# Rwanda - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 6, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024																																																					May 6, 2024																																																								1:47 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Don’t have any opening comments, so to you, Matt.QUESTION: You have nothing to say?MR MILLER: I think I &#8212;QUESTION: Nothing is going on in the world?MR MILLER: I think I imagine what your first question is going to be, so –QUESTION: Well, I figure &#8212;MR MILLER: So go ahead.QUESTION: You know what? I’m going to surprise you, because I don’t want – before we get into the long back and forth about Rafah and the ceasefire, I want to ask you if you can just answer this straight and – simply and straight about the Israeli closure of Al Jazeera. What is – what is your response?MR MILLER: So we have seen the announcement from the Government of Israel about closing Al Jazeera. We have made quite clear that we support media freedom all around the world, including in Israel, and that we are quite concerned about this action.QUESTION: You’re quite concerned about this action? Are you – are you asking the Israelis to do anything?MR MILLER: So as the President said on May 3rd, journalists and media workers are an essential part of any democracy &#8212;QUESTION: I know.MR MILLER: &#8212; because well-informed dissent is critical to building stronger and more successful societies, and we will continue to support and advocate for free and independent media around the world. We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel, as they operate in other countries in the region.QUESTION: Okay. So you oppose?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: You oppose this?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Then getting on to – so you’ve seen these reports in the last hour about Hamas accepting a ceasefire, but also the Israelis ordering or telling people in Rafah to get out. What’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I can confirm that Hamas has issued a response. We are reviewing that response now and discussing it with our partners in the region. As you know, Director Burns is in the region working on this in real time. We will be discussing this response with our partners over the coming hours. We continue to believe that a hostage deal is in the best interests of the Israeli people. It’s in the best interests of the Palestinian people. It would bring an immediate ceasefire. It would allow increased movement of humanitarian assistance. And so we’re going to continue to work to try to reach one.QUESTION: And so – but you haven’t made any – yet made any determination about whether this is – whether they’re accepting what is on the table or they’re accepting something that is different?MR MILLER: We have only received the response in the last hour, 90 minutes, and as I said, are going through it now and discussing with it – discussing it with partners in the region. So I don’t want to characterize the nature of that response just yet.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.MR MILLER: Okay. Shannon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Al Jazeera?MR MILLER: Wait. Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports that – from Israel that perhaps Hamas agreed to a proposal that was put together by Egypt and Qatar that was softer than the initial framework that was in the works last week. Is it possible that there has been a different proposal that the U.S. is not involved with tracking?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those suggestions; I’ve seen some of those reports. And I think you’ll – I hope you’ll understand that because we are still reviewing the response that has come in and because we are working on this in real time and trying to reach an agreement, I’m just going to decline to comment in detail about any of those reports. We are going to be discussing this response with our partners in the region in the hours ahead. It remains our top priority to try to reach a ceasefire agreement that will lead to the release of hostages, that will allow a surge of humanitarian assistance both into Gaza and allow it to move around inside Gaza. But I don’t want to comment on any of the various reports about what they might have been responding to until we’ve been able to go through it in detail and come to a full understanding and discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: And can you say at this point – maybe you can’t – but Hamas’s political wing and their militant wing, are they on the same page here? Do you feel like this is a response that at least indicates where the entire group is?MR MILLER: I am just not going to – I am just not going to speak for Hamas at all. As we have said for some time, there has been a significant offer on the table. The ball has been in Hamas’s court. We have made clear that they should accept that offer, that Israel made significant compromises, showed that they wanted to reach an agreement that would lead to the release of hostages, that would bring an immediate ceasefire. And we have hoped that Hamas would take the deal that was on the table. Now, as to what’s in their response, what it looks like, we’re going to review that and withhold judgment until we’ve had a chance to conduct a full review.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I ask about the – this – the threatened Israeli offensive in Rafah? In the hours before this, there were lots of reports about evacuations – not just a report, but Israel is talking about evacuations from Rafah. How does this – what’s the U.S. message to this now? Do you think that Israel should hold off on the – on any operations in Rafah as we discuss this response from Hamas?MR MILLER: Of course we do. We’ve made quite clear our position on Rafah for some time, which is that we cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned. We have made clear – the Secretary made this clear in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government last week – that we have not seen a humanitarian plan that is credible and that is implementable. And we believe a military operation in Rafah right now would dramatically increase the suffering of the Palestinian people, would lead to an increase in loss of civilian life, would dramatically disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, all of which is coming through – I shouldn’t say “all,” but the great majority of which is coming through Kerem Shalom or Rafah and is being distributed inside the Rafah area. If you think about what it would do when you have people moving north to places where internal distribution lines are not currently set up and you’re going to have to try to re-establish those in the middle of conflict in Rafah, we think that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do.So even absent this latest response, we have made clear that we do not support Israel launching a full-scale military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, you just said that in terms of – that’s the standard U.S. position on this. But has there been any communication with the Israelis about – I mean, in the past hours or so – about the response from Hamas and how this affects the situation in Rafah? Is there a message &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into our – those conversations. As I said, we just literally in the past hour, 90 minutes received that response from Hamas in the first place. Of course, we will be discussing it with Egypt, with Qatar, with Israel – the three countries with whom we have been working throughout this negotiation process. But I don’t want to get into the timing of those, but obviously, if we have – if those conversations had not already started, they will be ongoing in the next several hours.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, under the current circumstances, do you still think a ceasefire is achievable, based on what you know coming here?MR MILLER: I – what do you mean, is a ceasefire achievable?QUESTION: Like &#8212;MR MILLER: A ceasefire is what we are trying to achieve.QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, it has &#8212;MR MILLER: There is – there is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; over the weekend there was, like, there was a quiet impasse, and right now Hamas has accepted it. But from Israel, we’re hearing that that’s not the proposal that we’ve sent; that’s a softened version. That throws into – the whole thing into doubt.MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think I answered &#8212;QUESTION: So I’m just wondering, like, what’s your sense here?MR MILLER: A ceasefire is absolutely achievable. There has been a deal on the table – a proposal on the table – that would achieve an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. Now, as for Hamas’s response, which I think gets to your question, again, I don’t want to characterize it in any sort of detail until we’ve had a chance to review it in depth and talk with our partners in the region about it.QUESTION: And one thing on the humanitarian aid. Last week, when the Secretary was in Israel, there was an increased emphasis on – in his – during his trip on the delivery of humanitarian aid. We visited Kerem Shalom, which got shut down over the weekend after the Hamas attack. But can you give us, like, a sense of what a Rafah offensive – how that would impact all of Gaza? Because there are issues with distribution in the north. If we have a Rafah offensive in the south, could there be any meaningful humanitarian aid delivery in the north?MR MILLER: So let me just speak broadly to all of Gaza first, and then I’ll come to the north. So certainly a Rafah operation in – a Rafah operation would make it incredibly difficult to sustain the increases in humanitarian assistance that we have been able to deliver over the past few weeks since the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 4th. You have seen an increase in the number of trucks going in through Kerem Shalom; you have seen an increase in the distribution inside of Gaza, including inside southern Gaza. All of that would be put in jeopardy by a Rafah offensive because obviously, just look at what happened in the past 24 hours when you saw Hamas rocket attacks on Kerem Shalom that led to the death of three IDF soldiers and led to the closure of Kerem Shalom.If you had an ongoing kinetic military operation, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the impact that that would have on the delivery of humanitarian assistance – not just through Kerem Shalom, not just through Rafah gate, but of course inside all of Rafah and all of southern Gaza.Now, separate from that, we have been working on standing up additional delivery mechanisms to get aid directly in to northern Gaza without having to go through Kerem Shalom – not because we anticipated an upcoming Rafah operation, but because it’s so difficult to get aid through Kerem Shalom and then move it all the way to the north of Gaza. So that’s why you saw the opening of Erez crossing, which is something that the President insisted on and something that we achieved last week when the Secretary was there, first in Jordan and then in Israel. So you can have trucks move directly from Jordan, through Erez crossing in the north, not have to go all the way to Kerem Shalom and come back up north. You saw Ashdod Port opening so goods can come directly from Ashdod and go in through a northern crossing, and it’s why we’re standing up the maritime operation.So there will be ways to get humanitarian assistance in to northern Gaza directly; we have been working on those because it’s important to do so because we’ve seen how difficult it is to get aid from southern Gaza into northern Gaza. It’s hard to speculate what the impact of a Rafah operation would have on the delivery of that aid to northern Gaza, but certainly you can say without a doubt that it would dramatically impact the delivery of humanitarian assistance in southern Gaza.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just going off of that for a second, you said earlier – reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t support a full-scale invasion into Rafah. What about a limited invasion into Rafah?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate on the types of military operation. We &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not speculating &#8212;MR MILLER: No – so – no, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; the Israeli Government has said limited &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m about to answer, Kylie. So there are proposals that we have put on the table – and this is why I’m not going to talk about some of this publicly &#8212; there are proposals that we have put on the table to the Israeli Government that we have discussed with them, that we think would be a much more limited, much more targeted, much more effective way of achieving their legitimate military – their legitimate military objectives, which is taking on the Hamas battalions that are remaining in Rafah. Those look very different than the types of operations that we have seen proposed publicly by the Israeli Government, and I think I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So just to be clear, what you have proposed to them isn’t your understanding of what they are planning to go ahead with in the near future?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what they might be planning to go ahead with; I’ll let them speak to that. We’ve seen the announcement they made today about evacuation orders for not the entire – not entire southern Gaza, not entire – the entire Rafah area, but for a significant portion of it, 100,000 people. And I – of course we have concerns that any evacuation at all in such a crowded area, if you see 100,000 people move, you’re going to see other people in the next area move as well – which, of course, is something that you want to see happen if there is a military operation. But the problem now is there’s such limited places for them to go inside Gaza, and there is no effective way to distribute them – distribute aid to them and make sure they have access to shelter, access to sanitation, in the places that they would go if, say, you had hundreds of thousands of people moving from Rafah.QUESTION: And then without characterizing the Hamas response, given you guys are still reviewing it, would you say it’s a hopeful sign that they have given a response here?MR MILLER: I think that would be characterizing it, so I’m going to decline to do so until we have completed that review.QUESTION: And when do you think you will be able to complete that review? When should we expect an assessment from the administration?MR MILLER: The – Director Burns, as I said, is in the region literally working on this right now. I don’t want to put a timetable on it, but it is something that is a top priority for everyone in this administration from the President on down. You saw that the President had a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. Achieving a ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of hostages was one of the top priorities of the Secretary’s trip when he was in the region last week. So everyone is focused on this. Everyone is trying to get a deal over the line.QUESTION: Thank you. Last week there was some reporting that the Biden administration had put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel. Have you seen that report? Can you comment on its accuracy?MR MILLER: I have seen that report. As is usually the case, we don’t comment on specific cases of arms transfers, and I’m not going to do so here.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to clarify on the offer, the offer that you said was generous and on the table and what seems to be accepted now. Does that mean that the ball is no longer in Hamas’s court?MR MILLER: Said, it’s impossible for me to answer that question without characterizing the response that Hamas has given, which I’m not yet willing to do.QUESTION: Okay, all right. On Al Jazeera, now we know that Israel is accusing the correspondents of Al Jazeera, our colleagues who are Israeli citizens by the way, accusing them of incitement that goes back many years and all these things, a crime that is punishable by imprisonment. Are you worried that these correspondents might actually be imprisoned by the Israelis? And if they are, what would the Government of the United States do?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to those specific allegations. It’s not something that we’ve reviewed in detail. We would have to do that. I’m certainly not going to speculate about what we might do in response to an action that has not yet been taken. I will just reiterate that when it comes to the decision to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, it’s something that we are concerned by. We support the work that journalists and media do.We have had – and I don’t think it’s any secret that we have had our differences with Al Jazeera &#8212;QUESTION: Right, of course.MR MILLER: &#8212; over the years, including in some of the ways in which they – that they cover this conflict. But we support the free media &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; conducting their operations everywhere in the world.QUESTION: Yeah, I think most countries have had an issue with Al Jazeera. Let me ask you about Rafah. Now the movement, 100,000 people and so on, now how many would need to move before Israel can go in and legitimately go after Hamas’s position? I mean, the area is so small – al-Mawasi, where they are moving and so on – just meters – kilometers away.MR MILLER: It’s not &#8212;QUESTION: What – would prevent, let’s say a Hamas fighter or Hamas leaders and so on to actually move to another place? They allegedly have a network of tunnels that would allow them to do that and so on. And then we have the same kind of situation. We see the Israelis saying we want to go after them in that area. I mean, how do you read this whole situation?MR MILLER: So that is not really a question I can answer. I will just make clear, as I have already and as others in the administration including the President, including the Secretary have on a number of occasions, that an operation – a major operation in Rafah – is not something that we can support.QUESTION: Yeah. And finally, I asked on Thursday about Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh. I was wrong. He wasn’t shot. He was – apparently he died and some say under torture and so on. I know that your colleague at the White House said what she said, that she was saddened and all these things, but have you followed up on this issue? How do you follow up on it? Because apparently they are keeping his corpse. I mean, they are not turning it to his family or others and so on for proper burial.MR MILLER: It is one that we have raised with the Government of Israel. I don’t have a response to read out. We have made clear with Israel, as we have made clear publicly, that they must treat all detainees humanely and with dignity in accordance with international humanitarian law and that they must respect detainees’ human rights and also that they must ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Since they took all the Al Jazeera questions, I’ll skip mine.MR MILLER: No problem.QUESTION: I just want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Alex, did you have something?QUESTION: No, no, no, no.QUESTION: I just want to – because I’m a little bit confused, if you can clarify. So the Hamas response is not on the general’s proposal? It’s not – it’s not accepting this proposal?MR MILLER: I think I made clear I am not going to characterize their response one way or the other until we’ve had a chance to fully review it, digest it, discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: All right. My second question is about the pier that the United States is conducting. We believe we have, in our reporting, that it is close to being operational. Can you just tell us how this pier will operate? I mean, who will have the upper hand in all – in making this &#8212;MR MILLER: So it is something that we have been trying to complete as soon as possible. And when I say we, I mean largely our colleagues at the Pentagon who are constructing the pier. We have been involved in liaising with humanitarian groups that will be involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance once it comes in to Gaza, but with the actual timeline for the launch of the pier and its operation, any details I’m going to defer to the Pentagon to comment on those in any detail.QUESTION: By the way, on the pier itself, it was – it was said over the weekend that it was moved to (inaudible) because of some high winds and waves and so on. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to the Pentagon for any of those operational kind of details.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: They’re the ones that are responsible for constructing and moving it and ultimately launching it.Michel, go ahead, and we’ll do a few more in the Middle East before we &#8212;QUESTION: Did you ask Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from Doha – from Doha, and is it the time for these leaders to leave?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As we have said a number of times, the Secretary in his conversations has made clear with a number of partners in the region that any relationship they have with Hamas, any influence they have with Hamas, they should use to make clear to Hamas that it – to Hamas that it needs to accept a ceasefire deal that includes the release of hostages. And he has also made clear publicly that at the end of this process there can be – there can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, as existed in too many places before October 7th. And I think I’ll decline to comment for any further.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Any more on the region? