristics could report the incident.In February, the DIHR criticized police for often failing to properly register hate crimes, handling them instead as normal crimes.  The DIHR maintained that, as a result of the practice, victims often did not receive appropriate services within the judicial system.																										Indigenous Peoples										The law protected the rights of the Indigenous Inuit inhabitants of Greenland, who represented a majority of the Greenlandic population and were Danish citizens.  Through Greenland’s elected, internally autonomous government, they participated in decisions affecting their lands, culture, traditions, and the exploitation of energy, minerals, and other natural resources.  Greenlanders also voted in kingdom-wide elections.In February, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Cali Tzay called on the governments of Denmark and Greenland to “address the negative impact of colonial legacy that translates into structural systematic racial discrimination against the Inuit People as a key measure to tackle past injustices and create a more inclusive society.”  Tzay highlighted the IUD case and the high rates of domestic violence and sexual abuse against children.On September 28, Tzay presented his full report to the UN Human Rights Council.  The report highlighted several areas in which Inuit Greenlanders face discrimination or unequal treatment in Denmark and Greenland.  The report also highlighted insufficient consideration for Inuit Greenlanders in Denmark in areas such as education, housing, and law, as information on these areas often were not available in Greenland.In September, MIO, the National Advocacy Center working for Children’s Rights in Greenland, published a report on the state of healthcare treatment for children in Greenland.  The report was based on eight cases from 2021 to 2023 of children receiving insufficient care in Greenland, resulting in the death of the child in two cases.  MIO concluded that children in Greenland did not always have access to the healthcare to which they were entitled under article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  According to the report, the Greenlandic healthcare system failed to take sufficiently parents’ concerns for their children’s health seriously, potentially due to a lack of competence on the area of healthcare treatment for children.  Additionally, guidelines regarding the treatment of children from the Greenlandic healthcare system were unavailable to the public, preventing parents from knowing to which standard of treatment their children were entitled.																																				Children										Birth Registration:  In February, 26 Greenlanders sued the Danish state for having violated their human rights when they were deemed legally fatherless by Danish law as the children of unmarried Greenlandic women and Danish fathers born between 1948 and 1972 and thus ineligible to know or inherit from their biological fathers.  In August, Copenhagen City Court approved DIHR intervention in the case to support the legally fatherless.  DIHR concluded the plaintiffs were subjected to discrimination both because of their origin as Greenlanders and their status as children born out of wedlock.Child Abuse:  Child abuse, including corporal punishment, was illegal and punishable by up to three years in prison in Denmark.  The National Police and Public Prosecutor’s Office actively investigated child abuse cases.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The legal minimum age for marriage was 18 and was effectively enforced by the government.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited the commercial sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.  Penalties for the distribution of child pornography included up to a six-year prison sentence.  The government generally enforced these laws.  The minimum age for consensual sexual activity was 15 in Denmark and the Faroe Islands.  The law in Greenland prohibited sexual relations with children younger than age 15; the court determined the penalties for perpetrators.Commercial sex was not criminalized, but the law prohibited the purchase of sexual services from a person younger than 18.  Penalties for inciting child sex trafficking included up to a four-year prison sentence.																																				Antisemitism										The Jewish Community in Denmark (Det Jodiske Samfund i Danmark) estimated between 6,000 and 8,000 Jews lived in the country, mostly in the Copenhagen area.The Jewish Community in Denmark reported a significant rise in threats against Jewish individuals in the country after the October attacks by Hamas in Israel.  These threats, which included death threats, reportedly caused one member of the Jewish community in Denmark to go into hiding out of fear for their safety.  The Security and Intelligence Service increased attention to the safety of Israeli, Jewish, and Palestinian interests and activities in the country.For further information on incidents in Denmark of antisemitism, whether or not those incidents were motivated by religion, and for reporting on the ability of Jews to exercise freedom of religion or belief, please see the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization:  No laws criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults.Violence and Harassment:  Police and other government agents did not incite, perpetrate, condone, or tolerate violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) individuals, or those reporting on such abuse.  In 2021, the latest year for which there were police statistics available, Denmark had a 29 percent increase in hate crimes targeting LGBTQI+ persons, from 79 cases in 2020 to 102 cases in 2021.  In January, a Ministry of Justice survey found 2,000-3,000 persons aged 16-74 each year experienced violence based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.Discrimination:  Danish and Faroese law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics and recognized LGBTQI+ individuals, couples, and their families.  The government enforced such laws.  Protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression did not extend to Greenland.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  The law allowed individuals older than 18 to self-determine their own gender identity without requirements for medical or psychiatric intervention.  The law also allowed transgender individuals to adopt a name that corresponded to their gender identity.Gender-affirming treatments and procedures were not available in Greenland, and residents had to travel to Denmark to seek appropriate treatment.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  There were no Danish laws that explicitly banned so-called conversion therapy practices.  Any violence or threat of violence carried out as part of a conversion therapy, however, was considered a criminal offense under Danish Criminal Code.  There were no reports of surgeries performed on nonconsenting intersex adults or children.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  There were no laws or other restrictions on individuals speaking or media reporting on LGBTQI+ matters, on the ability of LGBTQI+ individuals to assemble in public or private or to form associations, or on the ability of LGBTQI+ organizations to legally register or convene events.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law prohibited discrimination against and harassment of persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, or mental disabilities.  It also mandated access by persons with disabilities to government buildings, education, employment, information, and communications.  The government enforced these provisions.The law provided that most children with disabilities be able to attend mainstream classes with nondisabled peers through secondary school.Criminal acts motivated by prejudice against a victim’s disability were included on the list of hate crimes.The law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of disability provided reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities in daycare, public and private primary schools, and independent schools.  The law also included the right to appeal to the Equal Treatment Board, which made it possible to be awarded compensation.The country maintained a system of guardianship for persons considered incapable of managing their own affairs due to psychosocial or mental disabilities.  Persons under guardianship who did not possess legal capacity had the right to vote in local and regional elections as well as in elections to the European Parliament, but not in national elections.Greenlandic law did not provide protection against discrimination for persons with disabilities.  Greenland had a national advocacy organization, Tilioq, responsible for promoting the rights and interests of persons with disabilities.  According to NGOs, persons with disabilities in Greenland continued to lack adequate access to counseling, trained professionals, and proper learning materials in schools and faced discrimination and prejudice.  In August, following an investigation into the case of a woman with multiple disabilities who was sexually assaulted at her care facility and had a child, Tilioq called on the government to institute guidelines to protect persons with disabilities in housing units and day-care facilities against sexual assault.MEGD (Faroese Disability Organizations) was the national disability umbrella organization of the Faroe Islands, overseeing 24 member organizations.  The Faroese government consulted MEGD on all bills involving persons with disabilities to ensure laws and policies complied with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.On September 11, Minister of Social Affairs and Housing Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil apologized on behalf of the Danish government for the many abuses suffered by individuals in the custody of Saer-og Åndssvageforsorgen, the institution tasked with caring for individuals in Denmark with physical and mental disabilities, from 1933 to 1980.  The Ministry of Social Affairs and the Interior started an investigation into the alleged abuses in 2019, which concluded in March 2022.  The investigation revealed that individuals in the care of Saer-og Åndssvageforsorgen had suffered physical abuses, neglect, forced confinement, and forced sterilizations.  On November 20, the Minister of Social Affairs and Housing attended the installation of a memorial stone for these individuals.On November 16, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights published a report noting that persons with disabilities continued to face obstacles in almost all areas of life, including education, employment, and freedom from discrimination and violence.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law stated all workers could form or join independent unions.  The right to strike was a part of the “Danish Model,” which determined that participating parties in the labor market, including employer associations and trade unions, negotiated collective agreements that determined the terms and conditions applicable to employees.  The law did not specifically protect nor prohibit the right to strike except for certain essential services.  The government was legally allowed to intervene in strikes after a certain amount of time if parties had not reached an agreement.  