# Bangladesh - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 9, 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 9, 2024																																																					May 9, 2024																																																								1:22 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Okay. Matt?QUESTION: Really, four days in a row?MR MILLER: Four days in a row. I’m sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: Four days in a row you &#8212;MR MILLER: As I was – as I was walking out here I was remembering our exchange about this yesterday and thinking, oh, I’m going to get it, I’m going to catch it.QUESTION: There’s nothing going on in the world. It’s all very quiet. Everything is fine and calm.MR MILLER: I – again, my lack of opening remarks does not indicate lack of anything to say. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. Okay. So can you explain to us what the – what the practical impact, at least for the State Department, is of the President’s comments last night about arms shipments to – arms transfers to Israel and whether or not this plays into the NSM report that I guess is not coming today, and maybe tomorrow?MR MILLER: So let me speak first with the NSM report. It doesn’t have any practical impact on the NSM report. The NSM report is a backwards-looking report where we’re looking at a number of things over the past – conduct from last year and then up to when we send the report, and it doesn’t have any impact either on the content of the report or the timing of that report, which won’t be today but, again, I expect in the very near future. It’s just a matter of days that we’ll be able to get that report up to the Hill.And then with respect to the larger question, so what the President made clear is that we have concerns about a potential military operation in Rafah. I don’t think that’s any secret. We’ve been making those concerns known publicly and we have made those concerns quite clear to the Government of Israel. And as the President noted, there are certain types of military assistance that we will not make available to Israel for use in a campaign in Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. But I was under the impression that you guys didn’t speak to hypotheticals.MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear for some time our concerns about a Rafah operation, something the Israel Government has signaled is likely to be coming. And so, yes, we have been engaged with them on that.QUESTION: Well, I get it, but isn’t it “if?” Isn’t there a big “if” in here?MR MILLER: Certainly that would be our hope. We don’t want to see an operation go forward, and we are making that clear.QUESTION: Well, I know. But every time you’re asked any question that’s got the word “if” in it or it’s not something that has already happened, you refuse to answer. And now, all of a sudden &#8212;MR MILLER: I wouldn’t say every time. Wouldn’t say every time.QUESTION: Pretty much.MR MILLER: Look, this – I – so just to be – I know we should be serious about this.QUESTION: I am not trying to be making light of it.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah.QUESTION: I just – but I just – you’re – you guys have made or the President has made a policy prescription, apparently, based on something that hasn’t happened yet.MR MILLER: He has &#8212;QUESTION: Right?MR MILLER: He – because we have been in close conversation with the Government of Israel about this fact.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: There is a different than I – there is a very real difference, obviously, between coming to the briefing room and getting a question about something that might happen, and something that we’re engaged with a foreign government that they say they intend to do. And we treat those differently for quite obvious reasons.QUESTION: Okay, so you’re saying you won’t tell us the full truth but you will – anyway. My point is &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m saying it’s different when a reporter raises a hypothetical question &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: &#8212; versus a government saying, “This is what we intend to do, this is what our policy is going to be,” and we have to make determinations about our policy.QUESTION: And is it your understanding that the President has decided that what Israel has done in Rafah so far is – crosses the red line?MR MILLER: We have not yet seen an indication of a major military operation. That is something that we are watching closely, and the President made that clear in his comments.QUESTION: And yet he already decided to halt the – or to suspend these – the shipments based on something that hasn’t happened?MR MILLER: We have – we have paused one shipment &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and are reviewing others in the context of a potential operation. But again, we hope that there is no operation. That, I think, would be the best outcome for everyone involved.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Actually, can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; follow up? Just what is your definition exactly of a major operation in Rafah? I mean, you have tanks there. You have bombings going on every day. They took control of the Rafah crossing. What is your definition of a major operation in this case?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into too much detail about that from here, but I would differentiate it from the types of operations that we have already seen from the beginning when it comes to Rafah. We have seen Israel execute strikes against Rafah. We have seen – when I mean strikes, I mean airstrikes. Going back to last October, it’s something that they have engaged in. The operation that we saw to take control of the Rafah crossing appeared to be a limited operation; it’s not a major invasion of a civilian area, neighborhoods packed with people, thousands and thousands of people.So when we talk about a major operation, we’re talking about a campaign targeting these civilian areas that are densely packed with civilians, in many cases civilians who are refugees from their homes, sometimes refugees twice over who have moved once, twice, three times, and are now taking refuge in a place that is literally their last resort, where there’s nowhere else for them to go.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, on the NSM report, can we get the latest ETA on when State will submit that?MR MILLER: In the coming days.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: In the – it’s the very near future. I don’t have a date to affix on the calendar for you, but it will be very soon. I can assure you of that.QUESTION: So is there a chance it might slip into early next week?MR MILLER: I am not going to give any timetable at all other than to say the coming days, which is what I said yesterday. I can assure you it will not be long.QUESTION: Okay. A couple of other things. In your answer to Matt, you said the report is going to be retrospective. Right?MR MILLER: Correct. It’s looking at – it’s looking at past conduct.QUESTION: Right. And he asked you, I think, if I got it right, how – whether there is going to be any practical impact on President’s comments on the report?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: So – but the President’s comments last night also covered the past. He talked about – let me find the quote here. He talked about, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs.” So can you explain to us how his comments have no practical impact on the report?MR MILLER: What I was taking Matt’s question to mean is Matt’s question was related to the decision that the President announced last night or that the President made public to not provide Israel certain military weapons for a Rafah campaign. That is a forward – that is a forward-looking decision. We have paused shipments.Now, the report is a backwards-looking thing. Now, the report does – will obviously look at allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different thing than what the President – I mean, it’s a – I’m speaking just to a determination going forward versus a backwards-looking report.QUESTION: Okay, well, let me ask it in the way that I sort of was thinking about asking. It is a report that is assessing whether or not Israel’s assurances are credible on two things, and one of them is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international humanitarian law. And the President of the United States yesterday said, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs,” in reference to the 2,000-pound bombs. So can you explain again, like, how his comments – maybe that’s not a determination as a result of a legal process, but those are comments from the President of the United States. How does that not have any impact on the findings of the report?MR MILLER: So I think you have to look at two separate things. One is the tragedy – the tragic loss of