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: In the region on &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. For World Press Freedom Day last week, the Secretary did put out a statement about that. I’m just curious as to why that was a decision not to mention the Gaza war, granted that many journalists have been affected by a lack of press freedom around the world and that – and also being killed in various conflicts, but there was a substantial number of journalists that were killed in Israel and Gaza at the end of last year. Was there a reason why that wasn’t mentioned?MR MILLER: No. The Secretary has spoken to that a number of times, including in the region, including speaking directly to the colleagues of journalists in some instances who have lost their life tragically. We mourn the death of every journalist. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to the fact that it is because of journalists in Gaza that we see what’s happening, that the world knows what’s happening. And so we support their work. We want to see it continued. And we mourn the loss of every journalist, and I’ve spoken to that many times since the outbreak of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, just one more on the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Or just on Kerem Shalom.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the Israelis have agreed to reopen it after the attack that happened on Sunday?MR MILLER: So, yes, that was a – if you looked at the readout from the President’s call &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; it noted that the prime minister had agreed to open it in that conversation.QUESTION: Okay. Because the Secretary was just there on Wednesday, and you believed that Kerem Shalom was critical &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; with or without a Rafah &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: operation.MR MILLER: Kerem Shalom is absolutely critical to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, especially in southern Gaza now that we’ve stood up operations in the north. But &#8212;QUESTION: Right. So is it open now, do you know?MR MILLER: I do not know if it’s been reopened. I’ll say it was an incredibly cynical act for Hamas to attack Kerem Shalom yesterday knowing that Kerem Shalom is the linchpin to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It goes to this point we’ve made on a number of occasions that Hamas claims that they represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but when you see some of their actions – and we talk about them hiding behind humans, using them as human shields all the time. When you see them attacking the gate that serves as the delivery point – as we saw if you were there last week, as we saw with our own eyes – the delivery point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza, it really does undermine any claim that they have to acting on the people of Gaza’s behalf.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I switch regions?MR MILLER: Let me – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What action would the U.S. take if Israel were to invade Rafah?MR MILLER: We have made clear that we cannot support an operation, and I don’t want to speculate on what actions we might take if one should proceed.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the department’s reaction to Türkiye suspending trade ties with Israel?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. They are both allies of ours, and we would encourage them to work through their differences, but I don’t have any specific comment.QUESTION: And finally, what is the department doing to hold the CCP accountable for continued Chinese assistance to Russia’s defense sector?MR MILLER: So you heard the Secretary speak to this when he was in China and made clear that China can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be a partner of Europe on the one hand and then continue to fund the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War on the other hand. He raised this directly with President Xi. He raised it with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. And he made clear in those meetings that if China didn’t act, we would. And a couple of updates to that. You saw us roll out additional sanctions on Chinese entities who have supported Russia’s defense industrial base last week.And then I want to note that we’ve made clear that it is not just the United States that is concerned about China’s activities, but it is also our partners in – and allies in Europe. And you know President Xi is in Europe today meeting with President Macron, meeting with the president of the EU. And if you noted the comments from the Government of France, they very much intended to press this same case with President Xi and make clear what a threat they see – that they see it the way we see it, which is that it is a threat not just to Ukraine but is a threat to European security. And we think it’s important that our allies and partners stand strong in sending that message as well.QUESTION: And just one more?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And what is the department’s message today given it’s Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, especially with Israel having suffered several months ago the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? And I note the Secretary’s step-father &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, the Secretary put out a statement on that yesterday &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; where he reiterated what has been our continuing message, which is never again. And I think you’ll see this President speak to this further.QUESTION: Matt, can I piggyback off &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, you said you (inaudible) &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; for a limited – more limited operation in Rafah. And you’re working – you are working on a ceasefire with your partners. What comes first? I mean, you share the objective, you said, with the Israelis that they have to defeat Hamas in Rafah. But since you are working on a ceasefire, it’s a little bit confusing what you support. What’s the priority here?MR MILLER: Our immediate objective is to achieve a ceasefire that alleviates the suffering of Palestinian people, that secures the release of hostages, and then we want to build that ceasefire, as we have made clear, into something more sustained and something longer lasting. I’m – a little bit of a bind here because I can’t really speak to the options that we have proposed to Israel – you can see why we would want to keep those confidential – but we have proposed options that we believe are more effective and would be more effective in dealing with the threat that Hamas poses. And those are options that they could pursue, and I think I’ll leave it – I’m – unfortunately, I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. In case these negotiations fail, are you preparing for a worst-case scenario that the Israeli went into Rafah – goes into Rafah and this lasts until the fall?MR MILLER: Of course we are prepared for every scenario, but I don’t think I want to read out what actions we might take.QUESTION: For every scenario?MR MILLER: Well, that’s a fair point, Matt – every scenario that you can reasonably predict we prepare for.QUESTION: Well, what happens if, like, aliens come down?MR MILLER: That’s why I said every scenario you can reasonably predict.QUESTION: Are you prepared for that one too?MR MILLER: If that happens, I’ll run to the hills with – right behind you, probably.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Are we ready to move on to different region?QUESTION: Could I just do one more?MR MILLER: Shaun – yeah, Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: I know you &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, Nike. I tried. Let the record reflect I called on you, and Shaun, the head of the State Department Correspondent Association, stepped on your question.QUESTION: Yes, I – exactly. Well, I’ll gladly defer to Nike – gladly defer to Nike after this, as – I figure you’re not – probably not going to answer this, but the – just &#8212;MR MILLER: For a question I’m not even going to answer, too.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: Sorry. Go ahead.QUESTION: But just a couple of – on a serious note – just a couple of moments ago, the Israeli army saying that the evacuation orders that it issued earlier – confirming that this is preparation for a ground invasion. I know they’ve been speaking about a ground invasion in – a ground operation in general for some time. Do you have any further comment on that? I mean the – this – whether – do you have signs that the Israelis are actually going ahead imminently with a ground operation?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to their military activities. We have made quite clear that we oppose a military operation there and I’m going to leave it at that.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Russia, Russia President Vladimir Putin will be set to start another six-year term on Tuesday. Do you have anything on that? I understand U.S. Ambassador Tracy is currently out of the country. My question is: Is anyone from the U.S. embassy attending his inauguration ceremony, or is the U.S. joining other countries to boycott?MR MILLER: No, we will not have a representative at his inauguration.QUESTION: U.S. is boycotting?MR MILLER: We will not have a representative there. You can draw your own conclusions.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does that mean that you don’t consider Putin a legitimate president?MR MILLER: He – we certainly did not consider that election free and fair, but he is the president of Russia and is going to continue in that capacity.QUESTION: Let me get your immediate reaction to reports about Russia’s planned nuclear drills. How much it will complicate the situation, and what kind of response will that invite from the United States?MR MILLER: So Russia’s rhetoric – their nuclear rhetoric – has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict. That said, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture in response to these announcements, nor any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more on South Caucasus, if I may. On Georgia, we had a protest in front of this building on Saturday. Georgian Americans were asking the State Department to impose sanctions on Ivanishvili and the GD MPs – not for actions that they might or might not take, but the actions they have taken already. So are you considering any measure?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to make any sanctions announcements, whether that relates to what we might do or what we are considering, as is typically our practice here.QUESTION: We heard from senior officials, this building – it feels like you guys are – you guys expecting some U-turn in this case or some offramp by suggesting that Ivanishvili might be misinformed, so all the statements we have heard from him are not his or his – or reflecting his viewpoints. Is that a reflection of what we have heard from them?MR MILLER: I’m not going to characterize at all. We are going to keep pressing our case, which is we believe that the law that they are considering would put Georgia on a precarious trajectory. It would jeopardize Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermine the U.S.-Georgia relationship, and we will continue to make that clear, and they will make their own decisions.QUESTION: And thank you. On – finally, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, ambassador to Baku today for the first time visited Karabakh. Let me get your sense of significance of it and where in – this week there will be ministerial in Kazakhstan. What are your expectations &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that or any expectations.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. A question on Iran. As you may be aware, the IKR president, Nechervan Barzani, he’s in Iran with an official visit with a purpose finding solutions to the disputes between Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan region. How does the U.S. view this visit and efforts? Do you have any comments on that?MR MILLER: So we have consistently encouraged de-escalation in the region, but we don’t have any comment about the specifics of that trip. I would leave it to the Kurdistan Regional Government to comment more in detail on President Barzani’s travel.QUESTION: And one more question: Do you think that having these kinds of discussion with Iran could help and lift any impacts on the Iraqi stability? Because we witnessed they attacked the Iraqi Kurdistan and there were a lot of tensions between these two capitals.MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to these specific conversations, but of course we have always encouraged any conversations that would lead to de-escalation and would lead to further stability in the region, including vis-a-vis Iran, which of course has been one of the greatest contributors to instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.QUESTION: And last question, as we are speaking of Iran. Minutes ago, the Iranian foreign minister put a post on X and he said that we sent Hamas response to the plan proposed by Egypt and Qatar. What he says that – he said that to stop the attacks by Israel, and second, exchange prisoners, and thirdly, the human blockades. And now the ball in the opposite court, we are honest with – in our intentions. This is what he posted. So how do you see the Iranian role in bringing that Gaza the conflict into the end and &#8212;MR MILLER: Bringing a Gaza conflict to an end? I see no Iranian role in bringing a Gaza conflict to an end. You’ve seen Iran be one of the greatest instigators of this conflict in the first place, from financing Hamas and supporting Hamas to financing and supporting Hizballah and other groups that have contributed dramatically to instability, not just when it comes to attacks on Israel but when you look at the – their proxy, the Houthis, and attacking international shipping, and greatly destabilizing the region. So no, I don’t see Iran playing any kind of productive role.QUESTION: And they are not the &#8212;MR MILLER: That would be – that would be completely out of character for them.QUESTION: They are not honest with their intentions, what he said on his post?MR MILLER: They’re not what?QUESTION: Honest with their intentions?MR MILLER: With their – Iran’s honest with their intentions? No, I would not characterize them as honest with their intentions. When it comes to the specific comments that they made about Hamas’s response, I’m not going to comment on those, because as I said, we’re reviewing their response, so I don’t want to confirm what may or may not have been in it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So can I just get your reaction to this? Over the weekend, a Moscow court sentenced a Russian Falun Gong practitioner to two months in detention for her beliefs. It’s the only other country outside of communist China to incarcerate a citizen for the meditation practice. Jake Sullivan said that he wasn’t surprised by this, as China’s – Russia relies on China’s economic and technological support. So given these circumstances, what’s the State Department doing to address the broader implications of the spread of China’s persecution of Falun Gong into Russia, possibly in exchange for support?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a specific response, since it relates to this one case that you mentioned.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: A little over a week ago, China held unification, unity talks between Hamas leaders and Fatah. Sir – and they – I think it resulted in them just saying that they’re agreeing to &#8212;MR MILLER: Keep talking, yeah.QUESTION: Keep talking? What’s your reaction to China being involved in unity talks between these &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t have any reaction to them playing a role in these talks. We saw previous talks take place between Hamas and Fatah in Moscow. They’ve held talks in other locations. Leaving that aside, we have long said that if China wanted to play a productive role in bringing this conflict to an end, that it’s something that we would welcome. If they wanted to play a productive role in helping prevent escalation in the region, that is something we would also welcome. The Secretary has spoken to his counterpart, Director Wang Yi, six times since October 7th to press this case, to press China to use all of its influence in the region. And we will continue to press them to do that.We think there certainly are countries that they have a relationship – with whom they have a relationship in the region, including countries, most notably Iran, with whom we don’t really have a relationship. So if China can bring its influence to bear, that would be a productive step for it – it would be a productive step that it could take that would benefit the region and benefit the entire world.QUESTION: One more on Saudi Arabia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The other day, you had said that in order for normalization to take place between Saudi Arabia and Israel, that Saudi Arabia is looking for calm in Gaza &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; as well as a path to peace. That path to peace, is that the Oslo Accords? Is that something different than Oslo? Is that expanding on Oslo or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the details, because it’s something that we still continue to talk with Saudi Arabia about, but it is a path to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. And the details of what that would look like is something that we’re continuing to discuss with them.QUESTION: So would that make Oslo irrelevant? MR MILLER: I just – I don’t want to – it’s a – it is a negotiation and a discussion that is ongoing right now; I don’t want to characterize it in any way with respect to how it would interact with past agreements.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: A ceasefire deal doesn’t end the war in Gaza. It means returning to fighting again and more Palestinian civilian victims, as it’s happened daily – ten of thousands have already murdered due to the bombing and the famine imposed by Israel, most of them children and women. My question: Why the U.S. doesn’t intervene to stop the war completely – I mean, permanent ceasefire – especially that the Palestinian civilian killed with the American weapon?MR MILLER: So we have been working incredibly hard – it has been the focus of most of this briefing – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that would stop the fighting in Gaza and would alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, those who have died as a result of the conflict and also those who are suffering as a result of lack of humanitarian aid or inability to access humanitarian aid.Now, that’s the first step. We want to get an immediate ceasefire and then we do want to see it turn into something more durable. We’re going to try to work to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible. That said – and I know I’ve – hammer on this – have hammered on this in the past and the Secretary hammers it on the past – has hammered it in the past – Hamas could achieve an immediate ceasefire right now. Hamas, the entity that started this conflict by murdering civilians – innocent civilians – could lay down their arms, could surrender and stop putting the Palestinian people in harm’s way.So it – when people ask questions about Israel that are legitimate questions, and when they ask questions about us that are legitimate questions, I hope people will also realize that Hamas plays – played the instigator role in beginning this conflict and could end it today if they wanted to.QUESTION: But it’s not permanent. It’s temporary.MR MILLER: We are – as I – I just spoke to that in my answer.QUESTION: Yes. Excuse me, I want a question.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: That IDF already requested the people in Rafah to evacuate. I wonder if the evacuation for Palestinian in Rafah across the Egyptian border is being considered.MR MILLER: So Egypt has made quite clear that they do not want to see the displacement of the Palestinian people. It’s not just Egypt. We have heard that from virtually every country in the region: that they do not want to see Palestinians displaced because of the very unfortunate history in that regard. And we have made clear to the Israeli Government that Palestinian – the Palestinian people shouldn’t be replaced – or displaced.Now, one of the major risks of a full-scale Rafah operation is that it would destabilize that border between Gaza and Egypt and would lead to that sort of displacement, which would destabilize the Sinai Peninsula, of course. It’s another reason why we believe such an operation is a bad idea in the first place.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you very much. U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Sunday that the United States will have to send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine is defeated in conflict with Russia. Any chances that is a real option for &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment on statements made by members of Congress. The President has made clear that he will not send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine.QUESTION: Okay. And one more question. Can you explain why is it okay for the United States to have a law on foreign agents and it’s not okay for Georgia, Russia to have one?MR MILLER: So the difference is in the nature of those laws. When you see the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act, it is to people who are acting on behalf of a foreign government, not people who are doing legitimate nongovernment organization work, who are doing humanitarian work, who are doing civil society work. It’s a very different type of thing. I’ve seen those false equivalencies drawn in the past. And when you look at the text of the proposal in Georgia and the text of the proposal that has been passed due to Kremlin influence in other countries, they are very different than the type of law that we have on the books here in the United States.