The Danish Model provided for the right to collective bargaining but did not provide nonresident foreign workers on Danish ships the right to participate in the country’s collective bargaining agreements.  It allowed unions to conduct their activities without interference, prohibited antiunion discrimination, and provided for reinstatement of workers fired for union activity.The government effectively enforced the law and penalties were regularly applied against violators.  Resources, inspections, and remediation including supporting regulations were adequate.  Penalties were commensurate with similar violations.  Breaches of collective agreement were typically referred to industrial arbitration tribunals to decide whether a breach took place.  If the parties agreed, the Labor Court could deal with cases that would otherwise be subject to industrial arbitration.  The court determined penalties on the facts of the case and with due regard to the degree that the breach of agreement was excusable.Employers and the government generally respected freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.  Annual collective bargaining agreements covered members of the workforce associated with unions and indirectly affected the wages and working conditions of nonunion employees.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited all the worst forms of child labor, and the government effectively enforced the law.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators of labor regulations and were commensurate with those for analogous serious crimes.  The minimum legal age for full-time employment was 15.  The law set a minimum age of 13 for part-time employment and limited school-age children to less strenuous tasks.  The law limited work hours and set occupational health and safety restrictions for children, and the government effectively enforced these laws.  Children could not operate heavy machinery or handle toxic substances, including harsh detergents.  Children could only carry out “light work” that was the equivalent of lifting no more than 26.4 pounds from the ground and 52.8 pounds from waist height.  For children working in jobs where there was a higher risk of robbery, such as a snack bar, kiosk, bakery, or gas station, a coworker older than 18 had to be present between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays and 2 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekends.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 law did not mandate a national minimum wage.  Unions and employer associations negotiated minimum wages in collective bargaining agreements that were more than the estimate for the poverty income level.  The law required equal pay for equal work.Workers in Denmark generally worked a 37.5-hour week established by contract rather than law.  Workers received premium pay for overtime if covered by a collective agreement, and there was no compulsory overtime.Greenland and the Faroe Islands had similar work conditions, except in both cases collective bargaining agreements set the standard work week at 40 hours.Occupational Safety and Health:  The law prescribed conditions of work, including appropriate safety and health standards.  Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were appropriate for the main industries in the country.  The Ministry of Employment was responsible for the framework and rules regarding working conditions, health and safety, industrial injuries, financial support, and disability allowances.  Workers could remove themselves from situations they believed endangered their health or safety without jeopardy to their employment, and authorities effectively protected employees in these situations.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The Danish Working Environment Authority (DWEA) was responsible for the enforcement of wage and hour laws.  The number of inspectors was sufficient to enforce compliance, and inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions.  The government effectively enforced wage and hour laws, and penalties for violations were commensurate with those for similar crimes.  Vulnerable groups generally included migrant and seasonal laborers, as well as young workers.  These groups often worked in the agricultural and service sectors.Authorities effectively enforced compliance with labor regulations.  The same inspectors with authority over minimum wage and hours conducted occupational safety and health inspections.  Standards were enforced effectively for wage, hours and occupational safety and health in all sectors, including the informal economy, which was estimated at 15.2 percent, representing approximately $53 billion at GDP purchasing power parity levels.  Penalties for safety and health violations, for both employees and employers, were commensurate with those for similar violations.  DWEA could settle cases subject only to fines without trial.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.DWEA was responsible for enforcing health and safety rules and regulations.  This was carried out through inspection visits as well as guidance to companies and their internal safety organizations.  DWEA’s scope applied to all industrial sectors except for work carried out in the employer’s private household, exclusively by members of the employer’s family, and by military personnel.  The Danish Energy Agency was responsible for supervision of offshore energy installations, the Maritime Authority was responsible for supervision of shipping, and the Civil Aviation Administration was responsible for supervision in the aviation sector.DWEA had authority to report violations to police or the courts if an employer failed to make required improvements by the deadline set by the DWEA.  Court decisions regarding violations were released to the public and showed past fines imposed against noncompliant companies or court-ordered reinstatement of employment.																																				    							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																																																																																				Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																			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																								Denmark
- Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Danish Permanent Secretary Tranholm-Mikkelsen Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with Danish Permanent Secretary Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen yesterday in Washington.  Deputy Secretary Campbell and Permanent Secretary Tranholm-Mikkelsen underscored the importance of the U.S.-Denmark relationship to security and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic region and the Red Sea.  They also discussed peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific, support for Ukraine, and the upcoming NATO Summit in Washington.
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Danish Foreign Minister Løkke Rasmussen Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen yesterday in Washington and signed the U.S.-Denmark Defense Cooperation Agreement. The two also reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine against Russia’s war of aggression. They underscored the shared commitment of the United States and Denmark as NATO Allies to strengthen transatlantic security and to ensure Sweden’s swift accession to NATO.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Denmark																								Office of the Spokesperson
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Defense Cooperation Agreement Signing Ceremony With Danish Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateDanish Foreign Minister Lars RasmussenWashington, D.C.Treaty RoomSECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, good afternoon, everyone.  First, let me just say I’m so delighted to welcome Foreign Minister Rasmussen here to the State Department, to the United States, and for this, I think, very important occasion.  We’ve had the opportunity, Lars and I, to spend a fair bit of quality time at NATO and other places, but it’s particularly good to have you here in Washington.For nearly 75 years, the United States and Denmark have been close security partners and NATO Allies.&nbsp; Our forces are working to protect communities from terror in the Sahel.&nbsp; We’re upholding freedom of navigation in the Straits of Hormuz.&nbsp; We’re strengthening deterrence together in the Baltics.Denmark continues to play a leading role in ensuring Putin’s war on Ukraine remains a strategic failure.It was one of the first countries to commit to supplying F-16s to Ukraine and to train Ukrainian pilots to fly them.&nbsp; Earlier this month, Denmark pledged to provide $1 billion worth of tanks, drones, ammunition, and to jointly fund the donation of new Swedish armored personnel characters – carriers, excuse me – all of which will help Ukraine defend its territory and its democracy.Our countries together are committed to enabling Ukraine to stand on its own, to stand on its own strongly – militarily, economically, democratically.&nbsp; That’s why President Biden’s supplemental budget request is so critical, and why we’ll continue to work with Congress to pass it.The Defense Cooperation Agreement that we’re about to sign will further strengthen security collaboration between our two countries.When it takes effect, our militaries will be able to coordinate more effectively, even more effectively than they already are.&nbsp; Our troops will train together more seamlessly and more often.&nbsp; We’ll enhance NATO’s interoperability, allowing our Alliance to better safeguard peace and stability for people all across the continent.Today’s agreement builds on the work that we’ve done to deepen defense cooperation with allies across the Atlantic – from Northern to Southern Europe, from the Baltics to the Black Sea.&nbsp;In 2021, we signed a Defense Cooperation Agreement with Norway.&nbsp; Earlier this month, we signed a similar accord with Sweden.&nbsp; Earlier this week, we signed one with Finland.&nbsp; Collectively, these agreements underscore the shared commitment by the United States and our European partners to bolster European and transatlantic security.&nbsp;Denmark remains an essential partner in this effort.&nbsp; Lars and I will have a chance to sit down after we sign this agreement, to go through the many issues and the many areas where the United States and Denmark together are dealing with the challenges of our time.&nbsp; We could not be more grateful to have such a strong, such a valued, such an important partner.&nbsp; It gives me a great source of confidence as we head into the future, knowing that our two countries not only remain strongly allied but, after today, even stronger.Lars, over to you.FOREIGN MINISTER RASMUSSEN:&nbsp; Thank you, Mr. Secretary.&nbsp; I am indeed honored and happy and glad that we could make this happen, and right before Christmas.&nbsp; I think that will complete my working year.&nbsp; I visited you here in January as one of my first international meetings, and this will probably – at least I hope so – will be the last international travel before Christmas Eve.&nbsp; (Laughter.)SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp; My wish as well.FOREIGN MINISTER RASMUSSEN:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; So, Tony, you and I are from the same generation.&nbsp; We are almost the same age.