civilian life throughout this conflict, which we have spoken to many times, the President has spoken to, the Secretary has spoken to, other members of the administration have spoken to. And we have said that far too many people have died; that Israel needs to do more to minimize civilian harm; that the actions they have taken have not yielded sufficient results – all of those things we believe to be true, still believe to be true. That is different than a legal question of whether there have been violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different question; it applies – it goes to not just questions of civilian life – or I’m sorry, loss of civilian life, but whether international humanitarian law was violated in the loss of that life. And those questions are something that we continue to look at and have not yet – not reached any determinations.QUESTION: And how do you determine whether international humanitarian law is violated with those killings? Is your criteria intent?MR MILLER: So there are all sorts of things when you look at – I’m obviously not a lawyer, but when you look at the standards that have been applied in every conflict around the world, it goes to questions of intent, it goes to questions of proportionality. There are other things you have to look at when making those determinations.QUESTION: Okay. My final thing on this. How do you think – I’m just trying to wrap my head around this. In his comments, the President has also said in the other part of the sentence, and in “other ways in which they go after population centers.” Going after someone or something does imply, to me, intent. And also, the bombs in question are 2,000-pound bombs, and their impact when dropped in a population center are known. We know that Gaza is already very – it&#8217;s very densely populated, and there are people squeezed in a small place. So how can any country claim there was no intent if you’re dropping a 2,000 bomb on a population center?MR MILLER: So this goes back to the very difficult problem that Israel has faced from the beginning, is that you have Hamas embedded in these population centers. So yes, the Israeli military very clearly is operating within population centers, because that’s where Hamas was; that’s where their military targets have been. And I will say as we have looked at this conflict from the beginning, obviously, we react to facts on the ground. So at the outset of this conflict, you saw Hamas that was well entrenched in civilian areas and was able to launch not just the attacks of October 7th, but dozens and dozens of rocket attacks. For a while, they were launching them every day for the first month of this conflict. And Israel, in the first stages of the conflict, was able to degrade Hamas’s ability to the fact that those attacks, while they still happen, are sporadic, they’re not – they’re not as frequent, and Hamas – the Hamas battalions in northern Gaza and central Gaza have largely been defeated and have been dismantled, though clearly there is still a Hamas population that exists in all of those areas.What we have also seen over the course of this conflict is Israel take measures to try and reduce civilian harm, and we have seen the numbers come down. Just if you look at the – at the death toll from back in October, November, as Israel implemented additional measures, the civilian death toll did go down. But we haven’t seen it come down far enough. And so when you look at – you take all those facts and you overlay them with a campaign in Rafah where you have a denser civilian population than we – than Israel would have faced anywhere else, just because of the people that have fled there, and you look at their track record at previous points in the operation, it leads us to believe that there would be incredible civilian toll, and it’s something that we can’t support.QUESTION: Okay. Truly final one, and I apologize to my colleagues. Can you tell us where we are on the hostage talks? And there are Israeli officials – I believe perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu – saying the deal on the hostage talks collapsed because of the President’s decision and because the President signaled this decision. What would you say to that?MR MILLER: So first of all, I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials – is that an on-the-record quote from someone? They’re not – I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials. But I would just say that is not at all our assessment of the hostage talks. We actually think that a Rafah operation would weaken Israel’s position, both in these talks and writ large. We’ve talked about this before, that a major military operation in Rafah would further weaken Israel’s standing in the world, would further create distance from its partners in the region who actually share Israel’s goal of seeing Hamas defeated and want to see Hamas replaced with a different governance structure in Gaza.And then also, if you look – just look at Hamas’s track record, they have never cared about Palestinian civilian lives. If they did, they wouldn’t have launched these attacks in the first place, which they knew would produce a response; they wouldn’t hide behind civilians, and they would have agreed to a ceasefire long ago. So I just don’t think that that argument holds any water.With respect to the talks itself – so we continue to engage with the Israeli Government on the amendments to the proposal that Hamas submitted earlier this week. There continues to be – we continue to work to try to finalize the text, try to get an agreement. And I will just say that any effort like this is incredibly difficult. This one has certainly been incredibly difficult, but we will continue to stay engaged to try to get a deal because we believe it’s in the interest of all relevant parties.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: So just – it wasn’t an anonymous official; it was the prime minister of Israel that &#8212;MR MILLER: So I hadn’t seen that on the record. That’s – I had seen anonymous quotes earlier. I think my comments stand.QUESTION: Okay. So &#8212;MR MILLER: I did give a substantive response in any regard, so – you can apply to that.QUESTION: Well, I – okay. Substantive – I don’t know by whose definition. But anyway, when you say the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ouch, Matt. I thought I was pretty substantive. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, when you say that the death toll – when you said prior – the death toll will continue – or has fallen since October, it’s come down but not yet enough, whose death toll are you talking about here? Whose figures are you accepting?MR MILLER: So we are looking at the figures that are released by the ministry of health, which we do have &#8212;QUESTION: By the Gaza – by the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, which you know that we have &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; which is run by Hamas?MR MILLER: Which you know that we &#8212;QUESTION: And you have &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – let me just finish. We know that we do have – we don’t have any way of verifying those figures on our own &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then how do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; but they are – they are the only figures that are available. And look, the UN relies on them, we look at them &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We do think there are probably issues with the numbers, but they do capture a large death toll and a large civilian death toll.QUESTION: But you’re fairly certain that, at least in terms of the trend, they’re accurate?MR MILLER: It – it’s just – I won’t – I can’t say accurate with any degree of certainty, like I can’t give you a, what, percentage accuracy &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then what – (laughter) &#8212;MR MILLER: But – no, no, hold on. But if you look at &#8212;QUESTION: With any degree of certainty? Like it could be zero percent?MR MILLER: No, no, I can’t say if they’re – I can’t say if they’re off – no, hold – if they’re off by 10 percent, by 5, by 50 – I can’t say something like that. But just –QUESTION: Well, I mean, they might be off by 50 percent. Who knows?MR MILLER: But stipulate whatever they’re off by, they have come down. And so they have come down over time – the daily number has come down over time when you look at where they were last October or November to where they are today.QUESTION: All right. Last thing really briefly, just on this whole “a hypothetical” thing – because when Humeyra started her question, it was about my question to you. And it is a hypothetical, because you have the President making a determination on something that hasn’t happened yet, right?MR MILLER: He is making United States policy based on conversations with the Government of Israel, where they tell us what they plan to do.QUESTION: Well, let me put it in a very flip way. Like should I be bringing an umbrella home with me when I leave work today?MR MILLER: I have not looked at the forecast. I can’t quite answer that.QUESTION: Right, so that’s a hypothetical, so you don’t know, right?MR MILLER: I don’t have control over the forecast. The Government of Israel &#8212;QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. The Government of Israel has control of what it’s going to do, and so when they tell us that they intend to do something, we make our policy in reaction to that.