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Question is regarding the ministers’ priorities on the normalization talks regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan mentioned, insisted, in an interview that the administration will enter in any defense pact with Saudi Arabia if only they normalize ties with Israel. So question is: Is it diplomacy of United States for integration of Israel in the Middle East or it’s another defense pact by the United States to counter Iranian-backed movements in future from the Middle East?MR MILLER: I’m not sure I completely understand the question. But I will say I don’t want to get too much into the details of our negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the ongoing discussions, but that we continue to work to finalize both the bilateral pieces of such an agreement as well as what the pathway to an independent Palestinian state would look like.QUESTION: Secondly, Canadian authorities arrested three individuals linked with the killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The United States have many findings on the connections of Indian foreign operations at U.S. soil, as Wall Street Journal reported last week regarding the connection of Indian Government with some targets here in the United States. So with this recent development, what do United States have more to take up with the Indian administration?MR MILLER: So I would refer you to the Canadian authorities to speak to the details of the investigation there. With respect to the indictment that was returned in the United States, I’ll let the Department of Justice speak on behalf of that in detail. And then the only thing further I’d say: When it comes to the State Department, we made clear when these allegations were first made public that it’s something we think India should take very seriously and investigate. They opened a Committee of Enquiry to look into the matter, and that work is ongoing, and we’ll wait to see the results. But we made very clear that it’s something that we take seriously and we think it’s something they should take seriously as well. Hudson.QUESTION: Matt, apologies for not asking in the Israel section, but I have nosebleed seats today so I didn’t get it. But &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just – I’m just happy to see you here in the briefing.QUESTION: Great to be here. In response to the Axios report that the U.S. is withholding an ammunition shipment to Israel, the Biden administration has told several reporters around town that the U.S. has surged weapons into Israel since October 7th. I’m kind of curious about this response because for much of the conflict, the administration has downplayed reports about the near-constant approval and shipment of arms to Israel. I’m just wondering if you could clarify, what’s the case? Has the U.S. been surging weapons to Israel since October 7th or not?MR MILLER: So we have provided weapons to Israel since October 7th. We have always made clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense. That commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad, and that includes providing security assistance to Israel since October 7th to ensure that the attacks of October 7th can never be repeated.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Kylie, and then I’ll come to Humeyra.QUESTION: Can you just provide us an update on the NSM-20 report and if it’ll go to Congress on time, when it’s due on Wednesday?MR MILLER: The only update I have is that we continue to work on it, and we’ll have more to say about it later in the week.QUESTION: You can’t say that it’s on track to be delivered on time?MR MILLER: It’s on track. We’re working on it. I just don’t have any updates. It is our intention to provide it on time, and we’ll have more updates as we get closer to the deadline.QUESTION: And just two quick questions on it. I know you don’t want to get into it, but I still have two questions. There are concerns among lawmakers that the Political-Military Bureau in this building is leading the drafting of the report, and I wonder how you respond to that.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the internal mechanisms that we go through to develop such a report, but I will say that a broad spectrum of the department will contribute to this report. People will have a chance to make their views known. People will have a chance to offer their assessments of what they’ve seen. It’s important that different bureaus inside the department which bring different skills to bear and different points of view and different capabilities have the chance to review both of the section – both of the tasks that we were given in the report, both when it comes to compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and we expect all of them to speak candidly about what they’ve seen and make their recommendations and make their honest assessments, and we’ll deliver a report that reflects that.QUESTION: And one more question. The memorandum requires all recipients of U.S. weaponry, including Israel, to make assurances that they’re using those weapons, quote, “in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Will U.S. officials at the department be probing those assurances that they get from Israeli officials if there’s reason to believe that they aren’t credible assurances?MR MILLER: So we are taking very seriously the task that we were giving – that was given to us in this national security memorandum, and it pertains not just with respect to Israel but with other countries as well that receive U.S.-provided security assistance. So the initial step was to get assurances from those seven countries that they were complying with international humanitarian law and that they were not impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We’ve received those assurances I think probably 43 days ago, somewhere around that, and now we are going through and looking at compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I don’t want to get into – too much in detail because we are close to when a report will be delivered and I should wait and let the report speak for itself, but it is – I can tell you it is something that we take incredibly seriously and there is a lot of work going on at the department to make sure we fulfill that obligation and we fulfill it thoroughly.QUESTION: So you’re not taking those assurances on face value?MR MILLER: I – let me just let the report speak for itself when it comes out, but it is something that we are absolutely taking seriously, and we are looking at a whole host of activities and actions when it comes to any one of the governments – the relevant governments in this case, and we’ll be making our own assessments not just based on what those governments have told us but based on what we have seen in our review here at the State Department.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Just one thing on that, actually, Matt. So when the report is produced, we have reported that there are people – there are some U.S. officials at the State Department who have raised serious concerns about Israel’s possible noncompliance with international humanitarian law, and what they say is its arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian aid. So when you produce that report, you’re basically weighing in on whether the assurances are credible or not. Is there going to be a section where you address those countering, let’s say, opinions from different bureaus, or is it just going to be we found that credible or not?MR MILLER: You – this is going to be a very unsatisfying answer, but you are just going to have to wait until &#8212;QUESTION: I’m used to that.MR MILLER: Yeah, sorry about that – until the report is complete. But I will say that one of the strengths of this department is that we have people with a rich diversity of experiences, a rich diversity of expertise, and a rich diversity of views, and the Secretary takes all of those seriously. He takes all of their points of view seriously, and the entire senior leadership of the department looks at the entire landscape when compiling – when going through an exercise and compiling a report like the one we are doing here.QUESTION: Right. But really, from a format point of view, it’s just going to have, like, one assessment?MR MILLER: I know, and I’m just – that I’m not – and that I’m just not going to speak to today.QUESTION: Okay. And will there be a – because you said – in your answer to Kylie you said we collect recommendations. Can you confirm there is going to be a recommendation one way or the other from the legal department?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to the internal mechanisms of a report that is still being compiled.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Said, and then Shaun, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly, but on breaking international law and so on, is the threatening of the ICC by Israel or even by members of Congress itself a violation of international law, the threat itself?MR MILLER: I am not enough of an expert in international humanitarian law to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. But this department &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear that we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction in this case and oppose their investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. I’m just saying the threatening of the ICC by Israel.MR MILLER: I see. You should take it up with an international humanitarian lawyer.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. On two things – two different topics. Rwanda – the Rwandan Government didn’t really like a statement that you issued last week saying that the Rwandan Defence Forces were involved in the attack near Goma on the east of the DRC, saying that the statement’s ridiculous and that the Rwandan forces weren’t involved in that. Do you stand by that? Has there been any communication with Rwanda?MR MILLER: We absolutely do. The attack in question came from the Rwandan Defence Forces and M23 positions on the Mugunga IDP camp. The Government of Rwanda must investigate this heinous act and hold all of those responsible accountable, and we have made that clear to them.QUESTION: Has there been any communication directly with the Rwandans themselves?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to diplomatic conversations, but we have made quite clear what we think about this act and the fact it ought to be investigated.QUESTION: Great. And then a completely different topic, Mexico. The three surfers who were killed, one of them an American – I don’t know if you – do you have any lines, any communications with the U.S. on that?MR MILLER: Yeah. So we can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen, Carter Rhoad, near Ensenada, Mexico, and are closely monitoring the situation. We offer our sincere condolences to the family on their loss. We are coordinating with local law enforcement on their investigation into the matter, and out of respect for the privacy of the family, we will decline to comment further at this time.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Canada																								China																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Rwanda																								Saudi Arabia																								Ukraine
- Digital Press Briefing on U.S. Environmental Efforts on the African Continent Jennifer R. Littlejohn, Acting Assistant SecretaryBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsDownload or listen to the audio here .MODERATOR:  Good afternoon to everyone from the U.S. Department of State’s Africa Regional Media Hub.  I welcome our participants logging in from across the continent and thank all of you for joining this discussion on the topic of U.S. environmental efforts on the African continent.  Today, we are very pleased to be joined by the U.S. Department of State’s Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, J.R. Littlejohn, who is visiting Ghana and traveling on to the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi.  Acting Assistant Secretary Littlejohn will discuss how the United States is working with partners across the continent to address key environmental issues like air quality, deforestation, nature crimes, plastic pollution, and promoting a sustainable blue economy.  She will also discuss the United States’ work to build partnerships on science and space exploration with countries in Africa, as well as U.S. efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.We will begin today’s briefing with opening remarks from Acting Assistant Secretary Littlejohn and then we will take your questions.  We will try to get to as many of them as we can during the briefing.As a reminder, today’s call is on the record.  And with that, I will turn it over to Acting Assistant Secretary Littlejohn for her opening remarks.ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY LITTLEJOHN:  Thank you so much, and good morning, everyone.I’m actually thrilled to connect with you from Accra, Ghana, and to share the tremendous progress we’re making together on environmental and scientific cooperation across Africa.I’d say the main message I want to share with you today is that the United States is partnering with Ghana and countries across Africa to address the major challenges of our time – this includes addressing the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis, and the pollution crisis.  We are working together to protect the ocean and the environment – for the benefit of all people all over the world.Now, let me start I think best with a few observations from my time here in Ghana.Yesterday, I visited a major harbor and spoke with community members about efforts to protect the fisheries industry that supports their livelihoods and provides a vital source of food.  Unfortunately, like in many places around the world, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing is threatening the sustainability of fisheries there – and I’d say we’re proud to be working with Ghana on efforts to combat IUU fishing, as well as the crimes often associated with it.Today, I will meet with partners in the Ghanaian Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation and the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development.  I will also speak to students at the University of Ghana, where we have supported important work that monitors air quality.Ghana is a great example of environmental ambition, and I’d like to take a moment to talk about several of the environmental projects we are working on here in Ghana.Ghana&#8217;s commitment to forest conservation is translating into tangible outcomes, with initiatives like the LEAF Coalition and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, a coalition of 32 governments working to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.  Under LEAF, the Emissions Reduction Payment Agreement will make up 50 – or up to 50 million available for Ghana&#8217;s efforts to protect forests and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Ghana also has shown strong leadership as co-chair with the United States of the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership, a global coalition working to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030 while delivering sustainable development and inclusive rural transformation.  The United States was a key partner on the “Resilient Ghana” country package announced at COP28 to help support Ghana’s forest and climate goals.The U.S. Agency for International Development is supporting access to clean energy in Ghana through initiatives like supporting smallholder farmers to install solar-powered irrigation.  In addition, USAID provided technical assistance to the Bui Power hydro-solar plant.  The plant, the first of its kind in West Africa, will put Ghana on track to cut its power sector greenhouse gas emissions by 235,000 tons per year.These are groundbreaking moves.Since 2018, we have worked with Ghana to address the health risks created by mercury use in artisanal small-scale gold mining.  Similar projects are in motion in Mali, the DRC, Guinea, Senegal, and Burkina Faso – a collaborative effort that’s evolving and adapting.Journalists like you play a key role in exposing crimes like illegal logging and wildlife trade.  Last year, we inaugurated a program to train journalists in Ghana on how to report on nature crimes, and I am grateful to the 21 Ghanaian journalists who graduated from this program last December – oops, nope: September, if I’m corrected.  Right?I mentioned earlier my visit later today to the University of Ghana.  Since 2018, we’ve worked with experts at the university on projects related to air quality.  And just last month, they teamed up with colleagues at Columbia University to train 100 scientists, engineers, and policy makers from across West Africa on best practices for air quality management.  This is what it looks like to empower experts across a region to tackle air pollution.And of course, other countries across Africa are taking similar steps to protect nature and the health and livelihoods of all the people who depend on it.  I’m looking forward to discussions on a breadth of environmental topics of importance to the African continent in Nairobi, where I am headed next to lead the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Environmental Assembly.  Air quality will be a key focus for the United States at UNEA.  At that meeting, we will advocate for increased regional cooperation on air pollution.  Because, as we all know, air pollution doesn&#8217;t stop at international borders, so supporting collaboration across national borders is key to solving this problem.Now, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or IUU fishing for short, is another challenge we’re actively working on with partners across the continent.  This is a critical issue in Africa, and the United States recognizes regions in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean coasts of Africa as priority regions in the fight against IUU fishing activity.  In too many places, large foreign fishing fleets and some local bad actors are bringing in catches well above sustainable limits and are endangering the health of essential fish stocks and the livelihoods of those who rely on those stocks.  Through cooperative enforcement, information sharing, and working to implement the global Port State Measures Agreement, we have powerful tools to keep IUU-caught fish out of ports and markets, but more work, again, remains to be done.In partnership with our Department of Defense colleagues, last year 18 nations participated in the Obangame Express exercise to combat IUU fishing.  USAID is providing $17.8 million over five years to reduce fishing overcapacity and improve fisheries management in West Africa.  Now, it does so by working in small fishing villages and fish landing sites along the coasts.More broadly, we are also working with African countries through the new Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation that launched last fall.  The partnership is a platform for Atlantic coastal states to address common challenges and promote healthy, sustainable, and resilient Atlantic resources for generations to come.  It currently has 38 Atlantic member states.  Sixteen of those members are African countries, including Ghana.Next, I think I’d like to talk a little bit, if you’ll allow, about space.  Nigeria, Rwanda, Angola are all among the 35 countries around the world that have signed on to the Artemis Accords, committing to make the space environment safer and more predictable.  As African countries develop their space policy and capabilities, we also strongly encourage them to consider joining the Outer Space Treaty – the basis for international space law and for the Artemis Accords.Space exploration isn’t just for a select group of players; from our perspective, it’s for everyone willing to play fair.  And every country in the world, whether or not they have a space program, can reap benefits from space exploration and activity.  We already collaborate with African nations on multiple space-related issues like earth observation, helping to provide data to support decision making on forest conservation and water management.Now, back on Earth, we must make sure that all people – men and women, Indigenous people, and other marginalized communities – have a voice in our discussions and solutions.  These are the ones who have often felt the brunt of climate change and environmental degradation.  This means that the need to make sure that women have the same opportunities as their brothers to work in STEM fields – that is science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.  In the United States and around the world, barriers have made this difficult.  The only way to address the challenges of our time is through scientific discovery and innovation.  We want the best and the brightest working on these solutions, and that includes – it must include – women.OES is helping to build connections through our Embassy Science Fellows program to bring government scientists to serve at our overseas embassies.  Just in the past eight years, the State Department has built partnerships for 18 government scientists to work across West Africa, including two in Ghana.  As one example of this program, the State Department brought a U.S. expert on biotechnology to Accra to connect with Ghanaian companies on mentorship for young women on research in agricultural sciences.Now, as you can see, we have made a lot of progress by working collaboratively.  We are already making a difference, but we have, as I said earlier, so much work to do.  