&nbsp; We have seen history unfold at the same time in our lives, and perhaps that is why we both firmly believe in the transatlantic bond and a close alliance between Europe and the United States.Denmark and the United States are close friends and close allies, and now we are taking our security cooperation to the next level.&nbsp; The Defense Cooperation Agreement is an important agreement that will bolster our bilateral security and defense cooperation.&nbsp; It will also enhance our cooperation in NATO and in the Nordic region.And as you just mentioned, you have made similar agreements with our Nordic friends, and we are looking very much forward to welcoming our close Nordic neighbor and country Sweden to NATO sooner rather than later.&nbsp; And this defense agreement is a stepping stone towards a more secure Nordic region.&nbsp; It is a part of a parcel we have made during the last couple of years – enhancing our defense budget, welcoming new members to the NATO Alliance, and now these bilateral agreements.&nbsp; It will strengthen European and transatlantic security at a defining moment in history where we need it the most.&nbsp;Mr. Secretary, we are facing multiple crises.&nbsp; Russia is still waging a brutal war on the European continent; terror in Israel; a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.&nbsp; And we both know that peace and stability cannot be taken for granted.&nbsp; And in time like this, friends must stick together, and that is what we are doing with this agreement.So again, thank you, Tony.&nbsp; As I just wrote in your guestbook, you can always count on us, and we will always count on you.&nbsp; And I look forward to our conversation.&nbsp; But first, let us sign this agreement.&nbsp;SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp;&nbsp;Thank you.&nbsp;MODERATOR:&nbsp;&nbsp;Good morning.&nbsp; Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Rasmussen are signing a Defense Cooperation Agreement between the United States and Denmark.&nbsp; The agreement sets forth the framework for enhanced defense and security cooperation and partnership between our countries.&nbsp; As an original NATO membership – NATO member, Denmark is a longstanding, essential ally and strategic partnership – partner.&nbsp; We look forward to deepening our already close cooperation.(The agreement was signed.)&nbsp;SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp;&nbsp;All right. &nbsp;We’ll hold this one up.FOREIGN MINISTER RASMUSSEN:&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp;&nbsp;Thank you, everybody.(Applause.)						Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Bureau of Political-Military Affairs																																Defense																															Denmark																								Office of the Spokesperson
- Formalization of the Tallinn Mechanism to Coordinate Civilian Cyber Assistance to Ukraine Office of the SpokespersonAs endorsed by the U.S. Department of State and the Foreign Ministries of Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom on December 20, 2023, the Tallinn Mechanism has been officially formalized.As a result of Russia&#8217;s unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, the Tallinn Mechanism, hereafter referred to as “the Mechanism,” aims to coordinate and facilitate civilian cyber capacity building to help Ukraine uphold its fundamental right to self-defense in cyberspace and address longer-term cyber resilience needs.The Mechanism’s lines of effort are intended to be separate, yet complementary, to military cyber capacity building efforts and other civilian efforts on cyber capacity building and digital development. The Mechanism aims to interface routinely with other donor initiatives around those efforts to coordinate and de-conflict.Collectively, the Mechanism’s members have contributed efforts to deliver cyber capacity building assistance to Ukraine. These contributions have been carried out with respect for international law and in full coordination with relevant Ukrainian counterparts.Members of the Mechanism intend to improve coordination and delivery of civilian cyber capacity building. Members intend to engage with the EU and NATO in this regard. Private sector and non-governmental actors are also encouraged to contribute to the Mechanism.						Tags																					Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Canada																																														Cyber Issues																															Denmark																								Estonia																								France																								Germany																								Netherlands																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Poland																								Russia																								Sweden																								Ukraine																								United Kingdom
- Denmark HomeReportsBureau of CounterterrorismCountry Reports on Terrorism 2022&#8230;Denmark				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();			}		});	}});																							Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Denmark																																					Bureau of Counterterrorism																																																																																																				 In this section																																												Denmark																																												Denmark				Overview:  The Kingdom of Denmark, which includes the semi-autonomous Faroe Islands and Greenland regions, remained an important partner in the global fight against terrorism.  As an active participant in the GCTF, the Kingdom cooperates closely with the United States on counterterrorism initiatives.  Denmark devotes significant assets to CT programs and CVE initiatives.According to the Center for Terror Analysis (CTA), administered by the Danish National Police’s Security and Intelligence Service (PET), the terror threat to Denmark remained “significant”—the fourth of a five-level ranking system (minimal, limited, general, significant, very significant).  CTA characterizes the terror threat to Greenland and the Faroe Islands as minimal.  The center assesses the primary threat to Denmark as attacks perpetrated by individuals in Denmark and abroad who sympathize with and are inspired by what CTA labels militant Islamist terrorist groups, including ISIS and al-Qa’ida.According to PET, at least 161 individuals from Denmark have traveled to Iraq or Syria to join militant Islamist terrorist groups since 2012.  At year’s end, around half of these 161 travelers had returned to Denmark or have taken up residence in other countries, mainly in Europe, while roughly one third were presumed to have died in the conflict zone.CTA assesses the domestic terrorist threat from REMVEs as general, from “anti-establishment extremists” as limited, and from “left-wing violent extremists” as minimal.2022 Terrorist Incidents:  There were no terrorist incidents reported in 2022 in the Kingdom of Denmark.Legislation, Law Enforcement, and Border Security:  There were no changes to CT legislation in 2022.  In January the government announced the creation of its Special Crimes Unit, an organization like the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  When fully operational, it will investigate and prosecute organized, financial, trafficking-in-persons, and cyber crimes.The Danish National Police, Politi, is responsible for law enforcement and security services in all regions governed by the Kingdom of Denmark, while Danish Defense and Intelligence Service (DDIS) handles foreign intelligence activities.  The collective authorities share responsibility for preventing terrorist attacks against Danish interests in Denmark and overseas.  Exchange of information between PET and DDIS is regulated in the legislation covering each.  Efforts to counter terrorism are also shared with the Public Prosecution Service and with the Danish Prison and Probation Service.  Danish security and law enforcement information is shared through CTA, which — as the Danish government’s intelligence center — constitutes the focal point for reporting from the Danish National Police, DDIS, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Danish Emergency Management Agency.In 2022, 18 individuals were sentenced under terrorism-related charges in Chapter 13 of the Criminal Code.No FTFs were repatriated from Syria or Iraq in 2022.  Since 2016, six of the adults who left Denmark for the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq have returned to Denmark, as have 16 children.  All six adults have been charged with crimes under the Criminal Code’s provisions in Chapter 12, which covers treason and other crimes against the state’s sovereignty and security, and under the terrorism-related Chapter 13.In December the High Court of Western Denmark sentenced a 35-year-old woman to four years in prison under Chapter 13 of the Criminal Code for 1) having stayed in Raqqa and Deir al-Zour provinces without permission from the Danish government during a period when these were classified as conflict areas and 2) for acting as a housewife for a person who was active within ISIS, thus having promoted ISIS activities.  This was the first sentencing for the three Danish women who were repatriated to Denmark in October 2021 together with their 14 children.  The other two women have pending cases and have not been sentenced.Five Danish children remain in Syria with their three mothers, who were stripped of Danish citizenship and thus are ineligible for repatriation to Denmark.  The mothers have not consented to their children, who retain Danish citizenship, being repatriated to Denmark without them.Countering the Financing of Terrorism:  Denmark is a member of FATF, and its FIU, the Money Laundering Secretariat, is a member of the Egmont Group.  In July, Denmark released its national strategy for preventing and combating money laundering and terrorist financing, covering 2022-25.Countering Violent Extremism:  Established in October, the Center for Documentation and Counter Extremism is responsible for preventing violent extremism nationally, locally, and virtually.  The center replaced the former Danish Center for Prevention of Extremism.The Ministry for Immigration and Integration added one individual and three organizations in 2022 to its list of foreign entities barred from sending financial donations to recipients in Denmark because they are deemed to “oppose or undermine democracy and fundamental freedoms and human rights,” in accordance with the law.  The first three additions were the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, the International Islamic Charity Organization, and Assalam Charity.  The fourth was an individual, Rashed Sad Rashed Ali Alolaimi, a religious leader who also is banned from entering the country because officials deem his presence a threat to public order.International and Regional Cooperation:  Much of Denmark’s multilateral engagement to prevent and counter terrorism is guided by the United Nations’s Global Counterterrorism Strategy.  Denmark continued to strongly support counterterrorism efforts in regional and multilateral organizations, including:European UnionGlobal Counterterrorism ForumNATOCouncil of EuropeOrganization for Security and Co-operation in EuropeINTERPOLClub de BerneEuropean Counterterrorism CenterUNIn May, Denmark handed over the command of NATO Mission Iraq (NMI).  However, Denmark continued to contribute civilian and military advisors, staff officers, and force protection personnel to NMI throughout 2022.  In 2022, Denmark also provided staff officers to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, or MINUSMA).  