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just a point of clarification on that very front, because Admiral Kirby said this morning that the Israelis have been saying their Rafah operation is limited, precise, and of a short duration. That’s something that you’re going to monitor. So are they – have they told you that they are going to undertake a big operation in Rafah, and that’s the reason for this policy shift?MR MILLER: They have made quite clear they intend to conduct an operation. The operation they have conducted so far has been limited. They have talked, I think quite openly, about conducting a major military operation in Rafah. We are opposed to that, but we’ll see what happens. We have made quite clear we don’t want to see it happen.We continue – and I should say we do continue to engage with them about other options that they can pursue. We have presented a full range of other policy choices that they can make that we think would achieve the goal of dismantling Hamas and choking off the Hamas battalions that remain in Rafah without further endangering civilians there and without causing this mass population displacement with no place for them to go. And so they may end up taking that option, but right now we will wait and see what happens.QUESTION: Have you had any indication in conversations since this policy shift was announced that they are considering a different tactic?MR MILLER: I’m not going to talk about our private conversations with them, but you can look at their public remarks and draw conclusions from that.QUESTION: Okay. The original reason, going back to April 4th, that both the President and the Secretary have said that the U.S. would shift its policy was because Israel needed to boost the amount of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. That picture looks about as bleak as it has ever been with Rafah being closed, Kerem Shalom being open but no – nothing going in. So is this suspension meant to also address the humanitarian effect, or are there other potential consequences that the administration is considering on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into previewing any other potential policy options. I will say, first of all, you’re right – we have been very clear that the level of humanitarian assistance needed to come up and it needed to stay up, and it is not at the level it needs to be this week. That said, Kerem Shalom is open today and some trucks have moved through Kerem Shalom, so we are – have had a bit of an increase from where we were yesterday. I don’t have the number but I – just before I came out here – told that some trucks moved through.Some trucks also move through Erez, so there are trucks that have gotten in. Not enough – clearly, not enough, not at the level that they should be, and so that’s why we’ll continue to push, continue to work with humanitarian partners to try and get them back up as well as to get Rafah open. That will continue to be a priority for us.QUESTION: But are there any additional – because that was April 4th, so that was a month ago, a little over a month ago. So are there any additional consequences at this stage being considered for – specifically for the humanitarian &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not going to preview specific steps, but we have always made clear, when it comes to humanitarian assistance and the need to have it increased and sustained, that we will make our policy determinations based on the facts on the ground. And that’s the case.QUESTION: Okay. And one follow-up on Humeyra’s question about the hostage talks. How can you say with such confidence that the policy shift the U.S. has just announced didn’t meaningfully affect the trajectory of those talks, either by undercutting the Israelis at the negotiating table or emboldening Hamas at the negotiating table?MR MILLER: So it is just not our assessment, based on actually being in the middle of these talks and seeing how it’s happening and what Hamas is actually demanding and what their incentive structure actually is. That’s just not how we see it. But also, again, to my point, the idea that – we just have never seen Hamas as having any interest in the – in civilians and civilian life in Rafah. So the idea that a Rafah invasion that would kill civilians is something that they lose sleep over just isn’t backed up by the facts, isn’t backed up by their track record the past seven months, when they have put civilians in harm’s way time and time again.QUESTION: If a full-scale Rafah operation goes forward, is it safe to assume that it eliminates the prospects of a ceasefire and hostage deal altogether?MR MILLER: We will continue to work for a ceasefire that brings the hostages home no matter what it takes. That will continue to be the goal that we will try – that we will work for.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one question on the NSM delay. Is there any reason that you can provide to us for the delay?MR MILLER: That we just continue to work to finalize it.QUESTION: Okay. I’m curious about President Biden saying that those 2,000-pound bombs were used to kill civilians, and now the United States won’t allow those bombs to be used or doesn’t want those bombs to be used. But we know that all of Gaza is so intensely populated, so is there a differentiating factor in terms of how many civilians lives you’ll allow to be killed with those bombs?MR MILLER: No. First of all, we have always made clear that we don’t want to see any civilian loss of life. And we have consistently pressed the Israeli Government to take additional steps to minimize the loss of civilian life. But the assessments that we make are informed by what happens on the ground, and we are in a very different place today than we were last October. That’s what I made clear a minute ago in response to – I think it was to Humeyra’s question – where you have seen Hamas significantly degraded. You have seen their ability to launch the kind of attacks that they did on October 7th significantly degraded, if not completely eliminated.They couldn’t launch an attack of that scale today. Their weapons production factories underground have been eliminated. Their – most of their battalion leadership in the north and in central Gaza has been eliminated. So Israel has achieved a great number of its military objectives. So that’s one thing that is different now versus then.But the other thing that’s different now versus then is that we have watched the experience of those few months, and even when Israel has taken additional steps to minimize civilian harm, we’ve still seen results that were – we’ve still seen results where far too many civilians were dying. So we talked about this on some of the trips, where – there was one in November where the Secretary went and pressed Israel to take additional civilian harm measures. They did, they announced some of those, we talked about them publicly, and we still saw an unacceptable loss of civilian life.So when you look at all of those factors, both where the battlefield – the battle versus Hamas stands today and the track record over the last few months, it leads us to believe that the loss of civilian life in Rafah, where you have a situation unlike anywhere else, both because of the concentration of people and because there’s nowhere left to go because all of these people have come down to Rafah and there’s nowhere for them to go now, it leads us to believe that the results would be disastrous from a civilian harm perspective.QUESTION: Okay. And then NSC’s John Kirby said earlier today that Biden doesn’t want certain categories of American weapons used in particular operation in a particular place. Can you just clarify for us: Is this review of the future shipments of U.S. weaponry based on what those weapons are, or is it just based on the possibility of delaying or halting all U.S. weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get ahead of what the President said last night. We are reviewing – we have paused one shipment; we are reviewing others. But as the President made clear, we will always be committed to Israel’s defense. He talked about continuing to provide them defensive weapons. We will always be committed to Israel’s security. We will always be committed to helping Israel defend itself against Hamas, Hizballah, the threat from Iran, the threat from other terrorist groups and malign actors.But when we look at a potential operation in Rafah, the President made clear that we are not going to provide them certain weapons that they could use in such an operation.QUESTION: And then just last question. Kirby also said that Biden was forth – was as forthright in his conversations with Netanyahu about the possibility to pause weapons shipments as he was in the conversation publicly on CNN yesterday. Was the Secretary also as crystal clear in his private conversations as President Biden was publicly yesterday?MR MILLER: Yes. I don’t – we have been quite clear with the Government of Israel some – for some time that we are opposed to a major Rafah operation. And the Secretary in his conversations has made that quite clear and made quite clear the potential implications, as has – as the President did.QUESTION: He’s made clear which shipments might be paused?