The United States will continue to be a steadfast partner to countries across Africa on environmental and scientific issues.  And of course, as President Biden said at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, “the United States is all in on Africa and all in with Africa.”I want to thank you, and I’m eagerly awaiting your questions.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Acting Assistant Secretary Littlejohn.  We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  Our first question, since you raised IUU fishing:  “What is the – what is driving the growth of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, and what are the consequences for biodiversity and for people?  What can we do about this problem?”  ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY LITTLEJOHN:  Thank you.  That’s a really, really good question.  I think the way I’d answer that is by stating something that we all know, and that’s that global demand for seafood, as it continues to grow, there are more and bigger fishing vessels than ever before working to feed this market.  And as a result of that, we now see increased pressure on the fish stocks from fleets that fish around the world both on the high seas and in areas under national jurisdiction.  And of course, we know that the lucrative but competitive global fisheries market also spurs vessels to try to avoid the operational costs associated with sustainable fisheries management by engaging again in IUU fishing.  So fisheries subsidies can lead in many instances to overcapacity, overfishing, and artificially reduced prices.  And subsidies, I would say, and forced labor practices, perhaps, reduce the cost of fishing, making it cheaper for boats to be out on the water through support for operational or capital costs.  That’s how I would kind of frame the initial part of what’s driving this.Now, in terms of the consequences, I think we’ve all seen them and experienced them in some level.  Maybe I’d say that the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity Ecosystem Services – it’s a mouthful, but it’s important – this report on global biodiversity concluded that fishing has had the greatest impact on marine biodiversity in the past 50 years, which is exacerbated by IUU fishing.  So IUU fishing can result in overfishing, which damages ocean biodiversity, and additionally, the use of prohibited gear can result in bycatch of non-target species, causing yet even greater harm to biodiversity.So IUU fishing may also degrade, I would say, marine ecosystems such as corals and sea mounds with negative consequences for the marine species that depend on these habitats.  So we can see from that a range of challenges that emerge.  And in terms of – I think you – if I heard the question correctly, you asked in addition to the consequences.  I would also flag one other thing, or two, perhaps – because, again, I mentioned that the consequences are quite vast.  IUU fishing costs the world about tens of billions of dollars each year, and according to a recent report that I have reviewed from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, IUU fishing may in fact represent up to 26 million tons of fish caught annually.  And in the United States alone, that could translate into seafood imports worth as much as two and a half billion a year, or – if we translated that – nearly 11 percent of the U.S. market derived from IUU fishing, according to a U.S. International Trade Commission report.  Now, as both a major harvester and a top market for fishing products, the United States has, I would say, long emphasized working with other countries to improve fisheries governance and enforcement to prevent IUU-sourced fish and fish products from entering our markets, and I know that that is the same for markets around the globe.  So that gets at, I think, the consequences.  If we talk about consequences, then I suspect that it’s really important that we also talk about some of the tools that are associated with that.  At least I’d like to flag a few that we’re noticing that we are using to combat this around the world.So speaking from the U.S. perspective, the United States is a leader in promoting sustainable fisheries internationally through effective, science-based fisheries management and cooperative tools to combat IUU fishing, including strong monitoring, control, and surveillance measures.  Now, the United States promotes the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement, a groundbreaking treaty designed to ensure catches from IUU fishing vessels cannot be offloaded in ports and then, of course, enter the global market.  Now, one other thing we did is we also helped launch, through the FAO, the Global Record of Fishing Vessels – it’s Refrigerated Transport Vessels and Supply Vessels.  This innovative, publicly accessible record of the world’s fishing vessels increases transparency in international fisheries and enhances the ability of countries and markets to verify fishing’s identity.  I suppose for that I’ll stop and I – and there may be additional questions, but I did want to give you a sense of the breadth and depth of the tools that we have at our disposal, the consequences of not acting, and, of course, a little bit about what it is.  MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question is from Ms. Sarah Mawerere of the Uganda Broadcasting Corporation, in Uganda.  Her question is:  “Kaveera – or polythene bags – control has become a nightmare in Uganda.  What is your take on this?”ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY LITTLEJOHN:  So plastic pollution is just a scourge on society, period.  And we applaud Uganda for its work to combat plastic pollution, and I believe it’s been since 2009, if I recall correctly, and we also recognize that it takes time to create the momentum among a range of stakeholders from really private sector, civil society, and subnational governments for successful implementation of those actions.  So we would want to work with Uganda and other countries to end plastic pollution, which will require action throughout the lifecycle of plastic, from upstream to downstream.  And of course, this is why we’re advocating for a new global agreement on plastic pollution that would encourage and support local and national efforts like Uganda’s to reduce plastic bags entering into the environment.  MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question comes from Mr. Emmanuel Igunza of the Associated Press/Freelance, in Kenya.  He asks:  “How can the U.S. lead global commitments for climate financing for the least polluters, but who are really bearing brunt of the climate crisis?”ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY LITTLEJOHN:  Okay.  So this is what I think is an excellent question.  I’ll start there.  And I would say on this, Kenya is one of the United States’ strongest partners in Africa, and we appreciate that Kenya has joined on to the multilateral climate initiatives like, I would say, the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate – AIM4C – and the global pathways to net zero.  We know that Kenya is already experiencing, like others, firsthand the impact of climate change and is dealing with significant food security challenges brought on by severe drought, in the larger, I’d say, Horn of Africa region – across the region.  And so from the U.S. perspective, we have committed $2 billion in humanitarian assistance to respond to the drought in the Horn of Africa.  This would include about $356 million, if I have my numbers correct, specifically for Kenya in the past year.  We also allocated $45 million, including $20 million in supplemental funding, and this was funding development assistance to help Kenya address the current food security crisis in I believe it was Fiscal Year 2022.  I’d have to double-check, but I believe that’s correct. MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’re going to take a question from the Q&amp;A next, also from Sarah Mawerere of the Uganda Broadcasting Corporation, in Uganda.  She asks:  “Ugandans are breathing badly due to air pollution, which causes respiratory diseases.  How would you advise Uganda as a country?” ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY LITTLEJOHN:  First I’d say that that is a very accurate and a very timely question.  Air pollution more broadly is the fourth leading cause of premature death worldwide, and it’s responsible for nearly 7 million premature deaths, about $5 trillion in economic welfare losses, and $200 billion in productivity losses each year.  And I’d also add that transboundary air pollution cannot be addressed without international cooperation and policy coordination.  We are looking for – at least on the U.S. side, we’re looking for opportunities to get countries talking to each other about air pollution.  And frankly, every time I have a conversation with colleagues, they share our view on this.  It is a critical issue, and one of the critical issues of our time.  And one of the things that we’ve done about this is the United States has proposed an air quality resolution for UNEA-6 and submitted the zero draft on I believe it was December 18th.  And our goal is to elevate the need to address air pollution due to the risks to human health and the environment and leverage the expertise in existing regional bodies that take a regional cooperation approach to addressing air pollution.So that’s what I would say on that, and I hope that’s helpful.  MODERATOR:  Thanks for that.  We have time for one last question.  The last question goes to Mr. Pedro Alonso of the Spanish News Agency EFE, in Kenya.  He asks:  “What will the U.S. advocate for in the United Nations Environment Assembly 6?”ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY LITTLEJOHN:  Well, again, a wonderful question because it allows me to emphasize what I think is a key point.  Just as I had mentioned in the last comment, air quality is going to be one of the primary objectives.  Again, we know air pollution is the leading environmental risk to human health, as I mentioned, and that is why we’re introducing a resolution on air quality.  This resolution, again, aims to leverage expertise in existing regional cooperation bodies for addressing air pollution, and build on UNEA resolutions 1/7 and 3/8.  And the goal is to re-energize the intention of these prior resolutions and to provide a platform to operationalize and drive multi-stakeholder actions that target the causes of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.  So those – that’s one of the key overarching objectives.  And frankly, another area that we will focus on will be nature crimes.  And we’ll be launching something called the Nature Crime Alliance at UNEA, which I think will be something that we hope that you all will follow quite closely going forward.  I’m told my time is wrapping up, and so I will stop there. MODERATOR:  Great, thank you.  Acting Assistant Secretary J.R. Littlejohn, do you have any final words before we close?  ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY LITTLEJOHN:  I just want to thank everyone for joining this call.  These are critical issues.  And I mentioned sort of the triple threat of the crises of biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change, and it is so important that these stories are told – that the narratives get out there with accuracy, based on the science.  And we need you to help do that.  And so I thank you very much for joining this call.  I thank you for asking really, really sharp questions, and I look forward to hearing or reading your stories.  MODERATOR:  Thank you.  That concludes today’s briefing.  I want to thank the U.S. Department of State’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, J.R. Littlejohn, for joining us today.  Thank you to all the journalists for participating.  A recording and transcript of today’s briefing will be distributed to participating journalists as soon as we can produce them.  If you have any questions about today’s briefing, you may contact the Africa Regional Media Hub at AFMediaHub@state.gov.  I would also like to invite everyone to follow us on Twitter at our handle @AfricaMediaHub.  Thank you.# # #
- Online Briefing with Molly Phee, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; Michael Hammer, Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa; and John Godfrey, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Sudan Johannesburg HubDownload or listen to the audio file here .MODERATOR:  Good afternoon to everyone from the U.S. Department of State’s Africa Regional Media Hub.  I welcome our participants logging in from across the continent and thank all of you for joining this discussion on the topic of U.S. efforts with African partners to advance peace and security.  Today, we are very pleased to be joined by the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee; Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Michael Hammer; and U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Sudan John Godfrey.  Our three speakers will discuss the recent African Union Summit in Addis Ababa and U.S. efforts in partnership with African institutions to promote peace and stability in eastern DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan.We will begin today’s briefing with opening remarks from our speakers and we will then turn to your questions.  We will try to get to as many of your questions as we can during the briefing.With that, I will turn it over to Assistant Secretary Molly Phee, Ambassador Godfrey, and Ambassador Hammer for their opening remarks.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Hello, everyone.  Thanks to our hub team for pulling this together and to those journalists who can join us for this call.  We have a lot to cover today given that we did a lot during our travel last week to the African Union Summit in Addis as well as to Somalia.  I was joined by the U.S. Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Mike Hammer and my USAID counterpart, Assistant Administrator Dr. Monde Muyangwa.  And of course I was able to see and work with our great team on the ground in Addis, which includes Ambassador Erv Massinga, our ambassador to the – to Ethiopia; Ambassador John Godfrey, who is our ambassador to Sudan; and our chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Mission to the African Union, Mika Cleverly.If you follow me on X, or formerly Twitter, you will have seen we had a very active week of diplomacy with our African partners, and so today we thought it would be useful to share more details with you as well as answer any questions.  You know we value your work as journalists, even when you’re critical, and we firmly stand for freedom of the press on the continent and around the globe.Let me begin with our visit to Addis, which reflects our strong partnership with African institutions and countries.  You have heard Secretary Blinken frequently emphasize in his speech announcing the U.S. strategy towards Africa and highlighted at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit that President Biden hosted in December 2022 that the United States is deeply committed to strengthening genuine partnerships on the continent to work to solve shared challenges and to deliver on the promises and the fundamental aspirations of the people of Africa and the people of the United States.This past week, the primary focus of our efforts were the ongoing crises in eastern DRC and Sudan as well as tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia resulting from the January 1st Ethiopia-Somaliland MOU.  We also held important discussions about the nature and scope of a follow-on mission to the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia, known as ATMIS, and bilaterally we had a chance to meet with many members of the Ethiopian Government as part of our work to advance peace, human rights, and stability in Ethiopia.First, let me share some of our efforts on eastern DRC as we try to de-escalate the conflict between the DRC and Rwanda.  I had the opportunity to meet with President Tshisekedi, President Lourenço, and President Ruto, and President Hichilema in an effort to defuse the situation.  As many of you know, we’ve been actively engaged to prevent conflict between DRC and Rwanda for months.  This effort intensified last November with the visit of the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, and when she went to Kinshasa and to Kigali, and as you know, I and a few other team members were on that trip.As a result of that engagement, there have been intense, regular conversations between senior U.S. Government officials and the senior officials of the governments in Kigali and Kinshasa, including President Tshisekedi and President Kagame.  Our goal is to keep all the stakeholders engaged.  And I also want to remind folks that Secretary Blinken had a chance to talk with President Lourenço in person about this matter when he traveled to Luanda in January.Throughout this recent time period, we have been directly engaged with both governments as well as regional partners to develop and enact mutually agreed upon confidence-building measures that could de-escalate the situation and create room for the Luanda and Nairobi processes to resume.  Our engagement is designed to support these regional diplomatic efforts, especially the Luanda and Nairobi processes, as they are designed themselves to promote de-escalation and create the conditions for lasting peace in the DRC.It was agreed that our role would be to assess and be clear if either side is not honoring the confidence-building measures and commitments that were forged in our discussions.  Keeping the stakeholders engaged and responsive in this process is our goal.  As you know, we’re quite concerned about recent events, and you may have seen the statement that was issued last Saturday.On the other hand, we were also really delighted to see the serious engagement of regional leaders, and we stand ready to support their efforts to resolve this conflict.  And again, we call on all sides to participate constructively in reaching a negotiated solution.During the past week, I also visited Mogadishu with Ambassador Hammer.  That trip was planned as a follow-on to discussions that were organized at our request at the African Union in Addis on February 14th – I’m sorry, February 13th – with the Core Security Partners Group to maintain momentum to counter al-Shabaab after the ATMIS mission concludes at the end of this year.  As dedicated partners of Somalia, we are fully committed to strengthening the Somalia National Army and supporting their counterterrorism efforts, as you saw with the announcement of U.S. funding support for an additional five bases for the Danab Somali Brigade.  It is also important that an appropriately scoped multinational presence remains in Somalia to help maintain stability until Somalia security forces can fully take over.And in our meeting with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, as we did in our meeting with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in Addis, we urged a de-escalation of tensions based on respect for Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – the same words you heard AU Chairperson Moussa Faki stress in his opening address at the summit.The issue of Ethiopia’s desire for increased commercial port access – a valid concern – should be resolved through talks with the federal Government of Somalia and neighboring states, or possibly as part of a regional approach that is based on cooperation and regional economic and security integration.The issue of Somaliland’s status should be resolved by the people of Somalia, including the people of Somaliland, not by external actors.  The region can ill afford more conflict.I also had a chance to discuss important efforts towards constitutional reform with the president and separately with the speaker of the parliament and several other MPs.And as I close my remarks at the top on Somalia, I’d like to express my admiration for the team on the ground – the State Department, USAID, and other interagency partners – for their stellar service in a very difficult environment.  And we also greatly appreciate the role of the U.S. military who are also deployed in Somalia.So I’m going to close off here and turn it over to John Godfrey to review our engagements with Sudan, as we remain deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation and the continued fighting that is threatening to break up the country.  I spent a lot of time in Addis this past week with pro-democracy Sudanese civilians – women, representatives of grassroots organizations, and emergency response rooms, which are groups of young Sudanese trying to get humanitarian assistance out.  I also met with members of the Taqaddum front and others, all who are working tirelessly to advocate for the Sudanese people and prepare for post-conflict governance.  I want to underscore upfront that the United States does not support military governance and will continue, as we have done for decades, to support the Sudanese people against military oppression and in their goal of charting a democratic future.After John talks about Sudan, Mike will brief on our bilateral meetings with Ethiopia, and then we’ll turn to your questions.  Thank you very much for your time and attention.  Over to you, John.AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Phee.  As Assistant Secretary Phee said, we are deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation and intensified fighting in Sudan, which threatens to divide the country and further destabilize the region.  And just for context, I wanted to highlight a UN OCHA report released last Saturday that estimated that there are more than 6.2 million Sudanese who have been internally displaced since the fighting began last April, and about 1.8 million further Sudanese who are refugees in neighboring countries, which makes this the largest displacement crisis anywhere in the world at the moment.  