Denmark had contributed to Operation Barkhane and the EU’s Takuba Task Force with 90 special forces soldiers but withdrew them later that same month after Malian officials requested their removal in response to sanctions proposed by the Danish foreign minister and the EU for Malian transition government officials.Five Danish cities – Copenhagen, Aarhus, Gentofte, Guldborgsund, and Viborg – are members of the Strong Cities Network.																												    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Argentina											Australia											Austria											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Belgium											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Brazil											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Cameroon											Canada											Chad											Colombia											Côte d’Ivoire											Cyprus											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Egypt											Ethiopia											France											Georgia											Germany											Greece											India											Indonesia											Iraq											Israel, West Bank, and Gaza											Italy											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kingdom of Saudi Arabia											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Lebanon											Libya											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Mauritania											Mexico											Morocco											Mozambique											Niger											Nigeria											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Panama											Paraguay											People&#8217;s Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macau)											Peru											Philippines											Qatar											Russia											Senegal											Serbia											Singapore											Somalia											South Africa											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Sweden											Sweden											Sweden											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Netherlands											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Türkiye											Turkmenistan											Uganda											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)											Uzbekistan											Venezuela											Yemen																										On This Page				search													>																										Denmark																	Tags																					Bureau of Counterterrorism																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																														Countering Terrorism																																							Countering Violent Extremism																																							Counterterrorism																															Denmark																																Terrorism
- The United States Convenes Country Representatives and Other Stakeholders to Promote Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Policy Office of the SpokespersonOn September 20, the United States, as the 2023 Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), convened Ministers from the Coalition’s member states, key Group of 77 (G77) partners on technology policy, and other relevant stakeholders for a high-level event on the margins of the 78th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.  The FOC is an intergovernmental coalition committed to promoting and protecting human rights online.The event was co-hosted by U.S. Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya and Ambassador-at-Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Nathaniel Fick.  Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken provided keynote remarks highlighting the priorities of the United States and partners on rights-respecting and inclusive approaches to digital technologies in order to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and emphasizing the importance of global coordination on these issues.  Secretary Blinken announced the United States’ commitment under its FOC Chairship to advance the development of a governmental pledge relating to the responsible use and procurement of artificial intelligence systems. Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot of the Netherlands also provided remarks and announced that the Netherlands will take over the chairship of the FOC in 2024.The moderated roundtable discussion featured interventions from Cabo Verde, Czechia, Denmark, the Gambia, India, The Maldives, and the United Kingdom in addition to the International Telecommunications Union’s Secretary General and representatives of the FOC’s independent multistakeholder Advisory Network, Wikimedia Foundation, the Association for Progressive Communication, Microsoft, and Google.  Panelists discussed key challenges and opportunities relating to advancing connectivity, promoting access and inclusion, and using technology as an enabler of rights.  The convening reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to promote inclusive and rights-respecting digital policy together with Coalition members, and to explore opportunities to collaborate with key G77 governments in pursuit of these efforts.View the event recording, outputs, and statements from FOC Ministers .
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen today on his way to Ukraine. Secretary Blinken and Prime Minister Frederiksen discussed the war in Ukraine and emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Danish Alliance to transatlantic security. The United States and Denmark share a long, close partnership rooted in shared democratic values and the two discussed ways to further that engagement. Secretary Blinken thanked Prime Minister Frederiksen for Denmark’s leadership in the F-16 coalition of partner nations to train Ukrainian pilots, and for its decision to donate F-16 jets to Ukraine.
- Expanding the Global Equality Fund and Protecting Human Rights with New International Partners Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborArshelle CarterJust this last week, the United States welcomed New Zealand as the 19th government to the Global Equality Fund. Together with the private sector, the Global Equality Fund has dedicated over $100 million to more than 100 countries – providing advocates training, giving them tools to prevent violence, to prevent discrimination.In late June, Secretary Blinken announced New Zealand as the latest donor partner to join the Global Equality Fund (GEF), during a Pride Month event at the U.S. Department of State.  The GEF is a  public-private partnership comprised of like-minded governments and private-sector entities dedicated to advancing and defending the human rights and fundamental freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons around the world.  Through the GEF, governments, companies, foundations, and NGOs work collaboratively to advance local initiatives spearheaded by human rights defenders and civil society organizations working to protect LGBTQI+ persons from violence and abuse, criminalization, discrimination, and stigma, and to empower local LGBTQI+ movements and people.The New Zealand announcement follows the joining of another key ally to the GEF.  In May, the Secretary held a signing ceremony alongside Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, announcing Spain’s commitment to join the Global Equality Fund (GEF) as a donor partner.  Spain and New Zealand’s partnership strengthens the GEF’s ability to support human rights and representative democracies.  Secretary Blinken and Spanish Foreign Minister Albares participate in a signing ceremony announcing Spain’s commitment to join the Global Equality Fund as a donor partner on May 10, 2023. &nbsp;GEF programs expand citizen access to full civic and political participation.  Promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons is a year-round commitment of the Department and critical for strengthening democracy.  GEF programs have made significant impacts globally.  In just the past two years, GEF programs have:trained and supported more than 6,600 human rights defenders globally;provided emergency assistance to more than 470 human rights defenders and more than 90 civil society organizations, helping to provide safety and security so they can continue their critical work; andimproved legal assistance for more than 2,300 individuals from low-income or marginalized communities through legal and victim’s aid.A telling example of the GEF’s impact is apparent in Botswana, where the sustained, flexible support of the GEF over 10 years contributed not only to the registration of the first LGBTQI+ organization in the country, but also to a historic decriminalization judgment.  Through a holistic approach, GEF support – coupled with efforts by other donors – enabled activists and partners to determine local priorities and to chart the best path forward.  The GEF supported projects to reduce stigma, discrimination, and violence by implementing an incremental strategy to decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual acts.  However, LGBTQI+ community needs do not end with major court decisions; the GEF will continue to fund community-driven movement building in Botswana and globally in pursuit of a safer, more equal world for all. Members of civil society in Botswana held public dialogues on the implications of decriminalizing same-sex relations. In November 2021, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s decision to decriminalize. As it enters its second decade, the GEF remains a leading global force to:   Mobilize funding and resources that strengthen local LGBTQI+ movements and leadership that reflect the diversity of the community; Empower locally led and diverse movements leading efforts to mitigate violence and discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons; and    Connect donors, international and regional institutions, and LGBTQI+ civil society groups to ensure that voices of local communities are heard, authentically represented, and affirmed. The critical work of the GEF is not possible without the support and leadership of its partners: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, the Arcus Foundation, the John D. Evans Foundation, the MAC AIDS Fund, Deloitte LLP, Royal Bank of Canada, Hilton, Bloomberg L.P., Marriott International, the Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Out Leadership. About the Author:  Arshelle Carter is a 2022 Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellow and Summer 2023 intern in the Office of Global Programs in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 