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – I’m not going to get into details, but you can be fully assured that the Government of Israel understood our policy.QUESTION: Sorry. Did he make that warning in last week’s trip?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into details. As I said, there is no doubt that they understood what our policy was should they launch a Rafah operation, or what our policy would be, I should say.Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. And before I ask about Rafah, I want to bring your attention to two days from today, May 11, will mark the second anniversary since an Israeli sniper killed our colleague Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist. And I want to ask you: Are you satisfied that everything that could have been done to bring those responsible, to hold them accountable has been done, and do you consider that case to be closed?MR MILLER: That death continues to be a tragedy – one that was investigated by the Israeli Government, one that we investigated, and I don’t have anything further to add to what we’ve said – what we’ve said in the past.QUESTION: So the case is closed?MR MILLER: I just don’t have anything further to say on what we said many times from this podium.QUESTION: Now, on Rafah, Matt, I know there is – or what you guys keep saying that there is no major operation, but there are little tiny operations. They just killed a family of eight last night in an area that is to the west, not to the south or to the east, in Tel al-Sultan. I mean, I don’t want to name all their names, but four were children: Ahmad Abdulrahman (ph), 10 years old; Lanana (ph), 12 years old; Muhamad Ramzi Lulu (ph), five years old; Jana Muhamad Lulu (ph), one year old. I mean, so these things go on day in and day out, and &#8212;MR MILLER: Every one of those deaths is an absolute tragedy, Said.QUESTION: Right, right. But I mean, it is obvious that the Israelis are not heeding the President’s call, your call, to sort of hold back and so on. And the one thought or what we heard is that once they raise the Israeli flag on the Rafah crossing that maybe things will not go south from there, but they are. Right?MR MILLER: So I don’t know where you heard that, Said. Every death is a tragedy. We have made clear we want to see them take additional steps to reduce civilian harm, but that doesn’t change the fact that just as a factual matter we haven’t seen a full-scale major military operation. Again, what we’re talking about is – like the kind of operation you saw in Khan Younis, like the kind of operation you saw in Gaza City. Just as a factual matter, that has not yet begun.QUESTION: By the way, you said that Hamas is hiding among the civilian population. It was not Hamas that drove the people south. It was actually the Israelis. They told them to go and hunker in Rafah, and now &#8212;MR MILLER: So, Said, you’re getting to my exact point, which is it was appropriate to evacuate people when there was – hold on – when there was some place for them to go, right?QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: When there was Rafah, which was if not completely safe, safer than Gaza City, safer than Khan Younis, and someplace for them to go. That’s not true anymore. There are not sufficient – there’s not sufficient infrastructure in Khan Younis or elsewhere in Gaza for the people that moved to Rafah to go somewhere else. That is why we are so opposed to a military operation there.QUESTION: Yeah, which takes me to my next question. I mean, if the Israelis, as you said, have already achieved their goals, and if there is no place for these people to go anywhere, why can’t the United States say, no invasion of Rafah, this operation must end now, full stop? Because obviously this is a wall, or dammed, or whatever it is.MR MILLER: I think we have said no major invasion of – Said, hold on. You were just listening to the initial part of this briefing. But that said &#8212;QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, hold up. There are still Hamas fighters there. We have never said that Israel shouldn’t be able to do anything to take on the Hamas battalions that are there. We – there are things that we support. We have made clear in private conversations with them alternative paths for taking out and degrading and choking off those Hamas battalions. That continues to be our position. And it continues to be our position that Hamas could end all of this right now if they would – if those battalions would lay down their arms, if Sinwar would come out of the tunnels and if they would stop fighting. That’s another way that you could end all this.QUESTION: And lastly on the aid, it seems that there was another attack by Israeli settlers on aid trucks a couple days ago. Are you aware of that report, and is the United States doing anything about that?MR MILLER: I am aware of that report. In fact, we – if you looked at the statement we put out – I think it was day before yesterday – the Secretary talked with the foreign minister of Jordan about that attack and made clear that the Israeli Government needs to do everything possible to prevent those attacks and to hold people accountable. It’s our understanding that the Government of Israel arrested six people in response to those attacks. That was after they had arrested three people in response to the previous attack.That is clearly the right thing to do, but they need to do more to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. These are attacks on aid convoys delivering humanitarian assistance to civilians. They have nothing to do with this – with the conflict with Hamas. They should not be impeded, delayed, obstructed in any way.QUESTION: Well, they have nothing to do with it except that it wouldn’t be needed as desperately &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean. What I mean &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; as it is if it wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean is if your goal is to deprive Hamas of something, stopping these convoys for civilians does nothing to achieve that goal.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Josh.QUESTION: Hey, thanks. Just wanted to clarify something you said at the top. I think I heard you say there are certain types of military systems that we will not make available to Israel for use in a Rafah campaign. Does the President’s statement preclude delivering those weapons shipments or analogous ones to Israel for use in other areas during this timeframe?MR MILLER: I am just not going to get beyond what the President said last night at this point. We’ve made clear what our policy is. We will engage with the Government of Israel about this question and others, but as I said at the top, while we are opposed to the – I’m just going to speak about this generally – while we’re opposed to a Rafah – major Rafah military operation, we do still support Israel’s right to defend itself against other threats. That has not changed; that will not change. The President’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad.And I should have said this earlier, so I’ll make the point now – we actually think – one of the – we actually do believe that a Rafah campaign actually – in addition to all the harm it would cause to the Palestinian people, actually weakens Israel’s security, doesn’t make it stronger. It’s one of the other reasons we’re opposed to the campaign.QUESTION: So and – and this just as a practical matter, do you assess that Israel requires the weapons in these shipments to proceed with the – with the operation?MR MILLER: I am not – I just am not going to get into the details of how they would conduct an operation at all.QUESTION: Okay. So, well then, on Hamas’s incentive structure, granted that – granting your point that they are not concerned in these negotiations about civilian casualties, you have said before – you even alluded just now – there is Hamas – there are military targets in Rafah. Does Hamas in these negotiations feel an incentive to release hostages in order to preserve that military infrastructure?MR MILLER: We think