At the same time, acute food insecurity affects about 17.7 million Sudanese, 5 to 6 million of whom may face acute starvation as early as May.During her time here in Addis last week, Assistant Secretary Phee held an intensive series of meetings on Sudan, as she mentioned, and her meetings focused on three sets of issues: one, the urgent need to stop the fighting; two, facilitating humanitarian access, which is badly needed; and three, supporting Sudan’s civilians, who must determine the country’s post-conflict future.As Assistant Secretary Phee said at the top, she met with women civil society representatives, leaders of grassroots organizations, and resistance committee members, representatives of the emergency response rooms, and members of the Taqaddum pro-democracy front.  Her discussions with Sudanese civilians focused on increasing women’s participation in a political process and in post-conflict governance, on expanding international actors’ engagement with local actors providing humanitarian assistance – and that includes the ERRs that were mentioned – and further diversifying Taqaddum to be more broadly representative and able to speak with a unified voice to articulate civilians’ concerns and put pressure on the two warring parties.Throughout, she made it clear that the United States has long stood with the Sudanese people – that is, the Sudanese civilians – and that neither SAF nor RSF should play a role in post-conflict governance, and that ending the Sudan conflict and restoring civilian governance are high U.S. priorities.  In her many meetings with key stakeholders on multilateral efforts, Assistant Secretary Phee discussed the need for resumed ceasefire talks and coordination of regional initiatives; the urgent need to facilitate humanitarian assistance, which is becoming more urgent by the day, and that includes cross-border assistance from Chad and South Sudan ahead of the impending rainy season, which will make roads impassable; pressing for Sudan-related action in the UN Security Council; and insisting the belligerent parties fulfill their obligations under international humanitarian law as well as meet their commitments to facilitate humanitarian assistance and protect civilians as they agreed to do under the Jeddah Declaration, which neither have done.Thank you.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Thank you, John.  This is Mike Hammer.  Good afternoon, good morning, depending on where you are.  Regarding the meetings that we had with Assistant Secretary Phee and our Ambassador to Ethiopia Erv Massinga, I’d like to highlight those meetings that we had with Prime Minister Abiy, Foreign Minister Taye, Finance Minister Shide, civil society representatives, as well as the Interim Regional Administration President Getachew Reda of Tigray, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Director Daniel Bekele.  And in all those meetings, we expressed U.S. support for the full implementation of the Pretoria Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, which is known as COHA, as well as our willingness to facilitate dialogue with the Oromo Liberation Army and participate in possible talks with the Amhara Fano aimed at finding a peaceful resolution to ongoing violence, as there is no military solution.  We appreciate that the Government of Ethiopia has expressed its openness to dialogue.We also raised our rising concerns about the human rights situations in Amhara and Oromia and urged that the government ensure the protection of civilians and hold to account perpetrators of abuses.  While work remains, we acknowledge progress on transitional justice and advancing a national dialogue that is inclusive and credible.  Both are key to overcoming past grievances and setting Ethiopia on a better trajectory.Specifically to advance the COHA, Ambassador Molly Phee, of course Ambassador Massinga and I, participated in a meeting February 17th hosted by the National Reconciliation Committee headed by Ambassador Teshome with key donors in support of disarmament, demobilization, and the reintegration program in Tigray that is essential to advancing a lasting peace.  The United States stands ready to disburse $15 million to support DDR activities, and we came away heartened by the considerable financial commitments made by international partners to enable the launch of the program soon.  And today I’m actually calling in from Mekelle, the capital of the Tigray region, where I’m following up with the IRA leadership and had a chance to meet with civil society organizations that our USAID is supporting, which provide assistance to survivors of gender-based violence from the horrific two-year war.I was also briefed by the African Union’s Monitoring, Verification and Compliance Mission.  And while there has been a dramatic decrease in human rights violations since the end of the war brought on by the Pretoria Agreement in November of 2022, we remain concerned by the lingering presence of Eritrean troops on Ethiopian territory.  It is also urgent that internally displaced people who have suffered so much be able to return to their homes.Allow me to make a final point.  We know from experience that following agreements to end hostilities, the really hard work is implementation.  That is what we are doing now.  Much remains to be done, but we are encouraged that 15 months after Pretoria, both the federal government in Addis and the Tigrayan Interim Regional Administration remain committed to peace.Now I believe the assistant secretary, John, and I are ready to take your questions.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Phee, Ambassador Godfrey, and Ambassador Hammer.  We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  For those of you who are listening in in Arabic and French, I believe we have had a technical problem with the Arabic interpretation, and I apologize for that.  You are nevertheless welcome to submit questions in the Q&amp;A tab in either French or Arabic, and we will address your questions at the very least, and we’re working on the interpretation issue.As for all journalists, please – if you would like to ask a question live, please indicate that by clicking on the raise hand button, and then also please make sure that we can see your name, your media outlet, your location, and preferably your question also in the Q&amp;A tab.  I just want you to understand that, from our side, we only see your Zoom logon, and we quite possibly might only see a telephone number.  So if we cannot tell who you are or what outlet you’re from, we will not call on you.So for all questions, we’d ask you that – ask that you limit yourself to one question only.  And again, the topic of today’s briefing is: U.S. Efforts with African Partners to Advance Peace and Security.So for our first question, I’d like to go to Mr. Steve Wembi of Infos Direct, Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The question is:  “The U.S.A. had called for a ceasefire in the armed conflict in the east of the country and asked the belligerents to resolve the conflict politically.  Unfortunately, this ceasefire was respected for only a few days, and today there is a full resumption of fighting.  What is your next approach to silence the weapons in the east?”Assistant Secretary Phee, if you would like to take that question.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Sure.  Thanks very much, Steve.  We remain committed to the idea and the principle that there is no military solution to the crisis in eastern DRC.  What I took away from our meetings in Addis about this discussion – and as you heard, we talked with the leadership of Angola and Kenya and Zambia, as well as President Tshisekedi.  We understand that everyone is ready to do their part to try and reduce tensions, reduce fighting, and provide relief to the people of eastern DRC who have suffered so much and for so long.  So again, we are trying to provide our unique resources and capabilities in monitoring actions in that part of the world to contribute towards confidence and legitimacy processes to resolve the tensions.So we’re committed, our partners are committed, the parties are committed to working with us, and we continue to work intensively to address the crisis.MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  So for our second question, I’d like to go to Mr. Alula Birhanie of the Addis Media Network in Ethiopia.  And the question is:  “How extensive are the political measures taken by the U.S.A. to stabilize the region?”  Ambassador Hammer, would you like to address that one?AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Well, maybe I could defer first to Molly as the broader region, and then maybe dive deeper into Ethiopia.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  I’m not really sure I understand the question, Johann.  What was it again?  What measures we’re taking &#8212;AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Yeah, I can &#8212;MODERATOR:  How – yeah.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  &#8212; take a first crack at it.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Okay.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  Basically what this call reflects is the tremendous American engagement at senior levels – from the White House to Secretary Blinken to the travels that the assistant secretary has just done – in our effort to work with our African partners, to – as the question asked – to actually stabilize the region.  I think that it goes without question that the United States is focused on trying to alleviate the suffering that we’ve seen throughout the Horn, and that we are prepared to remain very much engaged, not only to end the conflicts but also to help Africans in the Horn of Africa build a better future for themselves.And really, it is important that it be recognized that we don’t do this alone, and we do it with our African partners.  The visit to the African Union Summit was an opportunity for all of us to engage on these issues, to think together on how we can partner and how we can be most effective in trying to, again, bring peace and stability to the region.  But perhaps, again, the assistant secretary would like to add something further.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  No, thanks, Mike.  I think you’ve covered it, and I believe it should be clear from the number and type of meetings that we described how deeply we value our engagement with our African partners to support them as they strive to bring peace and prosperity for their populations.  And where there are those who engage in disruptive activities, we are there to counsel otherwise and to encourage getting back on the path to peace and prosperity.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you very much.  I’d just like to remind all the participants today:  If you do have a question, please type that into the Q&amp;A box, not the chat, okay?  And again, if you wish to ask a question, please make sure that you have identified yourself and we know what outlet you’re from.Okay.  So next question comes from Aidan Lewis, Reuters, in the UK:  “How concerned are you about foreign states deepening Sudan’s war by supporting the rival sides or fighting proxy conflicts there?  And to what extent are the warring factions in Sudan impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid?”So Ambassador Godfrey?AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Great, thank you, Johann.  To answer the question, I would say that we are deeply concerned by external support to SAF and RSF, and have since the beginning of the conflict urged external actors to refrain from providing materiel support to the two belligerent parties, which has two principle consequences: one, it prolongs the fighting, extends the war; it also reduces the prospects for finding a negotiated exit from the conflict.  And I would just note here that the recent UN panel of experts report highlighted violations of the Darfur arms embargo.  In addition, there is – there are reports about resumed ties between Sudan and Iran that could include, reportedly include Iranian materiel support to SAF, which is also very troubling and a source of great concern for us.On the issue of humanitarian assistance, I think this is a really timely question, and unfortunately the answer to the query is that neither side has taken the steps that they have repeatedly committed to to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.  So just to remind:  Under the Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Sudanese Civilians, both SAF and RSF signed on to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief.  And very candidly, that has not happened.In addition to that, there were a series of measures that they agreed to, confidence-building measures, in the second round of Jeddah talks, that included participation in a humanitarian forum under the auspices of UN OCHA, as well as specific steps to facilitate humanitarian assistance corridors and distribution of aid inside Khartoum itself.  Those have not been met either.And finally, there is the persistent issue of so-called bureaucratic impediments, which includes things like visas for humanitarian assistance workers, travel permits, and inspection of humanitarian cargoes.  Those remain persistent challenges for humanitarian actors.  And finally, I would highlight the confusing signals principally from the Sudanese Armed Forces about whether they would or would not facilitate cross-line assistance into areas under RSF control.The upshot of all of that is that humanitarian assistance since last April has not been able to flow in a rapid and unimpeded way that both sides have committed to, and that you now have a situation where 17.7 million Sudanese, approximately, are in a state of acute food insecurity, and 5 to 6 million of them may be in a situation of acute starvation as early as late May.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Ambassador Godfrey.  So I see a hand up and a submitted question from Sisay Sahlu.  Sisay, can we open your mic?  Please limit yourself to just one question, and keep it brief, if you don’t mind.QUESTION:  Can you hear me?MODERATOR:  Yes, we can hear you now.QUESTION:  Thank you.  My name is Sisay Sahlu; I’m a journalist in Ethiopia, media called The Reporter newspaper.  I would like to know just, Assistant Secretary of State Molly Phee, regarding the resolution of the conflict between the two largest groups in Oromia and Amhara region, regarding the fight and the death of numerous civilians, the fight with the federal troop.  My argument here is, like, I want to make clear that is, like, the U.S. officials are trying to solve the – see the issue, like, as it was seen in the northern Ethiopia?These are – the ongoing conflict in Oromia and Amhara is tough, and it has never been seen by U.S. officials.  Is there any sanction?  Is there anything that the U.S. officials are looking to impose or to try to solve that’s happening in Oromia and Amhara region, especially with the Fano groups and with the (inaudible) groups?  Is there any sanction list for authorities who are, like, unwilling to resolve the dispute?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Thank you, Sisay.  If you heard about the number of meetings we had in Ethiopia, we met with many members of the government as well as community and human rights activists, as well as Dr. Daniel Bekele.  So this has been a recurring theme in our discussions with our Ethiopian partners.  The prime minister says that he is committed to peaceful resolution of the challenges that Ethiopia is now facing in the Amhara and Oromia regions.  We encourage him to act on that commitment.We have expressed concern publicly and privately about the conduct of security services in responding to insurgent and criminal attacks.  We know that that’s a complicated security challenge, but more must be done to respect the rights of civilians.  And we remain postured through our ambassadors in the region to support the Ethiopian Government and other stakeholders as they try to restore calm to both regions.AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  If I may add – this is Mike Hammer – you may also recall that we were directly involved in a round of talks with the Oromo Liberation Army in Dar es Salaam last November, and remain ready, as we’ve offered to the government and the parties, to help facilitate a peaceful resolution to that conflict.  And we know that our Ambassador Massinga in Addis is also offered to the government, and if there’s an opportunity to engage with the Fano, we would welcome the opportunity to try to, again, advance peace.  And as we’ve said repeatedly, there is no military solution to these conflicts.  And in fact, the focus right now should be on dialogue and of course ensuring the protection of civilians.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  All right, thank you very much.  I’d like to invite Ange Kasongo, Reuters, in the DRC, to ask her question, which was posed in French.  Ange, you may pose your question in French or in English, as you like.  We do have interpretation.QUESTION:  (In French.)MODERATOR:  All right, thank you for the question.  Which of our panelists would like to address that?ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  You need to provide us with some guidance about where we can find the translation so we’re properly responding to the question.MODERATOR:  Ah.  Okay, apologies.  There is a translation tab, but I will – let me just read; we have a translation of it at any rate.  “So the efforts in Addis Ababa between Kigali and Kinshasa, under the auspices of Angola, have not succeeded in either a promise of dialogue or in a ceasefire.  Can you tell us a little bit about the blockage which has not permitted this conflict to arrive to a stage of dialogue?”ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Well, I can reaffirm the commitment of the United States to continue to press both sides, as well as to work energetically with regional countries to try and address the current spike in conflict that we’re seeing in eastern DRC.  We have – we would prefer to use the channel that we’ve established between the two parties in which we’ve agreed together with them on a series of confidence-building measures that would restore calm and create a space for dialogue.  And when the parties don’t agree to those measures, we – or don’t follow through on their promised implementation, we will call them out.This conflict, as you know better than I, has been long running for decades.  So it is not a surprise that we haven’t reached immediate resolution, but we have had some success over the past few months.  Again, I was encouraged by my engagement in Addis, where it was clear to me that the regional partners are committed to trying to take additional steps to de-escalate the situation.  And we will just continue to try, because the consequences for the people of eastern DRC and for the security and stability of the region are too costly not to remain actively engaged and pressing forward.I would like to highlight that yesterday the UN Security Council adopted additional sanctions measures against the M23, and we will continue to look at all tools available to us to encourage resolution of the tensions.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you very much.  Our time is running short.  I think we might have time for one more question.  There’s a question in the Q&amp;A from Galami Ahmat Galami of Tchad Media in N’Djamena.  And the question is translated:  “Thank you for this press conference.  The situation in Sudan has consequences for Chad, and it’s important to address those consequences.  The United States has proposed several solutions to stop the war, including diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions, and peacekeeping initiatives.  It’s a complex issue, but an international cooperation and dialogue are crucial for finding a resolution.  Is – what is the United States approach to resolving the conflict and the spillover effects into Chad.”ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  John, do you want to address that first?AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Yeah, sure, happy to do so.  Thank you for the question.  First of all, I’d like to start by thanking Chad for hosting such a large number of Sudanese refugees, including but not only from the Darfur region, who have been displaced by the fighting.  Chad has been a very good host for those refugees, and we know that that puts a burden on the country.  You’re right that we have adopted a series of different measures to try to bring an end to the fighting, facilitate humanitarian access, and ensure that in a post-conflict environment there is civilian governance with no role for either of the military parties in governance.We have called on SAF and RSF to fulfill the commitments they both made to IGAD at the extraordinary summit on December 9th to meet face to face at the level of General Burhan and General Hemedti.  We’ve also called for them to implement what they agreed to in principle there, which is an unconditional and – ceasefire, and an immediate one.  We have worked actively from the beginning of the conflict, as I mentioned earlier, to urge external actors to refrain from providing materiel assistance.  We were actively involved in two rounds of talks in Jeddah that were designed to achieve ceasefires and facilitate humanitarian assistance.  And in the first round of Jeddah, we were able to effect some short-term ceasefires that enabled the delivery of about – of humanitarian assistance to about two and a half million people.We have used sanctions, and Assistant Secretary Phee has been very clear with both sides that we will continue to identify additional potential actions going forward for as long as the fighting continues and the two sides refuse to negotiate an exit to the fighting.  