- Department Press Briefing – July 31, 2023 Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson													HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; July 31, 2023				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; July 31, 2023																																																					July 31, 2023																																																																																																				Article Index																									DEPARTMENTAFGHANISTANHAITINORTH KOREA/RUSSIAISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIESUKRAINE/RUSSIA/SAUDI ARABIAUNITED ARAB EMIRATESUKRAINE/RUSSIAIRAQ/IRAN/REGIONCHINANIGERUNITED ARAB EMIRATES/DEPARTMENTBANGLADESHDENMARKGEORGIAARMENIA/AZERBAIJANUKRAINE/RUSSIA/REGIONNICARAGUATAIWAN/PARAGUAY/CHINA/SOUTH KOREA/REGION																													1:26 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good to see everyone again after a week away. Let me start with some brief comments before coming to questions. Part of the United States strategic efforts to engage emerging leaders and changemakers throughout – through the Young African Leaders Initiative, the Mandela Washington Fellowship 2023 Summit kicked off this morning in Washington, D.C. The three-day summit caps off six weeks of academic study and leadership development at 28 institutions of higher education in 20 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Driven by young leaders, nearly 6,000 strong, who have gone on to address key issues such as democracy and voting rights, food security, economic equity, public health and education, the Mandela Washington Fellowship has been a vital public diplomacy tool to help catalyze positive change within the Sub-Saharan Africa – within Sub-Saharan African nations for nearly a decade.On Wednesday, Secretary Blinken will address the 700 Mandela Washington Fellows at this year’s summit during the closing plenary session. In addition to the Secretary, Administrator Samantha Power, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Elizabeth Allen, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee, and other U.S. Government and private sector leaders will also address the Mandela Washington Fellows. And we would like to welcome them to Washington and encourage them for all their efforts on behalf of the nation.With that, start us out?QUESTION: Thanks. If I could start with Tom West’s meeting with the Taliban representatives today. What was discussed in that meeting? How did it go?MR MILLER: I’m going to wait. We have a readout that we have coming. We’re working on putting together the details now. And I’m going to wait and withhold comment till we have the – all those details wrapped up and put out. It should be in the next hour or two.QUESTION: Okay. And the Taliban said they discussed the lifting of travel and other restrictions on Taliban leaders, and the return of Afghan Central Bank assets. Is that something that’s seriously under consideration?MR MILLER: Again, I’m going to wait until – just because the meeting just wrapped and we’re still in talks with the people that were there at the meeting, I’m going to wait until we have the readout out to talk in detail about the meeting.QUESTION: Haiti?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you guys have any update &#8212;MR MILLER: Good to see you in the front row.QUESTION: There was no room back there. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: These – I see. Someone took your seat. I see. It was confusing to me; I’m used to people in their – you know.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: Sorry.QUESTION: Alix Dorsainvil, do you guys have any update on her abduction in Haiti last week?MR MILLER: I don’t. I will say we are aware of the reports that two U.S. citizens were kidnapped in Haiti. Obviously, the safety and security of American citizens overseas is our highest priority. We are in regular contact with the Haitian authorities and will continue to work with them and our U.S. Government interagency partners. But because it’s an ongoing law enforcement investigation, there’s not any more detail I can offer.QUESTION: You don’t know who’s holding her at this time, or you can’t share that information?MR MILLER: Again, because – as is usually the case with ongoing law enforcement questions, I’m not going to comment on any of the underlying details.QUESTION: And can you tell us if there’s been any – if those who have abducted her have requested anything from the U.S. Government?MR MILLER: Again, I just think it would be inappropriate to comment on details. You shouldn’t read into that one way or the other what the answer might be. But because it’s an ongoing law enforcement situation, those are obviously quite sensitive and I just don’t want to comment on the details.QUESTION: And just the last question. This doesn’t have to do with the details of the investigation. But she was abducted the same day that the State Department put out a new Travel Advisory and drew down the majority of the U.S. diplomats who are in the country. So do you think that there is any linkage between those two things?MR MILLER: I have no reason to believe there is.Any more on Haiti before I –QUESTION: Haiti.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, on Haiti. So the – now that you have a lead force, potentially, for the police mission or force in Haiti, which will be led by Kenya, something you are actively on, it’s supposed to be a multinational force. So are there, to your knowledge, any other countries that will now confirm and will be involved? And specifically the United States, will you fund this force? Will you send police officers or anything like that?MR MILLER: Sure. Let me say there are a couple things that need to happen as next steps before we get to addressing some of those questions. First, the United Nations – the UN Security Council needs to pass a resolution authorizing this mission. The United States, along with Ecuador, are going to introduce a resolution at the UN Security Council to take that step. That’s the first step that needs to happen.The second step is that the Government of Kenya needs to conduct an assessment mission, which they plan to do in the coming days and weeks. And then once they have conducted that assessment mission, they, as the lead of this of this multinational force, will talk with other partners about what additional type of assistance they need, what other countries might participate. That’ll kick off a series of discussions, of which the United States will of course be a party.We do – we are committed to finding the resources to support this multinational force. As I said, I think it’s too early to get into any details about what those resources might be. But after the Kenyans have conducted their initial assessment mission, we will of course be in contact with them about what it might look like. I would note Secretary Blinken, on – actually, before we left Australia, had a call with the president of Kenya to talk about how we might coordinate this work, and we’ll continue to be in close coordination with them.QUESTION: Okay. Just to follow up, any date yet for the UN resolution to be introduced by you and Ecuador?MR MILLER: No. But in the near future.Yeah, Shannon.QUESTION: Same topic. Thank you. It’s been, I think, about 10 months since the Haitian president first requested international intervention, and as you’ve just clearly detailed, there’s still a lot of steps that need to happen before that international intervention can take place. Do you think that in those roughly 10 months, has that allowed the situation to deteriorate further to what we’re seeing now?MR MILLER: I think the situation has been challenging for some time. It was – it was – that’s not been a secret of any kind. We’ve talked openly about it. We have recommended that U.S. citizens do not travel to Haiti for some time. We have made it a priority to find a lead nation to operate this multinational force. That has been a challenge. There have been a number of conversations, some of which have been publicly reported, some of which have not. But I will say that we are pleased, as the Secretary said in a statement that we issued – or as the Secretary has said, we are pleased that Kenya is stepping forward and giving positive consideration to leading this – to taking this role.QUESTION: And the U.S. – can you just say why you didn’t see – the U.S. was not fit to lead an international intervention?MR MILLER: We just thought there were other ways in which we could be supportive that would be both more appropriate and more useful than taking the lead role. We have been committed to the safety and security of the Haitian people. We’ve been a large humanitarian donor to relief efforts in Haiti for some time, and we have worked behind the scenes to find a lead nation to run this multinational force and are pleased that that has been successful.Yeah, before – anything else on Haiti before I go?QUESTION: Different &#8212;MR MILLER: You will be next. Okay, go ahead.QUESTION: Change &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. To North – thank you, Matt, and I have two questions for the North Korea. Secretary Blinken has mentioned to possibility that Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu would purchase weapons from North Korea. When North Korea provides new weapons to Russia, to concern is that it could cause threat to – I mean security of Ukraine as well as the Korean Peninsula. What can you say about security uncertainty on the Korean Peninsula? Then I follow up.MR MILLER: Yeah. I would say, as the Secretary noted over the weekend, it certainly did not appear that Defense Minister Shoigu was in North Korea for vacation. I’m not going to speak any more – in any more detail, but will say that we have imposed a number of sanctions on North Korea in the past for various activities. We’ve also imposed sanctions on a number of entities and individuals around the world for assisting Russia in its war effort. We won’t hesitate to do so in the future.QUESTION: These actions are subject to UN Security Council sanctions. The role of the UN Security Council is weak now. How will the United States respond to this?MR MILLER: Respond to what?QUESTION: Respond to the – to this happening. You have own individual sanctions you imposed.MR MILLER: Sure. I will say, as I said in my previous answer, we have never hesitated to impose sanctions on North Korea and North Korean entities when we’ve found violations or when we’ve found actions that merit sanctions, and we won’t hesitate to do so in the future. But of course I’m not going to preview any specific action.QUESTION: Lastly – lastly, Kim Jong-un invited Russian President Putin to Pyongyang this fall. How can you see this? How did you comment on this?MR MILLER: Obviously there’s been a close relationship between those two countries for a while, one that’s not exactly been productive to increasing the security of the world, and I wouldn’t expect that to change as a result of this meeting.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I’m going to switch topics to the Palestinian issue. On the visa waiver issue, I mean, it seems that Palestinian Americans and Arab Americans are unhappy with the MOU because it’s convoluted. They don’t really understand what’s going on. So my first question to you I asked last week: Could there be any – at any time an effort to publish this so people know exactly what you guys agreed with the Israelis on?MR MILLER: We continue to review that question. I don’t have any updates at this time, but we are continuing to look into what exact information from the MOU we can make public.QUESTION: And second, the Israeli Government’s public-facing guidance directs some U.S. citizens to use a smart application which allows the Israelis really, like, intrusive access to their – everything that they do. Have you looked into that?MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: Are you aware of this app or &#8212;MR MILLER: I am aware of the app. I’m not going to speak to the specific kind of technical details of how &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: &#8212; Israel is going to implement the program other than to say the important thing for us is that the Visa Waiver Program is implemented without discrimination and that the same rules apply to all American citizens.QUESTION: But it seems that still Gazans are not really included. It seems – or at least somehow &#8212;MR MILLER: No.QUESTION: &#8212; they are not equally included.MR MILLER: So I would say, as I have said before, our understanding is that Americans who are in Gaza are very much included in this program. They might have different procedures because of the different security situation in Gaza, but it is our expectation that they will be included in this program. But we will be monitoring the implementation over the coming weeks and months to make sure that they are included and are not discriminated against.QUESTION: And finally, Amnesty International slammed a Israeli court decision to demolish a Palestinian Bedouin village in the Negev. Do you have any – are you aware of these reports?MR MILLER: I am. I &#8212;QUESTION: And do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: Yeah, I’d say it’s critical for Israel and the Palestinian Authority to refrain from unilateral steps.QUESTION: That’s inside Israel. The Palestinian Authority has absolutely nothing to do with that. They have no authority whatsoever.MR MILLER: I understand – that exacerbate tensions and undercut efforts to advance and negotiate a two-state solution, and that certainly includes the demolition of homes and the evictions of families from their homes.