the only thing the Hamas leadership cares about is protecting themselves, not the &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah fine – all the Hamas – all the Hamas assets that &#8212;MR MILLER: Is themselves, so I’m going – I’m kind of limited in what I can say here, but ultimately, when you look at the things that are on the table in the hostage deal, the point of a hostage – this deal, the things that Hamas gets out of it, are things that would benefit the civilian population of Gaza. Those aren’t things that they have shown they have a huge interest in advancing.QUESTION: Right. And I’m just trying to think about how – obviously, this is a big issue that has a lot of really important components, but I’m just trying to zoom in on how it affects the hostage negotiations. I’ve talked – spent a fair amount of time this week interviewing the families of Israeli Americans. They’re – I think every one of them was very complimentary of how the administration and this building has been supportive of them, but I can’t help but wonder, as we watch what Hamas says – and so much of this negotiation seems to hinge on the sticking point of a ceasefire, of an end to the military campaign – if – do you assess that the President coming out up front and saying that there – they will – that the U.S. would not provide weapons in this context – does that not undermine Israel’s leverage in a negotiation?Or do you just think that the military issue here is not – and I mean, I heard what you said earlier about how you think this would play out, but however self-serving Hamas is, does not the – do you just not think the threat of military losses on that file are relevant to the negotiations?MR MILLER: No. It just hasn’t been our assessment that that is how the negotiations have played out at all.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, so I want to go back to the talks and following up on that question. There was some reportings that the talks are now on pause because the Israelis brings a new demand of excluding Rafah from any ceasefire – agreed ceasefire in the – in Gaza Strip. Can you comment on that? Can you confirm or deny, or is this will be something acceptable for you, to exclude areas from ceasefire?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the kind of picayune details of leaked reports, but largely speaking – broadly speaking – the ceasefire negotiations have been about a ceasefire for all of Gaza, not isolating any one particular area.QUESTION: Not exclusions?MR MILLER: No seclusion – they have been a ceasefire for all of Gaza.QUESTION: And two days ago you were positive that a deal is possible and bridging the gap is still possible in the negotiations. Is it still your assessment?MR MILLER: It remains our assessment that it’s possible. This has always been difficult, though. It’s been difficult from the beginning, and when you get to the end of these types of negotiations, it – it can – you’ve heard the Secretary say this before. Oftentimes the last issues are the hardest ones to reach. There were other periods where we thought we might be close to a deal. All I can say is that we think there’s space for a deal still and we’re going to continue to stay engaged with our partners in the region to try to push for one.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Switching the topic?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Two questions on Iraq. Under Secretary Uzra Zeya was in Baghdad yesterday and she was in Erbil today, and she met with the different officials. I want to know if there is any connection between her visit to Baghdad and the recent law that was passed by Iraqi parliament, anti-LGBTQ. And overall, how does the U.S. view the human rights and democracy in both Iraq and Erbil?MR MILLER: So this was a long-planned trip to advance regional humanitarian, human rights, and civil security priorities. She had three objectives there: one, promoting democracy and partnering with Iraqis to support a vibrant civil society; two, advancing the protections of human rights, including press freedom and freedom of expression; third, advocating to create safe, informed, voluntary, durable solutions to internally displaced persons throughout Iraq. But of course our position on that law is well-known. We’ve made that quite clear.QUESTION: And secondly, in her meetings with the KRG officials, what we saw from the KRG statement, and also her meeting with the president of Kurdistan, they touched about the situation in Sinjar, the current situation in Sinjar, and also the agreement of Sinjar. How do you see the current situation in Sinjar and the agreement of Sinjar that was agreed in 2022 – in 2020, sorry, but it hasn’t been applied (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a full answer.Go ahead, Willy.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Are you worried that – I mean, this is – the weapons has kind of been your trump card. Are you worried that by using this card now you’ve lost your leverage and your ability to influence Israel, particularly on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So we have – I’ve gotten this question a lot about leverage. We’ve never seen it just as a question of leverage. Israel is a longstanding ally of ours. We have a deep relationship with them at a government-to-government level. We have a deep relationship with them at a people-to-people level. We have always seen this – understood this relationship is between two sovereign countries. Israel is going to make the decisions that they are going to make. They have to make a full assessment of the situation they face in Gaza. They have to take a full assessment of what that will mean for the policies of their allies and partners. And we have to do the same thing, and we will.That said, we will continue to give Israel our best advice about what they should and should not do, as we have from the beginning. We will continue to have – (cell phone rings). That’s loud, Kylie. (Laughter.) Will have very direct at times, I’m sure, conversations about both how they operate their military campaigns and the provision of humanitarian assistance. I don’t expect that to change in any way.QUESTION: Those channels remain just as open today after the President’s interview on CNN as they did (inaudible)?MR MILLER: We have continued to have conversations with the Israeli Government today, I can assure you of that.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Moving to Europe.MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Happy Europe Day. The EU approved a plan to use some of the funding generated by profits from Russian – frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine. Are you on the same page with them now that REPO Act is the law of the land?MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make. We continue to work with our European partners to ensure that we use those assets that remain frozen and that will remain frozen – that we use those assets for Ukraine’s benefit. But I don’t have any further announcements to make about it.QUESTION: On the supplemental, do you feel any urgency in terms of obligating the funding that you have available? The DOD already announced 7 billion immediately, but you have 2 billion available from State to meet the urgent needs in Ukraine (inaudible) the funding &#8212;MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: Hmm?MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: The State Department has &#8212;MR MILLER: When? Was the question when we’re going to &#8212;QUESTION: To meet – to meet the urgent needs.MR MILLER: Stay tuned.QUESTION: All right. So &#8212;MR MILLER: If the question is when. I didn’t – I didn’t hear the first part of the question, but stay tuned.QUESTION: On Georgia, I know we discussed that yesterday as well, but an awful lot happened since yesterday. We have seen graphic pictures of them beating up the protesters. Some young protesters are being – are being beaten up in and outside of their apartments. Where are you standing? I know that you made it clear that you stand with the people of Georgia. Is there any obvious example you can give us to prove that’s the case?MR MILLER: So we are deeply troubled by the actions taken against those protesting against the draft law and the actions taken to advance it. We are aware of increased reports of harassment and physical assault of civil society and opposition activists and journalists. We condemn this and we call for a full, independent, and timely investigation. And I will just say, and kind of in response to the broader question, we have enjoyed a successful partnership with Georgia for more than 30 years. We would like to continue to work with Georgia. There is still time to work collaboratively with Georgia, but the Georgian Government needs to change course for that to be the case.QUESTION: Clearly they ignored every warning from this building. Is it time for the Secretary to step in and pick up the call, call them and say enough is enough?MR MILLER: I always appreciate the very prescriptive policy options you have to offer us in this briefing, but we will take – (laughter) – we will &#8212;QUESTION: It’s the general sentiment.