And just to remind – since the beginning of the conflict, we’ve sanctioned 14 individuals and entities to deny the belligerents the means to prosecute the war, and also to reduce and deter atrocities and other human rights violations, as well as to ensure that there’s a post-conflict civilian government, and again, not one that is dominated by either of the belligerents.  And the other measures have included the Secretary of State issuing an atrocities determination on December 6th that indicated that SAF has committed war crimes and that the RSF has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.But maybe just to get to what’s arguably the most important part of the question, we’ve now had several different efforts to reach a negotiated exit from the conflict, including the Jeddah talks, IGAD’s initiative in December and January, and more recently, talks in Manama.  We are open to the possibility of going back to talks, and frankly, I think we’re open in terms of what the venue is and what the format is.  We do think there needs to be participation by the external actors who have leverage to bring to bear against both parties so that we can find a negotiated exit to this terrible conflict.MODERATOR:  Okay.  Well, I think we might have time for one more question.  And there’s a question in here from Constance Daire for Africa Intelligence.  “Regarding the MOU between Ethiopia and Somaliland, are you worried it will affect the fight in Somalia against al-Shabaab, especially regarding the Ethiopian forces in ATMIS?  And has the official signing of the MOU been delayed after meetings with the Ethiopian authorities in the context of the AU Summit?”  And that will &#8212;ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Thanks for that question.  As I explained in my opening statement, we had always planned to travel to Mogadishu on the occasion of the African Union Summit, because now is the time for everyone to be focused on discussing the scope and shape of the future ATMIS mission, which is designed to end at the end of this year.  We were grateful that the African Union Commission hosted a meeting with all the stakeholders who are engaged in Somalia’s fight against al-Shabaab, and that includes the troop-contributing countries from Africa, including Ethiopia.  Those were – that was an important discussion about how we can all work together on that project, and that’s where the focus needs to be.  That’s why I had agreed to travel to Somalia to highlight the American commitment to Somalia as they seek to liberate their country from al-Shabaab and be able to develop their country for their people.So that is the goal for all of us.  That’s what we shared with the Ethiopian Government, that while we recognize their legitimate concerns as a landlocked country, we needed to address those concerns in a way that didn’t disrupt the shared commitment among all partners in the region, on the continent, and internationally, to help Somalia through this difficult period.  So that’s where our focus is now, and that we’re encouraging all sides to de-escalate the tensions that were provoked by the MOU, to communicate better.  We’re contributing, hopefully, to improve communication, and we also consulted with other partners in the Horn about how to, again, focus on what we’re doing together to tighten up our effort to combat al-Shabaab and help Somalia develop.It was important to me to also have a conversation with Somali partners when I was in Mogadishu about their need to continue to focus on governance, to deprive al-Shabaab from any sort of weakness among their engagement among the member states that creates a vulnerability for the terrorists.  So that’s the focus of the parties, that’s our focus, and we will continue to contribute to, again, a reduction in tensions and an expansion in communication so there’s no room for misinterpretation or inadvertent miscommunication that could cause trouble.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you very much.  So that does conclude the Q&amp;A portion of our briefing today.  And I’m glad we were able to get to so many of the questions.  There were a lot of journalists online and a lot of interest.  We were not able to get to everybody, but unfortunately our time is limited.  I’d like to find – I’d like to ask whether Assistant Secretary Phee, Ambassador Hammer, or Ambassador Godfrey have any final words and invite you to deliver any final thoughts you might have at this point.ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHEE:  Well, thanks for that opportunity.  And again, thanks to all for spending some time with us today.  I hope you walk away from this conversation with the knowledge that the United States remains deeply engaged with all of our partners across the continent in a support role to help them address these longstanding tensions and challenges.  Again, we’re acutely focused on the crises in Sudan and in eastern DRC given the damage they are doing both to the people of those regions and to stability on the continent.  And we continue to remain engaged with all partners in an effort to promote stability and create the conditions for peace and economic development.I know that Mike and John would much rather be working, as I would, on expanding trade and investment, but we need to see secure conditions to allow that focus on economic development.  So thanks to all of you for listening to us.  I hope you come away reassured that we’re deeply engaged and will remain deeply engaged across the continent.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  All right.  Ambassador Hammer, Ambassador Godfrey, any final words for us?AMBASSADOR HAMMER:  No, I think the Assistant Secretary covered it well.  Again, as always, we appreciate your interest and also your courage.  Oftentimes, as journalists working in very difficult and challenging environments, freedom of the press, as Molly said at the opening, is essential and is something that we as the United States support not only on the continent but around the world.  So thank you again for your time and the work that you do.AMBASSADOR GODFREY:  Just would echo Assistant Secretary Phee’s expression of appreciation for the chance to engage with everybody today on a really important set of challenging issues facing the region, and appreciate the interest and the thoughtful questions.MODERATOR:  All right, that concludes today’s briefing.  I want to thank Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee, Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Michael Hammer, and U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Sudan John Godfrey, for joining us.  Thank you to all the journalists for participating.  A recording and transcript of today’s briefing will be distributed to participating journalists as soon as we can produce them this evening.  If you have any questions about today’s briefing, you may contact the Africa Regional Media Hub at AFMediaHub@state.gov.  I would like – also like to invite everyone to follow us on Twitter at our handle @AfricaMediaHub.  Thank you.# # #
- FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBasic InformationFunding Opportunity Number: DFOP0008371Assistance Listings (CFDA) number: 19.517 &#8211; Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for AfricaAnnouncement issuance date: Monday, February 12, 2024Announcement type: Cooperative AgreementProposal application submission deadline: Thursday, March 28, 2024, at 11:59:59 p.m. (23:59:59) EDT. Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.Anticipated timeframe to award for selected proposals: Pending the availability of funds, PRM anticipates, but makes no guarantee, that awards will be made less than six months from the proposal submission deadline.Advisory: All applicants must submit proposal application packages through the website Grants.gov. PRM strongly recommends submitting your application packages early to allow time to address any technical difficulties that may arise on the Grants.gov website.If you are new to PRM funding, the Grants.gov registration process can be complicated. We urge you to refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines “Application Process” section for information and resources to help ensure that the application process runs smoothly. PRM also strongly encourages organizations that have received funding from PRM in the past to read this section as a refresher.PRM strongly recommends application narratives be submitted in Adobe PDF, as Microsoft Word documents may sometimes produce different page lengths based on software versions and configurations when transmitted. Tables and budget documents should be submitted as Excel documents. Page limits are strictly adhered to, and PRM will not review pages of the narrative beyond the stated limit, which may negatively impact the concept note’ score. All documents must be in English and should avoid the use of jargon and should spell out all acronyms upon first use.Organizations can retrieve PRM’s-recommended templates and NGO guidelines on PRM’s website and in this opportunity’s grants.gov page.Program DescriptionSummaryThis announcement is designed to accompany PRM’s General NGO Guidelines, which contain additional information on PRM’s priorities and NGO funding strategy with which selected organizations must comply. Please use both the General NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that your submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements and that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities. Submissions that do not reflect the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered.Geographic Regions / PopulationsProposed activities must primarily support refugees and asylum seekers in Rwanda, Tanzania, or Uganda. Because of PRM&#8217;s mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, PRM will consider funding only those programs that include a target program participant base of at least 50 percent refugees/asylum seekers.Program areaProposals must align with one or more of the following program areas.Humanitarian Protection and AssistanceInterim and Durable SolutionsProgram Sectors and ModalitiesProposals must focus on one or more of the programmatic sectors listed in the country-specific guidance below (see PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for sector descriptions).Note: In order to ensure greater accountability for protection outcomes in all overseas assistance program proposals, three indicators are required for all programs regardless of design or sector. If the proposed program will not contribute to one or several of these mandatory indicators, the indicator must still be included in the proposal indicator table but with a target of zero.PRM-1. Number of individuals directly reached through PRM funding.PRM-2. Amount of humanitarian funding distributed to local, national, or refugee-led organizations (in USD) – This amount should include any sub-awards or contracts with local, national, or refugee-led organizations. If the prime applicant is a local, national, or refugee-led organization, they should put the full proposal budget total as the target value. Refer to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) working definition of “local” and “national” organizations. Applicants should put a target of zero for this indicator if it does not apply to them; it will not affect their eligibility.PRM-3. Percentage of participants who report that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner – This is a protection mainstreaming indicator developed by the Directorate General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) and adopted by the Grand Bargain. Research or coordination awards that don’t involve community implementation are exempt from this indicator. Please refer to the PRM Performance Indicator Reference &amp; Definition Sheets (PIRS) for a sample questionnaire and analysis guidance.Note: Cash and Voucher Assistance programs must include the relevant indicator(s) from the selection contained in the NGO Guidelines Appendix D.Number of Proposal ApplicationsOrganizations may submit a maximum of one application per country only. Any subsequent submissions received will be disqualified. (Note: Submissions by organizations as part of a consortium do not count toward an individual organization’s submission limit.)Country-specific GuidelinesRwanda Country-Specific GuidanceGeneral GuidanceProposals should explain how they align with UNHCR’s 2024 Strategic Vision in Rwanda, including the shift from a humanitarian approach to a developmental focus in the refugee response. We expect applicants to coordinate with UNHCR in planning, implementation, and reporting within the overall Rwanda Refugee Response Plan framework and respective sectors. PRM seeks to support programming oriented towards refugees likely to remain in Rwanda, rather than repatriation activities. Applicants should submit a letter of support from UNHCR for their proposal. Applications without a letter of support may have their panel review score impacted. Proposals must focus on one or more of the following sectors:Protection (Child Protection or GBV)HealthLivelihoods using the Graduation Approach (full proposals must include a market analysis, or will be disqualified)Duration of ActivityProgram plans for two or three years will be considered.Period of PerformancePrograms period of performance of one-year (12 months) cycles for a period not to exceed three years (36 months) will be considered.Funding limitsProgram proposals must not be less than the funding floor and not more than the funding ceiling per year or they will be disqualified.Funding floor per year (lowest $ value): $800,000Funding ceiling per year (highest $ value): $3,000,000Note: Funding ceilings and floors pertain to the PRM cost per year.Anticipated Number of AwardsThe amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined once final FY 2024 appropriations have been made.  This NOFO will be cancelled if FY2024 appropriations are insufficient to support new awards.Anticipated Amount to be Awarded TotalThe amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined as part of the application review process based on applications received and funding made available through appropriations.Tanzania Country-Specific GuidanceGeneral GuidanceProposals must focus on the Congolese and Burundian refugee and asylum seeker populations located in camp-based settings in Tanzania. We encourage proposals to demonstrate how the program will support Burundian refugees participating in UNHCR’s voluntary repatriation program, such as providing services that will help refugees reintegrate upon return. We expect applicants to coordinate with UNHCR when planning, implementing, and reporting on its programs. Applicants should submit a letter of support from UNHCR for their proposal. Applications without a letter of support may have their panel review score impacted. Proposals must focus on the following sectors in the refugee camps:HealthChild ProtectionEducationDuration of ActivityProgram plans for one or two years will be considered.Period of PerformancePrograms period of performance of one-year (12 months) cycles for a period not to exceed three years (24 months) will be considered.Funding limitsProgram proposals must not be less than the funding floor and not more than the funding ceiling per year or they will be disqualified.Funding floor per year (lowest $ value): $600,000Funding ceiling per year (highest $ value): $1,750,000Note: Funding ceilings and floors pertain to the PRM cost per year.Anticipated Number of AwardsThe amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined once final FY 2024 appropriations have been made.  This NOFO will be cancelled if FY2024 appropriations are insufficient to support new awards.Anticipated Amount to be Awarded TotalThe amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined as part of the application review process based on applications received and funding made available through appropriations.Uganda Country-Specific GuidanceGeneral GuidanceProposed activities must explain how they align with Uganda’s Global Refugee Forum pledges and UNHCR’s 2024 Strategy. We expect applicants to coordinate with UNHCR in planning, implementation, and reporting within the overall Uganda Refugee Response Plan framework and respective sectors. Applicants should submit a letter of support from UNHCR for their proposal. Applications without a letter of support may have their panel review score impacted. All proposals must have a clearly defined localization plan that includes at least one of the following: 1) a transition plan with national or local-level government entities, 2) a local or refugee organization as a grantee or sub-grantee, or 3) an agreement to progressively strengthen the capacity of a local or refugee organization over the course of the award. Localization strategies must also demonstrate how they increase the project’s sustainability and the representation of local actors in Uganda’s broader refugee response. Proposals must focus on one or more of the following sectors:ProtectionProtection: LegalProtection: Child ProtectionProtection: GBVLivelihoods (full proposals must include a market analysis, or will be disqualified)Mental health and psychosocial supportCapacity Strengthening: Local/ Refugee-Led OrganizationsHealthDuration of ActivityProgram plans for two or three years will be considered.Period of PerformancePrograms period of performance of one-year (12 months) cycles for a period not to exceed three years (36 months) will be considered.Funding limitsProgram proposals must not be less than the funding floor and not more than the funding ceiling per year or they will be disqualified.Funding floor per year (lowest $ value): $1,000,000Funding ceiling per year (highest $ value): $3,250,000Note: Funding ceilings and floors pertain to the PRM cost per year.Anticipated Number of AwardsThe amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined once final FY 2024 appropriations have been made.  This NOFO will be cancelled if FY2024 appropriations are insufficient to support new awards.Anticipated Amount to be Awarded TotalThe amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined as part of the application review process based on applications received and funding made available through appropriations.Federal Award InformationProposed program start dates: July 1, 2024 – September 15, 2024Duration of Activity: See country-specific guidelines above. Applicants may submit multi-year proposals with activities and budgets that do not exceed three years from the proposed start date. Actual awards will not exceed three years in duration and activities and budgets submitted in year one can be revised/updated each year. Continued funding after the initial 12 month period of performance requires the submission of a noncompeting single proposal and will be contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. In funding a program one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the program in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities. Please see Multi-Year Funding section below for additional information. Livelihoods programs are encouraged to be multi-year, and livelihoods proposals must include a market analysis or will be disqualified.Eligibility InformationEligible Applicants:Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education (U.S.-based NGOs must be able to demonstrate proof of non-profit tax status).Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education (overseas-based NGOs must be able to demonstrate proof of registration in country of domicile); andInternational Organizations. International multilateral organizations, such as United Nations agencies, should not submit proposals through Grants.gov in response to this NOFO. Multilateral organizations that are seeking funding for programs relevant to this announcement should contact the PRM Program Officer (as listed below) on or before the closing date of the funding announcement.Cost Sharing or Matching: Cost sharing, matching, or cost participation is not a requirement of an application in response to this funding announcement.Proposals for consideration should describe the sources and amounts of additional funding that may be utilized to complement PRM funding, and meet the following criteria:Are not paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award.Are verifiable from the non-Federal entity&#8217;s records.Are not included as contributions for any other Federal award; andAre necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of project or program objectives.Please include this information in the Budget Summary, Budget Detail, and Budget Narrative of the proposal, and separated from the PRM share of the proposed budget.Note: Though favorably looked upon, inclusion will not result in a competitive ranking increase when evaluated.OtherProposals must have a concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and reliable, time-bound, and trackable (SMART), and have established baselines; objectives should be clearly linked to the sectors.Proposals must adhere to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance, especially Sphere Standards. See PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards including guidance on proposals for programs in urban areas.PRM strongly encourages programs that target the needs of vulnerable and underserved groups among the program participant population (such groups may include women; children; adolescents; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTQI+) individuals; older persons; the sick; persons with disabilities; and members of minority communities) and can demonstrate what steps have been taken to meet the specific and unique protection and assistance needs of these vulnerable groups effectively.PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above-mentioned sectors although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:a working relationship with UNHCR.a proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location.evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where possible – local authorities.an emphasis on the outcome or impact of program activities.a strong sustainability plan, involving local capacity building, where feasible.where applicable, adherence to PRM’s Principles for Refugee Protection in Urban Areas; andan understanding of and sensitivity to conflict dynamics in the program location.Application and Submission InstructionsWhere to Request Application Package: Application packages may be downloaded from the website www.Grants.gov.Consortia: Organizations may apply to this call as part of a consortia; however, for consortia, one organization must be designated as the lead applicant.For purposes of consortia applying for PRM funding, PRM’s considers consortium to be a group of no less than three NGOs that comprise an agreement, combination, or group formed to undertake, or proposing to undertake, an assistance activity beyond the resources of any one member. PRM may request to review and approve of substantive provisions of proposed sub-awards. Applicants may form consortia in order to bring together organizations with varied expertise to propose a comprehensive program in one proposal. The consortium arrangement may allow for greater geographic coverage, inclusion of technical and sectoral strengths from multiple organizations, increased inclusion of local and national organizations, and/or the potential of much greater impact through collaboration.Submissions by organizations as part of a consortium do not count toward an organization’s individual submission limit. If the applicant is applying as a consortium, a description of how the consortia will be organized and how lines of authority and decision-making will be managed across all team members and between the lead applicant and associate awardees should be included in the concept note. The prime applicant would be responsible for overall implementation of the proposed program activities, preparation/presentation of annual work plans, M&amp;E planning, and required reporting to PRM. The prime applicant should designate a single individual to be the liaison with PRM, although PRM would reserve the right to communicate with sub-grantees.Content and Form of Application: Organizations may submit a maximum of one (1) proposal per country only. Any subsequent submissions received will be disqualified. PRM strongly recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available on PRM’s website.Single-Year Proposals:Single-year program proposal page limits: Single-year proposals using PRM’s templates must not exceed 15 pages in length (Times New Roman or Calibri 12-point font, letter sized paper, one-inch margins on all sides). If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 10 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal but are not required to do so. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total; however, annexes cannot be relied upon as a key source of program information. The proposal narrative must be able to stand on its own in the application process. For multi-year funding application instructions, see below.PRM strongly recommends application narrative be submitted in Adobe PDF, as Microsoft Word documents may sometimes produce different page lengths based on software versions and configurations. Tables and budget documents should be submitted as Excel documents.Page limits are strictly adhered to, and PRM will not review pages of the narrative beyond the stated limit, which may negatively impact the proposal’s score.All documents must be in English and should avoid the use of jargon and should spell out all acronyms upon first use.Multi-Year Proposals:Applicants proposing multi-year programs should adhere to the following guidance: Applicants may submit proposals that include multi-year strategies presented in one-year (12 month) cycles for a period not to exceed three years (36 months) from the proposed start date as outlined in the country-specific guidance sections. Fully developed programs with detailed budgets, objectives and indicators are required for each year of activities. Applicants should use PRM’s recommended multi-year proposal template for the first year of a multi-year application.Multi-year funding applicants may use PRM’s budget templates, and must disaggregate budget by year, per year, and for each program year. Multi-year proposal narratives and budgets can be updated yearly upon submission of new noncompeting single year proposal narrative template with an updated budget.Multi-year program proposal page limits: multi-year proposals using PRM’s multi-year template must not exceed 17 pages in length (Times New Roman or Calibri 12-point font, letter sized paper, one-inch margins on all sides). If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 15 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal but are not required to do so. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total however annexes cannot be relied upon as a key source of program information. The proposal narrative must be able to stand on its own in the application process.PRM strongly recommends application narratives be submitted in Adobe PDF, as Microsoft Word documents may sometimes produce different page lengths based on software versions and configurations. Tables and budget documents should be submitted as Excel documents.Page limits are strictly adhered to, and PRM will not review pages of the narrative beyond the stated limit, which may negatively impact the proposal’s score.All documents must be in English and should avoid the use of jargon and should spell out all acronyms upon first use.Multi-year applications selected for funding by PRM will be funded in one-year (12-month) increments based on the proposal submitted in the initial application as approved by PRM. Continued funding after the initial 12-month award requires the submission of a noncompeting single-year proposal narrative and will be contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. Follow-on applications are submitted annually for years two through three of proposals through non-competed directed announcements for the continuation funding. It is strongly recommended that NGOs submit as early as possible after the directed announcement for continuation funding has been issued. Late submissions will jeopardize continued funding.In the proposal narrative, please include an explanation of why multi-year funding may be necessary for this program to succeed, how longer periods of consultation with program participant populations will inform programming and enable interventions to be studied and improved, and how the proposed activities in year one will contribute to outcomes and impacts in years two and three. Please, articulate and quantify cost efficiencies that could not otherwise be attained through single year programs as well.Application PackageTo be considered for PRM funding, organizations must submit a complete application package, including:Proposal Narrative not exceeding stated page limits.Indicator Table: Including all required PRM indicators and targets for each year (if multi-year).Cash and voucher assistances (CVA) modality must report on CVA indicatorsCompleted Budget table including summary and detail tabsdisaggregated by year and for each year of the program period (for multi-year proposals).Include total costs by objective and estimated costs by sector,Total costs divided by country (if applicable)Budget Narrative disaggregated by year and for each year of the program period.Completed and signed SF-424 andSF-424A. PRM requires that Box 21 of the SF-424 be checked.If the applicant organization has an active registration in SAM.gov that was either created or updated on or after February 2, 2019, then the applicant does NOT need to submit the SF-424B as they will be prompted to complete the representations and certifications in SAM.gov.Risk Assessment and Security Plan.Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) Code of Conduct and a country or regional implementation plan specific to the country of region of the application. Note: Codes of Conduct must be consistent with the updated 2019 IASC Task Force’s Six Core Principles. The country/regional implementation plan should outline how employees are trained and otherwise made aware of the Code of Conduct, how violations of the Code of Conduct against program participants are reported and followed up on in a safe and confidential manner, how program participants are made aware of the Code of Conduct and a mechanism to report any violations, and whether there is a focal point in the country or regional office for the Code of Conduct.Key Personnel for award applicant and sub-recipient(s)Applicants must furnish names, titles, and brief biographical information on the education and experience of key personnel in implementing the program and key supervisory personnel; (i.e., the members of the professional staff in a program supervisory position engaged for or assigned to duties under the award).A Market Analysis and a Participant Competency/Capacity Assessment for all proposals that include at least one livelihoods sector objective (or will be disqualified), if applicable. Please see the General NGO Guidelines for more details.Most recent Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable, or a de minimis rate calculation of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) if the applicant is eligible and elects to use the de minimis rate.Most recent external audit report is required prior to issuance of an award, if proposal is chosen for implementation.Information in support of any cost-sharing/cost-matching arrangements, if applicable.Information detailing the source of any in-kind contributions, if applicable.Details on any sub-agreements associated with the program including the budget detail (must be part of the budget submission as noted above), if applicable.Organizational Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) Framework (is required prior to issuance of an award, if proposal is chosen for implementation)Additionally, organizations must consider the following considerations as part of their proposal package:To be considered a competitive proposal, the Proposal Narrative, Indicator Table, and Budget Detail should include the following information:Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator.Include specific information on locations of programs and participants (GPS coordinates highly recommended) to increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding.Outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded program could potentially endanger the lives of the program participants and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization&#8217;s motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.PRM expects each proposal, regardless of sector, to demonstrate protection mainstreaming, including by identifying potential protection risks associated with the program and how they will be mitigated. Assistance activities should mainstream protection by analyzing the protection risks in relation to each specific programming sector. An analysis of the risks should inform how assistance is designed to minimize them and maximize protection of program participants. Applicants may introduce gender-specific risks in this section but should provide a full analysis in the gender analysis.PRM partners must complete a gender analysis in the proposal narrative that briefly explains:Experiences of men, women, boys, and girls with a focus on the different familial roles, community privileges, and gender dynamics within the target population;Associated risks and threats experienced by women, girls, and other vulnerable populations based on their gender;Power imbalances and needs that arise based on gender inequalities that exist within the family or community; andProposed responses that will address the above and mitigate any gender differences in access, participation, or decision-making that may be experienced by at-risk groups, particularly women and girls. The gender analysis should aim to specify and target specific at-risk sub-populations of women and girls, such as women and girl heads of households, out-of-school girls, women and girls with disabilities, women and girl survivors of violence, married girls, adolescent mothers, as well as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTQI+), and those who are often unaware of and excluded from programs and services and who may be the hardest to reach based on their gender.The budget should include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization.Applicants whose proposals address gender-based violence (GBV) through their programs must estimate the total cost of these activities as a separate line item in their proposed budgets (see PRM’s budget template). Proposals and budgets must include details of any sub-agreements associated with the programs.For consortia only, a description of how the partnership will be organized and how lines of authority and decision-making will be managed across all team members and between the lead applicant and associate awardees should be included in the proposal.Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and System for Award Management (SAM)Note: On April 4, 2022, the formerly used DUNS Number was replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) UEI. For more information on the process, visit GSA&#8217;s website on the UEI transition.Each applicant is required to:be registered in SAM before submitting its application.provide a valid UEI number in its application; andcontinue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active PRM award or an application or plan under consideration by PRM.No federal award may be made to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable UEI and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the PRM award is ready to be made, PRM may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a PRM award and use that determination as a basis for making a PRM award to another applicant.Applications must be submitted via Grants.gov. Grants.gov registration requires a UEI number and active SAM.gov registration. If you are new to PRM funding, the Grants.gov registration process can be complicated. We urge you to refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines “Application Process” section for information and resources to help ensure that the application process runs smoothly. PRM also strongly encourages organizations that have received funding from PRM in the past to read this section as a refresher. Applicants may also refer to the “For Applicants” page on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements.Do not wait until the deadline to attempt to submit your application on Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the deadline as it can take several weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to receive required registration numbers). We also recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered. PRM has extremely limited ability to correct or facilitate rapid resolution to technical difficulties associated with Grants.gov, SAM.gov or UEI number issues. PRM partners must maintain an active SAM.gov registration with current and correct information at all times during which they have an active federal award or an application under consideration by PRM or any federal agency.When registering with Grants.gov, organizations must designate points of contact and Authorized Organization Representatives (AORs). Please note that as of December 2022, organizations based outside of the United States that do not intend to apply for U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) awards are no longer required to have a NATO CAGE (NCAGE) code to apply for non-DoD foreign assistance funding opportunities. If an applicant organization is mid-registration and wishes to remove an NCAGE code from their sam.gov registration, the applicant should submit a help desk ticket (“incident”) with the Federal Service Desk (FSD) online to seek guidance on how to do so. Applicants experiencing technical difficulties with the SAM.gov registration process should contact the Federal Service Desk online or at 1-866-606-8220 (U.S.) and 1-334-206-7828 (International).Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726.Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties andwho have reported the problem to the Grants.gov help desk.received a case number.have completed UEI and SAM.gov registrations.and had a documented service request opened to research the problem.Applicants may contact the PRM NGO Coordinator before the submission deadline to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate. However, PRM makes no guarantee to accept an application outside of the grants.gov system.It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure the appropriate registrations are in place and active. Failure to have the appropriate organizational registrations in place or are experiencing issues resulting from discrepancies across registration platforms is not considered a technical difficulty and is not justification for an alternate means of submission.In accordance with 2 CFR §200.113, Mandatory disclosures, the non-Federal entity or applicant for a federal award must disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. Non-Federal entities that have received a federal award including the term and condition outlined in Appendix XII—Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM. Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 2 CFR §200.338 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment. (See also 2 CFR part 180, 31 U.S.C. 3321, and 41 U.S.C. 2313.)Submission Dates and TimesAnnouncement issuance date: Monday, February 12, 2024Proposal submission deadline: Thursday, March 28, 2024, at 11:59:59 p.m. (23:59:59) EDT. Applications submitted after this deadline will not be considered.Intergovernmental Review: Not ApplicableFunding Restrictions: Federal awards will not allow reimbursement of Federal Award costs without prior authorization by PRM.Other Submission RequirementsBranding and Marking StrategyThe following provisions will be included whenever assistance is awarded:The Recipient shall recognize the U.S. Government’s funding for activities specified under this award at the project site with a graphic of the U.S. flag accompanied by one of the following two phrases based on the level of funding for the award:Fully funded by the award: “Gift of the United States Government”Partially funded by the award: “Funding provided by the United States Government”PRM highly encourages recognition of U.S. Government funding on social media and website platforms to be included in proposals branding and marking strategy. Recipients should tag PRM’s Twitter account @StatePRM and/or Facebook account @State.PRM (rather than using hashtags). Additionally, the applicable U.S. Embassy should be tagged as well.Updates of actions taken to fulfill this requirement must be included in quarterly program reports to PRM.All programs, projects, assistance, activities, and public communications to foreign audiences, partially or fully funded by the Department, must be marked appropriately overseas with the standard U.S. flag in a size and prominence equal to (or greater than) any other logo or identity. The requirement does not apply to the Recipient’s own corporate communications or in the United States.The Recipient must appropriately ensure that all publicity and promotional materials underscore the sponsorship by or partnership with the U.S. Government or the U.S. Embassy. The Recipient may continue to use existing logos or project materials; however, a standard rectangular U.S. flag must be used in conjunction with such logos.Do not use the Department of State seal without the express written approval from PRM.Sub non-Federal entities (sub-awardees) and subsequent tier sub-award agreements are subject to the marking requirements and the non-Federal entity shall include a provision in the sub non-Federal entity agreement indicating that the standard, rectangular U.S. flag is a requirement. Exemptions from this requirement may be allowable but must be agreed to in writing by the Grants Officer. (Note: An exemption refers to the complete or partial cessation of branding, not use of alternative branding). Requests should be initiated with the Grants Officer and Grants Officer Representative. Waivers issued are applied only to the exemptions requested through the Recipient’s proposal for funding and any subsequent negotiated revisions.In the event the non-Federal entity does not comply with the marking requirements as established in the approved assistance agreement, the Grants Officer Representative and the Grants Officer must initiate corrective action with the non-Federal entity.PRM Standardized Indicators: Partners must refer to PRM’s indicator list in Appendix D of the NGO Guidelines and include any mandatory and required indicators as part of the application. PRM has two categories of indicators:Required: Indicators marked as “required” in Appendix D must be included in the proposal as applicable. Each sector and sub-sector has at least one required PRM indicator; these must be included in the indicator table if the partner is proposing any activities or budget for that sector/sub-sector. In addition, three indicators are required for all programs regardless of design or sector.  