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, on Ukraine, President Zelenskyy’s chief of staff has said that there are talks this week on security guarantees in Washington. Do you have anything on this?MR MILLER: Sure. Those talks are going to kick off this week. Those are an outgrowth of the statement that we released at – that the G7 released on the margins of the last NATO Summit in Vilnius, where President Biden and G7 leaders made clear that we were going to engage in negotiations with the Government of Ukraine about our long-term commitments to Ukraine’s security so it can establish a military that can defend itself and deter a future attack, rebuild its economy, protect its citizens, and pursue integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.I will note this is separate and apart from the security assistance that we regularly provide now. We’ve made clear that we see this proceeding on two tracks: one, security assistance to support their efforts to repel the Russian aggression inside their country; and two, to establish a long-term military that can serve as a deterrent effect from future Russian aggression. So those meetings are going to start this week. I would add that since we released that joint declaration at the – from the G7 and EU in Vilnius, 12 other countries have joined their names to the declaration. So talks will begin this week about how we can decide on the actual details of those security commitments going forward.QUESTION: And on the summit in Saudi Arabia this week on Ukraine, do you support this summit? Who will attend it? And what’s the goal of it?QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: We do, of course, support this summit. We have long said that it is important that Ukraine be in the driver’s seat when it comes to any potential diplomatic resolution to this war. It’s important that countries that have not yet heard directly from Ukraine hear from Ukraine, so we are gratified that there will be countries that are attending this summit to talk directly with Ukraine. If your question was with respect to what other countries will be attending, I would defer to the governments of Saudi Arabia and Ukraine to that – to answer that question. If the question is respect &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Let me – I’m coming to you. You don’t have to – if the – (laughter) – you don’t have to jump in.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: If the question is with respect to what U.S. Government &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: &#8212; officials will be attending, I can confirm that there will be U.S. Government officials. Not ready to make announcements yet about who those will be, but as the week goes on, certainly you can expect that we will do so.QUESTION: One more on UAE. Do you have any updates on the case of Tierra Young Allen, known as Sassy Trucker, who is stuck in UAE?MR MILLER: No. Only that – what we’ve said previously, that we’re aware that she is unable to depart the UAE. We take seriously our commitment to assist U.S. citizens abroad. We’re providing all appropriate consular assistance in this case, and we will remain in regular communication with her and her family.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Did anyone else want to do something on Russia-Ukraine before I &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Go.QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Welcome back.MR MILLER: Thank you.QUESTION: I do want to move to South Caucasus, but before that Russia-Ukraine.MR MILLER: Do Russia-Ukraine and then I’ll make sure – before you do your South Caucasus question, I’ll see if anyone has on it.QUESTION: You said – thanks so much. You said that talks will take place this week. In this building? Or &#8212;MR MILLER: They’ll be virtually &#8212;QUESTION: Gotcha.MR MILLER: If – not the – not the talks happening in Saudi Arabia but the talks about long-term security commitments &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; will be talks virtually – held virtually.QUESTION: And who is it going to be from the U.S. side involved?MR MILLER: It’ll be at the deputy assistant secretary level.QUESTION: Toria?MR MILLER: She is not a deputy assistant secretary, no.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: No.QUESTION: Well – so I just wanted to make sure.MR MILLER: She is the – the acting deputy secretary.QUESTION: So on Eurasia issues, right – so &#8212;MR MILLER: On Europe – European issues. Yeah.QUESTION: Oh, Europe. Okay. Fantastic. On Russia abducting Ukrainian children, indicted Russian war criminal Maria made a statement, a report saying that, well, since the beginning of the war, we have received more than 4 million – 4.8 million residents in Ukraine, and more than 700 of them being children. What do you think she’s saying here and what is your response?MR MILLER: I would not – I would not begin to try to get into her head and speculate about what she’s saying. I would say, though, that one of the worst incidents we have seen in this war is the deportation of Ukrainian civilians to Russia, including civilians who have been forcibly separated from their families. I will note that was an important consideration in the Secretary’s determination that Russian forces and officials have committed crimes against humanity. We call, as we have before, for Russia to stop those abusive actions and return Ukraine’s children. And I would say that we support accountability for these crimes.QUESTION: Are you going to share your information on this very matter with the ICC very soon?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to any specific matter. I will note, as the Secretary did last week when I believe we were in New Zealand – maybe it was Australia – the few days run together – but I think when – it was when we were in New Zealand – that we will cooperate with the ICC’s investigations. We support accountability through the ICC and a number of mechanisms. But consistent with the ICC’s confidential treatment of requests with respect to any specific request for information, we will keep those details confidential.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Please come back to me on South Caucasus. I have &#8212;MR MILLER: How could I not?QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Anything else on Russia before I &#8212;QUESTION: Ukraine?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: All right. Can I follow up on talks you mentioned about? What kind of security guarantees could be provided to Ukraine? Is it kind of Israel formula President Biden mentioned before?MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to comment about the eventual outcomes of talks that are just beginning other than to make clear what President Biden and other leaders of the G7 and the EU and, now, the other 12 nations that have joined the statement have made clear, is that we are committed to the long-term security of Ukraine and helping Ukraine build a long-term security infrastructure that can deter Russian aggression. What the details of that will look like, of course, will be something that will be covered in these conversations and conversations that will go on for some time. And I don’t think it’d be appropriate for me to try to get ahead of those talks.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Another short question. The Secretary this Thursday will participate in the ministerial in the United Nations. Do you expect him to meet Ukrainian Secretary Kuleba if he will be participating?MR MILLER: I don’t know – I don’t know if he will be – I know Secretary Blinken will be participating. I don’t know the other participants that will be there, so I’ll have to – I’ll wait until later in the week to see who else has been confirmed as an attendee.Any Russia – Russia? Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.) So President Zelenskyy made a statement yesterday like an hour after a major drone explosion in Moscow. And I’m quoting him here, he said, “Gradually, the war is returning to the territory of Russia – to its symbolic centers and military bases, and this is an inevitable, natural, and absolutely fair process.” So I just wonder if the administration supports that stance, specifically with regards to symbolic centers, which appears to mean kind of civilian targets.MR MILLER: I will say that – first of all, I’m not sure that I would agree with that interpretation of what symbolic centers means. I will say that we neither encourage nor enable strikes outside Ukraine’s borders. But as we have said many times, it is up for – to Ukraine to decide how to conduct this war. And when it comes to strikes, as you raised, on civilian centers, it has been Ukrainian civilian infrastructure that has been targeted over and over, Ukrainian civilians that have been murdered in this war – schools, hospitals, apartment buildings. I could go on down the list. So I don’t think any attempt to draw any equivalency is one that’s actually backed up by the facts.QUESTION: Right, but if I could follow up on that, I mean, we’re not &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead – go ahead. I’m going to move &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; arming Ukraine &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m going to – I’m going to move – I’m going to move the room.QUESTION: &#8212; or we’re not arming Russia &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.QUESTION: The Iraqi Government has informed the recent KRG delegation to Baghdad that they are not being paid international oil companies’ duties for their past operation in Kurdistan Region of Iraq, which there’s a lot of U.S. companies are operating in the Kurdistan Region.MR MILLER: Can you – sorry, just repeat that last part a minute. It was &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. The Iraqi Government has informed the Kurdistan Region delegation that they are not going pay the international oil companies for their past operation in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. There are a lot of U.S. companies are working and operating in the Kurdistan region. And to that end, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, FDC, has extended over 300 million U.S. dollars to these energy firms in the Kurdistan Region. What’s your reaction