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: That’s the sentiment in Georgia. People feel &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I understand. But we have made clear what our policy is and we will continue to make that clear, and I’m not going to preview any actions that we are going to – going to take from this podium.QUESTION: Again, I &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me – let me just – let me go – just go ahead.QUESTION: I’m afraid I may have just gotten my answer with “stay tuned,” but now that the battle in Congress is over for aid and American support, what is going to be the main focus? And if Ukrainian manpower is now a concern, what, if anything, can the U.S. do to help in that regard?MR MILLER: So when it comes to manpower, that is a question that Ukraine of course has to answer for – answer for itself, and we have seen the Ukrainian Government take steps to that question. What we can do as a partner of Ukraine is to continue to support them militarily and to continue to support their economy, and most of all, to do what we can to help to get them to a place where they can stand on their own two feet. And you have seen us implement a number of policies in that regard. We’ve started to see the money that was passed in the supplemental flow. I can assure you there will be more announcements coming – upcoming in the next few weeks.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, question one. Senior UNRWA official Scott Anderson told Politico the other day that IDF units are already on the ground in Rafah killing dozens of people there, including kids. He also said one of the units is the same that killed seven World Central Kitchen workers, including an American, of course. So he is saying the IDF is already killing people, to Said’s point, kind of in a way that questions this line between major and minor operations. And one of these units is one that ostensibly killed an American. So how is the U.S. letting an Israeli unit that killed an American now continue to kill Palestinians? Like, is that not a red line?MR MILLER: So I’m just not able to verify that report; and since I’m unable to verify that report, I’m not able to comment on any implications of it.QUESTION: But conceivably, I mean, look (inaudible).MR MILLER: The red line I – bottom line, I cannot – I mean, I can’t verify that to be true, so I can’t talk about any &#8212;QUESTION: Understood.MR MILLER: &#8212; possible implications for something I don’t know to be true.QUESTION: But just to follow up on that, what is the latest on the unit that did kill the World Central Kitchen workers?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, it’s been 101 days now since Hind Rajab, her family members, the medics sent to save her were killed. So first question related to that: Is there an update on the investigation into that attack?MR MILLER: I don’t have any – one. I’m happy to go back and get you the latest.QUESTION: All right, okay, okay. So she’s one of 14,000 kids killed, Israeli forces have killed. Those World Central Kitchen workers, of course there’s a hundred more. President Biden admits Israel has killed civilians with U.S. weapons. We have the delay of the memo as to whether or not the U.S. determines whether Israel has violated international law.With all of this, I understand there’s been a pause in one shipment of weapons. You have said other shipments are under review. But how did the U.S. feel comfortable sending Israel 17 billion if we can’t get answers to any of this, and how can it justify sending any more weapons at this point?MR MILLER: So two things can be true at the same time, and two things are true at the same time here. One, that we have – do have concerns about certain ways that Israel has conducted operations. We’ve been open and forthright about those. We’ve engaged with the Government of Israel about ways they can improve their operations to minimize civilian harm. We’ve seen them take some steps. We haven’t seen them take enough. And of course, that has led us to have concerns about how a Rafah operation would unfold. That is one thing that’s true.The other thing that’s true is that we are committed to Israel’s defense. Israel is a democracy in the Middle East that is a longtime ally of the United States with whom we share many values, that faces a number of threats from its neighbors, it faces a number of threats from terrorist groups, and we are not going to abandon Israel in the face of those threats, and that includes spending every dime that is contained in the supplemental for Israel’s defense. I would also add that there is money in that supplemental for humanitarian relief efforts for the Palestinian people, and we intend to spend every dime of that money as well.QUESTION: And I know you’ve said still Hamas remains there. But as we’ve discussed before many times in this room, there is the possibility not just of Hamas sustaining for many more months but that this might turn more people to sort of join Hamas after being bombarded. So, like, to what end does an operation remain just committed to, like, removing Hamas from, like, threatening Israel, given that there’s also the concern of hostages?MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Like, four have been killed, three have been saved in military operations.MR MILLER: I’m just saying I feel like you have been listening and internalizing the Secretary’s speeches, because what the Secretary has made clear is that there has to be a political path forward.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: That there can’t be only a military &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Hold on – just be a military operation. There has to be a military operation that is followed by a political path forward that meets the legitimate political aspirations of the Palestinian people, or you will have a continuation of this endless cycle of violence. And that is why we have engaged in diplomacy in the region to try to create that political path forward.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Three quick questions, if I may. Yesterday Russia accused the United States of meddling Indian election and also stated that the U.S. has not yet provided any reliable evidence regarding the murder plot against a U.S. citizen named Pannun by Indian nationals. Could you comment on this?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first, no, of course we don’t involve ourselves in elections in India, as we don’t involve ourselves in elections anywhere in the world. Those are decisions for the people of India to make.With respect to the second question, there is a publicly-returned indictment that contains alleged facts. They’re allegations until they’re proven before a jury that anyone can go and read. I won’t speak to them here because, of course, it’s an ongoing legal matter. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Two Bangladeshi citizens were shot dead by Indian security forces at the Bangladesh-India border, and this continues a concerning trend of civilian killing at the border which appears to violation – violate international law. Could the U.S., given its strong partnership with India in the region, request that India assess these killings and ensure accountability for any violations?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports about this incident. We understand the Indian and Bangladeshi border security agencies are in communication with one another, and I would defer to them to speak to their respective investigations into the circumstances of the shooting.One more, quickly.QUESTION: One more, thank you. Following the sham election in Bangladesh in January 2006, the ongoing local government election which is being boycotted by the main opposition party BNP is experiencing issues of intimidation, voter rigging, harassment, attack on journalists, and low voter turnout. Could you provide an update on the U.S. visa policy as announced last year for those responsible for undermining democratic election in Bangladesh?