If the proposed program will not contribute to one or several of these mandatory indicators, the indicator must still be included in the proposal indicator table but with a target of zero.PRM-1. Number of individuals directly reached through PRM funding.PRM-2. Amount of humanitarian funding distributed to local, national, or refugee-led organizations (in USD) – This amount should include any sub-awards or contracts with local, national, or refugee-led organizations. If the prime applicant is a local, national, or refugee-led organization, they should put the full proposal budget total as the target value. Refer to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) working definition of “local” and “national” organizations. Applicants should put a target of zero for this indicator if it does not apply to them; it will not affect their eligibility.PRM-3. Percentage of participants who report that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner – This is a protection mainstreaming indicator developed by the Directorate General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) and adopted by the Grand Bargain. Research or coordination awards that don’t involve community implementation are exempt from this indicator. Please refer to the PRM Performance Indicator Reference &amp; Definition Sheets (PIRS) for a sample questionnaire and analysis guidance.Recommended if applicable: Partners may consider using these indicators to monitor any related activities as they are aligned with humanitarian standards and best practices. However, inclusion of recommended indicators is not mandatory and will not affect the proposal scoring. Please note that in rare cases PRM may request for a partner to use a particular recommended indicator if there is a strong technical/thematic need to track information on that indicator, or if a similar custom indicator was proposed by the partner.Application Review and Selection ProcessApplication Review ProcessPRM is committed to ensuring a competitive and standardized process for awarding funding. Applications will be screened initially in a Technical Eligibility Review stage to determine whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements and have submitted all required documents. Applications that do not meet these requirements will not advance beyond the Technical Eligibility Review stage and will be deemed ineligible for funding under this NOFO.PRM reserves the right to have all applications deemed to be technically eligible undergo a Subject Matter Expert (SME) review prior to the Merit Review Panel to determine whether an application is responsive to the information in this NOFO.All applications that proceed to the Merit Review Panel will be evaluated by a panel of at least three people based on the below-referenced programmatic criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding. Department of State review panels may provide conditions and recommendations on applications to enhance the proposed program, which must be addressed by the applicant before further consideration of the award. To ensure effective use of limited PRM funds, conditions or recommendations may include requests to increase, decrease, clarify, and/or justify costs and program activities.Application Evaluation CriteriaEligible submissions will be those that comply with the criteria and requirements included in this announcement. In addition, the Merit Review Panel will evaluate the proposals based on the following criteria:Gap/Analysis (10)Profile of Target Population (5)Program Description (25)Objectives &amp; Indicators (10)Monitoring &amp; Evaluation Plan (10)Accountability to Affected Populations (5)(Note: The AAP section of a NOFO proposal narrative is specific to the program being proposed, is the criterion listed above being evaluated, and is distinct from the organization-level AAP framework.)Coordination (5)Sustainability and Capacity-Building (5)Management and Past Performance (5)Risk Management (10)Budget/Budget Narrative (10 points)Prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, PRM is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the U.S. government designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM.gov (see 41 U.S.C. 2313);An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. Currently, federal agencies create integrity records in the integrity module of the Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) and these records are visible as responsibility/qualification records in SAM.gov;The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant&#8217;s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in §200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.Federal Award Administration InformationFederal Award AdministrationA successful applicant can expect to receive a separate notice from PRM stating that an application has been selected before PRM actually makes the federal award. That notice is not an authorization to begin performance. Only the notice of award signed by the Grants Officer is the authorizing document. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified following completion of the selection and award process.Administrative and National Policy Requirements.PRM awards are made consistent with the following provisions in the following order of precedence: (a) applicable laws and statutes of the United States, including any specific legislative provisions mandated in the statutory authority for the award; (b) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); (c) Department of State Standard Terms and Conditions of the award; (d) the award’s specific requirements; and (e) other documents and attachments to the award.ReportingSuccessful applicants will be required to submit:Program Reports: PRM requires program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. A program report is required within thirty (30) days following the end of each three-month period of performance during the validity period of the agreement. The final program report is due one hundred and twenty (120) days following the end of the agreement. The submission dates for program reports will be written into the cooperative agreement. Partners receiving multi-year awards should follow this same reporting schedule and should still submit a final program report at the end of each year that summarizes the NGO’s performance during the previous year.The Bureau suggests that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended quarterly program report template and annual/final report template. The suggested PRM NGO reporting templates are designed to ease the reporting requirements while ensuring that all required elements are addressed.Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement (January 30th, April 30th, July 30th, October 30th). The final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the expiration date of the agreement. For agreements containing indirect costs, final financial reports are due within sixty (60) days of the finalization of the applicable negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA).Reports reflecting expenditures for the recipient’s overseas and United States offices should be completed in accordance with the Federal Financial Report (FFR SF-425) and submitted electronically in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Payment Management System (HHS/PMS) and in accordance with other award specific requirements. Detailed information pertaining to the Federal Financial Report including due dates, instruction manuals and access forms, is provided on the HHS/PMS website.Audit Reports: When a recipient-contracted audit is not required because the Federal award amount is less than the $750,000 threshold, the Department may determine that an audit must be performed, and the audit report must be submitted to the responsible grants office(r) for review, dissemination, and resolution as appropriate. The cost of audits required under this policy may be charged either as an allowable direct cost to the award or included in the organizations established indirect costs in the award’s detailed budget.PRM Points of ContactApplicants with technical questions related to this announcement should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to submission. Please note that responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.PRM Program Officer: Emily Gallagher, GallagherEE@state.gov, Washington, D.C.Regional Refugee Coordinator: Chris Jones, JonesCA@state.gov, Kampala, UgandaDisclaimerExternal websites linked above may not be supported or accessible by all web browsers. If you are unable to link to a referenced website, please try using a different browser or update to a more recent one. If you continue to experience difficulties to reach external resources, please contact PRM NGO Coordinator.Section 508Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d), as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, charges the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (US Access Board) with developing and promulgating standards address that access to information and communication technology (ICT) Accessibility Standards (36 CFR part 1194). Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use ICT. Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. These standards are part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The complete text of the Section 508 Final Provisions can be accessed at https://www.access-board.gov/ict/.The Section 508 accessibility standards applicable to this contract or order are identified in the following paragraph. If it is determined by the Government that ICT supplies and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the contract, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense.The Section 508 standards applicable to this contract are: 1194.205 WCAG 2.0 Level A &amp; AA Success Criteria302 Functional Performance Criteria502 Inoperability with Assistive Technology504 Authoring Tools602 Support Documentation603 Support ServicesIn the event of a modification(s) to this contract or order, which adds new ICT supplies or services or revises the type of, or specifications for, supplies or services, the Contracting Officer may require that the contractor submit a completed Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) 2.4 or greater, 508 revision (Rev 508) or another format approved by the Department, and any other additional information necessary to assist the Government in determining that the ICT supplies or services conform to Section 508 accessibility standards. If it is determined by the Government that ICT supplies and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the contract, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense. Information about VPAT can be accessed at the ITIC Website.If this is an Indefinite Delivery contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement or a Basic Ordering Agreement, the task/delivery order requests that include ICT supplies or services will define the specifications and accessibility standards for the order. In those cases, the Contractor may be required to provide a completed VPAT and any other additional information necessary to assist the Government in determining that the ICT supplies or services conform to Section 508 accessibility standards.
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Rwandan President Kagame Office of the SpokespersonDavos, SwitzerlandThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Today, Secretary Antony J. Blinken met with Rwandan President Paul Kagame on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. They discussed how to advance efforts to ease tensions in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Secretary reiterated the need for all actors to take concrete steps to resolve the situation.						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Rwanda																																Secretary Trip																															The Secretary of State
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Rwandan President Paul Kagame Before Their Meeting Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateDavos, SwitzerlandWorld Economic ForumSECRETARY BLINKEN:  Mr. President, would you like to say anything to our colleagues?PRESIDENT KAGAME:  Well, (inaudible) to meet you, Secretary of State, given the many things we do together between our two countries, the United States and Rwanda.  And the effort United States has put into paying attention and supporting the resolution to the problems we have in our region.  So I’m looking forward to our discussion to see how we can take the further steps and continue more efforts to bring (inaudible) conclusion to the conflict.  Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, thank you very much, Mr. President.  I just want to thank you for both taking the time today – also for your hospitality and the great conversations when I had the opportunity to visit Rwanda a year ago.  And to your point, we are committed to doing everything we can to support the efforts that are being made – including by Angola, by Kenya – to support (inaudible) peaceful resolution of differences and avoid conflict in the eastern DRC.  Very much appreciate the work that’s been done, especially over the last couple of months, and your leadership in trying to find a positive, peaceful way forward.  I look forward to discussing that with you today.  Thank you again.
- This Global Entrepreneurship Week, and Every Week, the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs Works to Build Sustainable Businesses Worldwide Bureau of Educational and Cultural AffairsCatherine MullerWhether it is an app to provide mental health services in Taiwan, a cleaning service for commercial businesses in Mexico, or an avocado oil production business in Tanzania, women around the world work to secure capital, recruit talent, and create and execute a plan that will successfully build their business.  As President Biden said, “governments, economies, and communities are stronger when they include the full participation of women.”  And so, this Global Entrepreneurship Week &#8211; and every week &#8211; the U.S. Department of State is recognizing the 25,000 women entrepreneurs globally who comprise the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs (AWE).  Now in nearly 100 countries, AWE provides access to online curriculum, training, masterclasses, and networking opportunities to emerging women entrepreneurs in a wide range of industries, from tourism, to healthcare, to sustainability, to fashion, and biotechnology.   AWE Taiwan alumna Lynia Huang and her team visit a local high school to raise awareness about mental health using their app&#8217;s (Here Hear) AI technology. &nbsp;It’s encouraging to see that we are not alone trying to support the local economies of our families and communities, even in these difficult times and circumstances. Through AWE, the Department has convened alumni over the past year to expand their networks, learn new skills and resources, and engage in pitch competitions through regional summits and country-wide alumni conferences.  Earlier this year, 200 AWE alumni from across East Asia and the Pacific gathered in Kuala Lumpur for the first AWE Alumni Summit.  In July, the first East Africa AWE Summit brought together 100 women entrepreneurs from Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, and Kenya.  In Nicaragua, nearly 100 women entrepreneurs convened for a nation-wide conference to address obstacles in expanding their businesses to virtual platforms.  Recently, the U.S. Embassy in Manila convened a country-wide AWE alumni conference in Manila and Bacolod City to support women entrepreneurs in the Philippines.  And this week, the American Institute in Taiwan, with strong support from Taiwan’s Small and Medium Enterprise and Startup Administration under the Ministry of Economic Affairs, has hosted 75 women from across the Indo-Pacific region at the first-ever AWE Indo-Pacific Women in Tech Summit in Taipei.  Click here to learn more.  Academy for Women Entrepreneurs alumni from across the Indo-Pacific region attend the AWE Women in Tech Summit in Taipei, Taiwan, in November 2023.Through the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs, the Department of State is working to deliver upon broader U.S. foreign policy goals to expand opportunity and equity, as well as societal inclusion, worldwide.  Each and every woman should be able to reach her full potential, and this Global Entrepreneurship Week, we recognize the amazing women entrepreneurs who are building businesses and strengthening societies in communities and countries worldwide.About the Author:  Catherine Muller is the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs Team Lead in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
- Secretary Blinken’s Calls with Democratic Republic of the Congo President Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Kagame HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Calls with Democratic Republic of the Congo President Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Kagame				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Calls with Democratic Republic of the Congo President Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Kagame																																		Readout																														November 6, 2023																																							The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke separately with Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) President Félix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame. With both presidents, the Secretary discussed the volatile situation and worsening humanitarian crisis along the border between Rwanda and the DRC. The Secretary advocated for a diplomatic solution to the tensions between the two countries and urged each side take measures to de-escalate the situation, including removing troops from the border.						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																																Humanitarian Aid																															Office of the Spokesperson																																Peacebuilding																																																					Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance																															Rwanda																								The Secretary of State
- Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence				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();			}		});	}																										Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence																																		Media Note																														October 19, 2023																																							The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs is pleased to announce five winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence (ACE). Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will present these five American companies, large and small, with the award in a ceremony on October 30, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. EDT at the State Department. The 2023 ACE categories are Women’s Economic Security; Innovation; and Sustainable Supply Chains.The award recognizes two companies in the category&nbsp;Women’s Economic Security.&nbsp;Avertra Corp., operating in Amman, Jordan, is a medium-sized Virginia-based American software firm dedicated to an equitable and inclusive workplace for women in a male-dominated field. The second winner is&nbsp;Google Poland, which is setting the standard in promoting gender equality in the workplace and supporting women in tech initiatives in Poland, Ukraine, and the region, including Ukrainian refugees from Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine.In the&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;category, the 2023 ACE Winner is&nbsp;Kentegra Biotechnology, operating out of Nairobi, Kenya. Kentegra is a biotech firm that has pioneered Kenya&#8217;s revival as a global leader in cultivating pyrethrum with smallholder farmers. Pyrethrum is a climate change-resistant cash crop and is an active ingredient used in sustainable organic biopesticides to grow healthier food and provide stronger crop protection.In&nbsp;Sustainable Supply Chains, the first 2023 ACE Winner is&nbsp;Ampersand USA Inc., operating in Kigali, Rwanda. Ampersand is Africa’s first mobility energy company, providing electricity and vehicles to power fleets of thousands of electric motorcycle taxis across the continent. The second winner is&nbsp;Parsyl, Abidjan, Côte d&#8217;Ivoire, a supply chain technology company specializing in risk management and cargo insurance for perishable goods. It supports cold chain data collection and analytics at the national, district, and local levels in Senegal, Côte d&#8217;Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Niger, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help strengthen vaccine supply chain systems and identify needed improvements.This year marks the Award for Corporate Excellence’s 24th anniversary. Established in 1999, ACE recognizes the crucial role U.S. companies are playing in elevating global standards of business conduct. Together, these companies are leading the way in addressing some of our greatest global challenges.The U.S. Department of State is committed to working with companies to further responsible business practices worldwide and to recognize their efforts to improve lives at home and abroad. For more information, please visit:&nbsp;http://www.state.gov/ace.The invitation-only 2023 ACE ceremony will be open to credentialed members of the media on a space-available basis. A separate notice to the press with access details will be issued soon. For media inquiries, please contact&nbsp;eb-press-inquiry@state.gov.						Tags																													Award for Corporate Excellence																															Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs																								Burkina Faso																								Burundi																																Business																															Côte d&#039;Ivoire																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																																Economic Affairs																																																					Economic Prosperity and Trade Policy																																																					Energy																															Jordan																								Kenya																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Poland																								Rwanda																								Senegal																								Ukraine																																Women’s Economic Empowerment
- Evaluation of the Women in Science (WiSci) Girls STEAM Camp Public-Private Partnership [PDF]