to this Iraqi decision? And the second: How do you engage to make sure that the U.S. companies in the Kurdistan region will get their share and the U.S. loans government are secure?MR MILLER: So I would say, first of all, I don’t know it to be a fact that the Iraqi Government has taken that position. I will say generally, we have repeatedly urged Baghdad and Erbil to agree on a range of issues of mutual interest, including a viable budget and a new national hydrocarbons law. We will continue to encourage the parties to determine a way forward that benefits Iraq’s foreign investment climate and respects the important contributions of U.S. entities, including in the energy sector, while advancing the interests of all Iraqi people.QUESTION: And one question on the – yesterday’s visit by the UN envoy to Iraq to Iran, and she met with the Iranian foreign minister. What’s your comment on that? And do you believe that for having a political stability in Iraq, we should talk to Iran first?MR MILLER: I won’t speak to the UN envoy’s visit. I will say that, obviously, Iraq has bilateral relationships with Iran. What we have always said is we would like for those bilateral relationships to be a normal relationship that reflects Iraqi sovereignty. We haven’t always seen that in the past. You’ve seen us implement policies to try to prevent or lessen or mitigate the way that Iran tries to gain leverage against Iraq. And so in the extent – to the extent there are bilateral relationships between the country, we hope that it would be one that respects, as I said Iraqi sovereignty.QUESTION: Have you sent any correspondence to Iran through the UN envoy to Iraq? Because there are some Iraqi media outlets saying that you sent a message to Iran yesterday.MR MILLER: I will never – I have – as I have said before at this podium, I will not comment on specific engagements. But we’ll note, as we have many times, that we have always said we have the ability to deliver messages to Iran when it’s in our interest.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Iran follow-up? Matt?MR MILLER: Go – let me – do you mind if &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. A member of the Iraqi parliament – actually he is the member of the finance committee – has said that Iran has been printing Iraqi dinars in Argentina, shipping them back to Baghdad, exchanging them into dollars, and then trucking them to Iran. Is the United States aware?MR MILLER: I will have to take that one back.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: The United States may be aware. I’m not personally. So I don’t know. (Laughter.) Go ahead, Olivia.QUESTION: This is on China unless there’s more on &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s fine. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. With the removal of Qin Gang as foreign minister, will the U.S., has the U.S. extended the invitation that he originally accepted to visit the United States back in June to his replacement or anybody else?MR MILLER: I don’t know if we have yet officially extended that invitation, but it was an invitation to the foreign minister. Obviously, Wang Yi is now serving in the role of foreign ministers, so I would expect that the invitation would be extended to him. Whether that has actually happened, I do not know. We are engaged in a number of conversations with Chinese Government officials even as we speak. And I would expect at some point we would make clear that the invitation extends to the new foreign minister.QUESTION: Okay. And you would expect it to be accepted?MR MILLER: I would expect so. Given that the Chinese Government had already accepted the invitation, I would assume they would. But of course, I won’t speak for them.QUESTION: Okay. Still on China, but slightly separate topic. There’s been this drumbeat of revelations regarding Chinese cyber activity that’s targeting email accounts within this department or reportedly embedded malware in military systems. Is it fair to say that that cyber activity by the Chinese, including malicious cyber activity, is on the increase even as diplomatic engagement is increasing?MR MILLER: I am going to, as we have before, decline to comment on any specific incident, which I know you were asking it generally, but you were referring to increased diplomatic engagement, so I think you were getting at a specific reported attempt. So I won’t speak to any specific action. I will just say generally that we constantly monitor attempts to breach our various systems. And as the Secretary has made clear, when we see those attempts, we don’t hesitate to hold the actors accountable.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that, if I may?MR MILLER: If Olivia yields the floor.QUESTION: You had a follow-up? Okay, go ahead, go ahead.QUESTION: Well, I – one quick one, and then I’ll turn it over to you, Leon. It’s just in the past, the U.S. has tried to engage with China, say, to roll back cyber activity that had a momentary effect, and it seems to have subsided almost entirely. So I’m just wondering if there’s any thinking going into re-initiating that kind of conversation.MR MILLER: I will say that the Secretary did raise the issue of attempts to breach United States systems in his meeting with Wang Yi and raised it to say that we always watch for this type of activity and we will never hesitate to hold people accountable for it.QUESTION: Thank you. Leon, over to you.QUESTION: Yeah, I was just wondering why you are so reluctant to spell out things as they are. You’ve always been very keen in the past to say that Chinese hackers or this or that. And in this incidence, which comes at a time, as was pointed out, that there are a lot of diplomatic engagements in Beijing, you’re being very, very (inaudible).MR MILLER: We have yet to determine an actor, which leaves me unable to speak to specific actions we would take to hold specific countries accountable. I’ve said before we have no reason to doubt the assessment that Microsoft made, but the U.S. Government itself has not made its own attribution, so that leaves me in a place where it’s difficult to speak about –QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, Microsoft came out and said it was the Chinese –MR MILLER: That’s what I just said. And we have no reason to doubt it, but until the United States Government makes its own assessment, which is a technical matter, it leaves us unable – leaves me unable to comment specifically on the incident.Go ahead.QUESTION: May I ask about Niger?MR MILLER: Please.QUESTION: I just wanted to ask a little bit about the coup determination question. I mean, what do you, what does the U.S. Government, need to see before it can call this a coup? And are you concerned that holding back, as you are right now, is going to lead to some blowback in the region about sort of the U.S. hesitancy about what pretty clearly is a coup?MR MILLER: No, let me say first of all with respect to the region we have been in close conversations and consultations with partners in the region. Secretary Blinken on the trip to New Zealand and Australia and Tonga was on the phone throughout that trip with leaders in the region talking about our approach and their approach and how we should align it. And I don’t think there is any daylight between us and our partners in the region with respect to the actions that we are taking and the actions that they are taking.And with respect to any determination, I’d say we haven’t made a determination yet because it is still an ongoing, fluid situation. It is clear that there has been an attempt to remove President Bazoum from office. It’s not yet clear that attempt will ultimately be successful, so we are watching and monitoring very – monitoring the situation and trying to prevent President Bazoum from being removed from office.But we have made very clear, Secretary Blinken has made very clear, that the future – that the hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance that the U.S. has provided and is continuing to provide to Niger is very much in the balance, depending on the outcome of the actions in the country. It is important that democrat – that U.S. assistance hinges on continued democratic governance in Niger.Anything else on Niger before we – I realized we hadn’t done that. All right, I’m going to – before I – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead. Behind you.QUESTION: Thanks. Martina Strong was just – was confirmed last week for the ambassador to the UAE. I was just wondering why it took so long for President Biden to nominate someone to that position, as well as your frustrations with the delay in confirmations.MR MILLER: I will say that we have – there are of course a number of nominations that the President has to make, and we’ve worked through them expeditiously. In respect – with respect to the delays in Congress, obviously that was something we were very frustrated by. We were quite public with that. Secretary Blinken came to this podium to speak to our concerns about holds that had been placed by certain senators on ambassadors, including career ambassadors, who were being held up for issues that had nothing to do with their qualifications for the job to which they were nominated. And we were heartened that a number – I think it was 14, I may be off by one or two nominees – ambassador nominees were confirmed in – last Friday, the last day that the Senate was in session before adjourning for August.But I would add that that number’s not sufficient. There are a number of ambassadorial nominations that remain pending on the floor that are being held up for no reason at all related to that nominee’s qualifications, and that it hurts United States national security when we don’t have confirmed ambassadors in place. Because those ambassadors weren’t confirmed before the recess, you now have another six weeks that the Senate is in session that they can’t even get a vote on the floor. So we will continue to work with members of Congress and hope that we can get all of our nominees confirmed expeditiously.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On Bangladesh, millions of people marched capital city Dhaka in protest demanding the resignation of the ruling Prime Minister Hasina. The local and international media reports that on Saturday police and ruling party members brutally attacked peaceful demonstrations – peaceful demonstrators and opposition leaders, resulting in hundreds of injuries, including the top opposition leader, Mr. Gayeshwar Roy. How do you assess the – monitor this escalating situation, considering the government’s apparent hardline stance towards the opposition and police brutality? What steps will the State Department take to ensure the possibility of a credible and peaceful election in Bangladesh?MR MILLER: We are concerned about the reports of intimidation and political violence in Bangladesh surrounding this weekend’s political protests. We encourage the Government of Bangladesh to investigate reports of violence thoroughly, transparently, and impartially, and to hold the perpetrators of violence to account. We urge Bangladesh to create a safe environment for people to peacefully assemble and voice their concerns, and we call on all parties to respect fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to refrain from violence, harassment, and intimidation.And I will say finally that free and fair elections depend on the commitment of everyone – voters, political parties, youth wings, and police – and cannot take place in an environment with political violence.QUESTION: One more on Bangladesh?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. People are – we, everybody, knows that Bangladesh is approaching a national election, and the U.S. also declared a visa policy to ensure democratic process in Bangladesh. Also the ruling prime minister also ensure U.S. and the EU, the European Union, that there will be a free and fair election. But the main opposition party using arson, terrorism, and vandalizing the country capital as last week. They were attacking not only civilian properties, also the police properties. They burned everything there. They made a situation like a war field at the capital. The – and on a demand of a election-time government, which is unconstitutional declared by the supreme court of Bangladesh. What is your comment?And then I’ll have a small question.MR MILLER: My comment is the same as I made in response to the previous question.QUESTION: Thank you so much. And my – another. I want only one observation from you. Last 15th of June, while descending a judicial review application that just labeled – Canadian federal judge labeled BNP as a terrorist organization. The judicial review was filed against the rejection of a BNP activist request for political asylum in Canada. This is the fifth time they labeled the party as a terrorist organization. What is your observation on that?MR MILLER: I don’t have any observation on that.QUESTION: Bangladesh – one more.MR MILLER: Let me &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Let me – go ahead, go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So – sorry.MR MILLER: No, go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday Denmark announced that they were looking for legal ways to prevent a burning of holy books in the aftermath of increasing attacks against Qu’ran, and there were a similar statement from Sweden too. And today there was again incidents of Qu’ran burnings in both Sweden and Denmark. Any comment on – comment on it? I know you have previously said that you see the burning of holy books as freedom of expression, but I’m wondering if you are concerned that these increasing attacks against Qu’ran could turn into violence against Muslims.MR MILLER: Of course we are concerned that it could spark violence. That is why we have said we condemn the burning of religious texts. It is something that we have spoken to a number of times at this podium. At the same time, we recognize the right to freedom of expression even when it’s freedom of expression – it’s acts of freedom of expression with which we may disagree. That continues to be our policy.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. A couple questions on the South Caucasus, Georgia first. Hundreds of Georgians last night got out in Batumi protesting a shipment of Russian tourists to their country. Some of them got arrested by pro-Russian government. Georgia’s 20 percent is still under Russian occupation. Do you think they have legitimate concern?MR MILLER: Do they have legitimate what?QUESTION: Concern about not letting Russians into their country and &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me take that one back.QUESTION: Okay. As you also know that Georgia’s occupied Abkhazia region last week decided to gift very strategic airport Sukhumi to Russians. Does department have any position on that?MR MILLER: I’ll take that one back as well.QUESTION: Okay, two Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with Aliyev on Saturday. He raised his concerns about Lachin corridor situation on the ground. This is not the position where the Secretary wanted to be in this month, right, when he was hosting former ministers last month in this town?MR MILLER: This is not – what did you say? This is not the position &#8212;QUESTION: Not the position you guys wanted to be in. You were talking about a peace agreement.MR MILLER: Yes, and we continue to talk about a peace agreement and we continue to believe that a peace agreement is within reach. However, we have always said that for it to be within reach both parties have to make difficult compromises, and that’s why the Secretary has been remained engaged in talking to the leaders of both Armenia and Azerbaijan to encourage them to make those difficult compromises so we can – they can reach an agreement.QUESTION: Is it your observation that the situation has been worsening that caused the Secretary’s concern?MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on the situation &#8212;QUESTION: Okay, and the Secretary’s not &#8212;MR MILLER: Last one, Alex, and then I’ve got to move to some others.QUESTION: Just a follow-up. You did &#8212;MR MILLER: This is like number six for you, I think, so &#8212;QUESTION: Yes. You didn’t mention the state of human rights in the country when you had the readout about this call. We discussed the case of Qubad Ibadoglu just a week ago. Would you be surprised if Secretary did not mention those cases during that phone call? I just want to make sure you guys are not putting out new template without mentioning human rights when you have a high-level call.MR MILLER: We always – I will say human rights is always on the table for the United States, and we raise our concerns publicly and privately.Go ahead, back of the room. I’ll come to you next. Back of – yeah.QUESTION: Good afternoon. So two questions, one Ukraine, one Nicaragua, if that’s all right. Pope Francis yesterday calling for the Black Sea initiative to be restored. The Biden administration, do they feel the Vatican can help make that happen, the Black Sea initiative?MR MILLER: We certainly would encourage anyone’s support for re-instituting the Black Sea Grain Initiative, and of course that includes the pope. If you look at Russia’s actions since the Black Sea Grain Initiative, they – they have made very clear that for all their protestations that what they are concerned about is the supposed inability for them to export grain or inability to export fertilizer – both of which were not true, since our sanctions did not apply to either of those activities – their actions have proven that that’s not their real concern. And when you look at how they’ve bombed ports in Odesa, how they’ve taken out key facilities to facilitate the export of grain, how they’ve been practicing attacks on ships in the Black Sea, it’s clear that they want to use food as a weapon of war, and the result has been the increase by 17 percent in grain prices since the termination of this initiative.So we welcome any countries who are willing to get involved to encourage Russia – I would say two things: one, to call out Russia’s actions for what they actually are and call out Russia’s propaganda for what it actually is; and two, to encourage Russia to rejoin the initiative.QUESTION: All right. One more on Nicaragua, if you will, please. So I know the State Department has called for the release of Catholic Bishop Rolando Alvarez, the same for Father Fernando Zamora Silva. Have you heard from Daniel Ortega’s government yet after this?MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on that, sorry.QUESTION: Okay. And then &#8212;MR MILLER: And then that was – I’m going to go because we’re running out of &#8212;QUESTION: Well, just real quick – one more just real quick.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I don’t get here too often. Thank you.MR MILLER: Well, you can come every day. (Laughter.) It’s a free and open room.QUESTION: What’s the message to Daniel Ortega – thank you. What’s the message, the Biden administration’s message to Daniel Ortega, who continues to persecute the Catholic Church in Nicaragua?MR MILLER: I would say that we of course believe in the freedom of religion everywhere and would encourage the release of wrongfully detained – people who are detained for exercising the freedom of religion.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Two questions on Taiwan. The Taiwanese vice president and frontrunner for the presidential election, William Lai, is expected to transit the U.S. before and after his visit to Paraguay on August 14th. Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that Lai made remarks at a campaign event that seemed contrary to the U.S. “one China” policy. He said that, quote, “When Taiwan’s president can enter the White House, the political goal that we’re pursuing will have been achieved.” What is the State Department’s comment on those remarks and on this upcoming transit?MR MILLER: I don’t have any reaction to his remarks. I will say that from the United States perspective, our “one China” policy has not changed, continues to be our policy. And with respect to his transit, such transits have happened numerous times going back decades over multiple administrations, and there’s nothing out of the ordinary about them.QUESTION: Okay. And also, although he said he supports the cross-strait status quo, there’ve been some concerns about his foreign policy and that he may support Taiwanese independence. What is the administration’s view of this? And is it concerned that either during the election cycle or if he is elected, this could negatively impact U.S.-China relations?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to comments by a candidate for office, really, in Taiwan or any other country.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Couple more and then we’ll – go ahead.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Taiwan? So Matt, you just mentioned the U.S. “one China” policy. U.S. officials have said that the United States “one China” policy is based on Taiwan Relations Act, Six Assurances, and three communiques. Are there any wordings in those documents explicitly prevent a democratically elected vice president from transiting into a city in the United States?MR MILLER: I do not have those – the entire law in front of me or the various communiques, but I will say that transits are well established president – precedent, as I said, that go back multiple administrations.All right, at the back, and then we’ll wrap up.QUESTION: Thank you. So I’m just wondering if you have any comment on the fact that Chinese companies are pouring billions of dollars in past few months to Korean – South Korean companies in an effort to reach the U.S. markets and skirt the U.S. EV rules.MR MILLER: I will say about that, number one, we certainly understand that other countries like South Korea have relationships with China, including economic relationships. We have a significant economic relationship with China. I will say with respect to all of our enforcement actions we always look on ways to improve those actions, in ways to tighten those actions, in ways to enforce them, including people who are – people and entities that are trying to evade them. That’s a general comment without respect to any specific report, but that remains our policy and will be going forward.Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)# # #&nbsp;						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Bangladesh																								China																								Denmark																								Georgia																								Haiti																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Nicaragua																								Niger																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Paraguay																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Taiwan																								Ukraine																								United Arab Emirates