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to announce. We obviously made that policy public. At times we make designations under that policy public; at times we keep them private. I don’t have anything to announce today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I take your point a few moments ago about the word “leverage,” that you don’t love that word. But President Biden’s announcement about the arms shipment I think would be seen by most people as the most assertive mode for trying to rein Israel in. With approximately 35,000 people dead, approximately 80 percent of the population of Gaza displaced, and the UN saying there’s a fully blown famine in the north, what do you say to critics who say that such a move should have come earlier?MR MILLER: So I spoke to this earlier and said that our policy responds to the facts on the ground. We made clear at the outset of this conflict we wanted to see Israel defeat Hamas, we wanted to see Israel dismantle Hamas and prevent its ability to launch the terrorist attacks of October 7th again. They’ve largely succeeded in that goal. As I said, Hamas could not launch attacks again today. We also respond to the increasing civilian death toll, and while we’ve seen the daily count come down because of steps that Israel has taken that we have urged, it hasn’t come down enough. And so when you look at all of those things in total, that leads us to believe that an operation going forward would have enormous impact on civilian harm.And I do just want to say, again, every time I get this question about the number of civilians that died in this conflict, it gets posed to me as a question about the Government of Israel. And remember, it is Hamas that hides behind civilians, it’s Hamas that has built tunnels under hospitals and schools and mosques and at times hides in those facilities and puts civilians at harm’s way. So I get there are very fair questions about how Israel has conducted this war, and I stand here and answer them. The Israeli Government answers them too. But it is also true that a lot of the harm to civilians is because of the way Hamas decided to embed itself in the civilian population in the first place. That in no way changes the burden on the Government of Israel, as we’ve made clear.QUESTION: But respectfully, Matt, I mean, they’re dead because the armed forces of Israel killed them.MR MILLER: It – going after Hamas fighters who are hiding behind civilians. That has been the – the has been true since day one; it remains true today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Just to follow up on his question, it makes it – your answer makes it sound like it’s an okay number for 40,000 &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s – that is not –QUESTION: &#8212; people to be killed.MR MILLER: That is not – hold on. That is not at all a fair reading of what I said. I made quite clear that – we have made quite clear for – since the – for months and months and months that far too many Palestinians have been killed in this conflict. And we have engaged with the Government of Israel to bring down the level of civilian death and convince them to take additional steps to reduce civilian harm. When we look at the operation in Rafah, it is a landscape like no other both because of the densely – the way people are densely packed into such a small area – people from Gaza City; people from Khan Younis – and, unlike with respect to an operation in Gaza City or Khan Younis, there’s nowhere for them to evacuate to, and that is a critical difference when it comes to a Rafah operation that didn’t exist for previous ones.QUESTION: So the Israeli army says that it has the munitions it needs for the Rafah operation and for any planned operations. Does that mean – do you think that that is their way of saying we will go into Rafah?MR MILLER: I will let them speak for themselves on those questions.QUESTION: And just more about the aid. You say that every dime in that U.S. aid to Gaza will be spent. How do you – how do you plan to spend it in Gaza given that settlers are stopping convoys from going into Gaza?MR MILLER: Delaying – delaying –QUESTION: And today UNRWA &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – delaying not stopping.QUESTION: And today UNRWA was set on fire by settlers as well.MR MILLER: So first of all, they delayed those convoys; they did not stop them. Those convoys eventually got through. And those attacks on those convoys are just one route into Gaza. That’s a specific route coming from Jordan being delivered into Erez. There are other routes. There’s deliveries from Ashdod that are coming straight into Erez, as well as hopefully we’ll get Kerem Shalom back open and running at a significant level as it has been for several weeks. And, of course, we want to get Rafah open. That’s what we’ve been working on. It’s what we’ll continue &#8212;QUESTION: And can I ask about Sudan?MR MILLER: Let me – that’s – just because that was three and we’ve been going a while, let me go &#8212;QUESTION: Sudan?MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I want to go back to the NSM report. Okay, the timeline, it starts in 2023 – January 2023, correct? I was wondering when is the cutoff. When does the report stop that review?MR MILLER: I am going to defer that answer – I know this will be unsatisfying – until you can see a public piece of that in the coming days. All of the questions about what’s contained in the NSM will be answered.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Maybe not all, but a number of them, so &#8212;QUESTION: All right. I have a couple more, please.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Have humanitarian organizations had any input in this report? And if so, how was it decided to be incorporated in the report?MR MILLER: So the report is written by people here in the State Department as well with input from the Defense Department. It’s not written by outside organizations. Of course, it can’t be. It is a report by the United States Government, so they don’t have input in the sense that they are actually looking at the report, editing, contributing components to it. But that said, we interact with humanitarian organizations all the time. We take their feedback. We take their input. And it is reflected in all of the work that we do.QUESTION: Okay. Two more now, moving away from Israel.MR MILLER: Two more?QUESTION: Just a little.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Two more.QUESTION: Earlier when you talked about defending – still defending Israel’s security, you mentioned a couple of threats to Israel, including Iran. Now, I was wondering if you mean Iran the country or the rulers – the people in power in Iran.MR MILLER: I certainly don’t mean the people of Iran. I mean the regime in Iran that has financed terrorism against Israel and recently launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel.QUESTION: It seems like Iran is feeling – feeling a little threatened, because today another senior advisor of Ali Khamenei, the leader, said that if Iran’s existence is threatened, they will review their military and nuclear doctrine. I was wondering how concerned are you by these – this threat – this comment about revision of their nuclear doctrine is – how concerning is it?MR MILLER: So those comments are irresponsible, but as the President and Secretary have made clear, the United States will ensure one way or another that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We continue to use a variety of weapon – or sorry – a variety of tools in pursuit of that goal and all options remain on the table. Ultimately, we believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve a sustainable, effective solution, but given their escalation across the board – including their failure to cooperate with the IAEA – we are far from – far away from anything like that right now.And then we’ll do one more and then wrap up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. The President said he put the hold on munitions and bombs to Israel over not wanting them used in a full-scale invasion of Rafah. Why has the U.S. put a hold given that a full-scale invasion is not underway and instead it’s a limited operation by Israel?MR MILLER: I think I may – I have answered that any number of times already in this briefing. So go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. And will other shipments &#8212;MR MILLER: No offense. It’s just kind of – (laughter) &#8212;QUESTION: Will other shipments be put on hold? Is that something under consideration?MR MILLER: We are reviewing other shipments. I don’t have any announcements to make.QUESTION: Finally, is the NSM-20 report binding in terms of providing weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: The – I’m not going to speak to the NSM report until it is final to make a conclusion. That said, you can look at the national security memo itself and see what factors go into our determinations and what potential outcomes are – not – and I will leave it at that.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Bangladesh																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Ukraine
- Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Lu’s Travel to India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu will travel to India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh May 10—15. His trip will strengthen bilateral cooperation with each country and demonstrate U.S. support for a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.In Chennai, Assistant Secretary Lu will meet with Consulate personnel to bolster bilateral engagement in southern India.He will then travel to Colombo to engage with officials from across the political spectrum and deepen the United States’ partnership with Sri Lanka. In his meetings, he will reaffirm the United States’ support for Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, as well as the importance of a robust civil society as a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.Assistant Secretary Lu will conclude his trip in Dhaka, where he will meet with government officials, civil society leaders, and other Bangladeshis to discuss U.S.-Bangladesh cooperation, including on addressing the climate crisis and deepening economic ties.
- Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices HomeOffice of the SpokespersonBriefings&#8230;Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices				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();			}		});	}																										Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices																																		Special Briefing																														April 22, 2024																																							AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Good afternoon to you all, and I express my thanks to Secretary Blinken and to Spokesperson Matt Miller for their great remarks and for the introduction.&nbsp; My name is Robert Gilchrist, Ambassador Robert Gilchrist, and I am the Senior Bureau Official in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.&nbsp; I am honored to be here with you all today to release the&nbsp;48th Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which was submitted to Congress earlier today. &nbsp;This congressionally mandated report, colloquially known as the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, has been a flagship effort of the DRL Bureau since 1977.&nbsp; It is completed only through the significant expertise and effort brought by the State Department’s dedicated public servants in U.S. missions abroad and in Washington, for which I and the Department of State are grateful.&nbsp; Human rights belong to everyone, and this report is one way we demonstrate our commitment to these universal rights.  &nbsp;Even though our human rights are universal, they are far from universally respected, and the United States recognizes that standing up for these rights is often dangerous.&nbsp; Human rights defenders and civil society leaders around the world often work at great personal risk to improve the lives of all.  That is especially the case for those whose work includes protecting women and girls; members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups; LGBTQI+; and persons with disabilities.&nbsp; Members of these groups – and those who press for the protection of human rights – are often targeted with threats and harassment, arrest, and violence. The brave individuals across the globe who risk their own life and freedom to champion the human rights and dignity of others deserve our deep thanks. &nbsp;In the nearly 50 years since the United States first rolled out the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, we have seen significant changes in respect for human rights around the world.&nbsp; There have been tragedies, but also triumphs.&nbsp; There have been times when U.S. leadership on human rights has been heralded, and times when it has been questioned.&nbsp; But as we look to the future, just a few months after the 75th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one thing is clear:&nbsp; U.S. global leadership in defense and support of human rights is as necessary as ever.&nbsp; This is not a responsibility we take lightly or for granted; we know leadership is earned.  The report – unparalleled by any government in its comprehensive approach to human rights worldwide – is one of the tools towards that end.&nbsp;The&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;does not seek to catalog every human rights abuse or violation throughout the year, nor does it reach legal conclusions.&nbsp; What it does, uniquely, is present for each country a credible, carefully vetted report that provides the world with a clear window into the human rights conditions in every corner of the globe. &nbsp;This objective reporting is more essential than ever in a world where we increasingly see facts smeared as lies, lies presented as facts, and information manipulated to disturbing ends by autocrats and other malign actors.&nbsp; By shining a light on the human rights conditions of our adversaries and our partners equally, and by lifting up the selfless efforts of human rights defenders and civil society groups working to improve respect for those rights, the United States is helping contribute to a world where those rights are better protected for everyone.&nbsp;Although the report documents human rights conditions in countries around the world, the Biden-Harris Administration has made clear that human rights must be safeguarded at home as well. &nbsp;The administration has emphasized since taking office in 2021 that U.S. credibility and standing on human rights internationally depend on how well we are living up to our own obligations and commitments to advance human rights domestically. &nbsp;So we speak of the need to protect and respect human rights for everyone – and when we say that, we mean everyone. &nbsp;At the conclusion of this briefing, the State Department’s website will have the&nbsp;2023 Human Rights Report&nbsp;available for the public.&nbsp; I very much appreciate your attendance today, and I am happy also to take a few questions. &nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Guita.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Hello, Guita Aryan from Voice of America.&nbsp; I have a question on Iran.&nbsp; The Islamic Republic of Iran has cracked down on women’s compulsory hijab since late March and on, and as of the day it attacked Israel, it has even intensified that crackdown.&nbsp; At the same time, there is legislation on Capitol Hill mandating that the administration sanction higher leadership officials – the supreme leader, the president.&nbsp;Now with this report, which this report is about last year 2023, and this year there is – I’m sure there’s a lot more you may have.&nbsp; Isn’t it not time to sanction the higher officials, and would you be able – should the legislation pass and become an act, it requires its – the first report within 90 days.&nbsp; Would you be able to fulfill that?&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I guess there are a few things to respond – in my response.&nbsp; First of all, with regard to any legislation, of course, the department remains committed to fully implementing every law that is passed by Congress.&nbsp; And so there is certainly a commitment by the department to fulfilling the law.As you pointed out, this report refers to 2023.&nbsp; However, in 2023, Iran’s dismal human rights record continued to deteriorate.&nbsp; The regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists.&nbsp; And as you pointed out, the situation with regard to women continued to deteriorate as well.&nbsp; Iranian women faced increased discrimination through expanded application of punishments against people who violated the mandatory dress code, as you pointed out, leading to protests and widespread acts of civil disobedience.&nbsp;And many women and human rights activists received additional prison sentences for their activism, and they remain behind bars.&nbsp; The authorities continue to detain, sentence, and execute people in an effort to suppress the peaceful protests that began after the Mahsa Jina Amini’s September 22 death while in custody of the morality police.&nbsp; So the United States also continues to work in multinational arena.&nbsp;With regard to sanctions, we have applied sanctions.&nbsp; With regard to any future sanctions, I can’t provide and I’m not going to speculate about what may happen in the future.&nbsp; But the department has already actively used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 riots.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Said.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; The last three reports have shown steadily declining human rights conditions for the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.&nbsp; I want to – and on all aspects.&nbsp; I want to ask you about one aspect, which is administrative detention.&nbsp; The Israelis have put in practice since 1967 something called administrative detention, where they arrest people without charges.&nbsp; They keep them in prison for months, years, sometimes decades, without ever charging them, including children.&nbsp; I want to ask you:&nbsp; Is that a violation of international human rights, in your view?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I’ll refer you to the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;in terms of what we say on that specific issue.&nbsp; With regard to Israel, again, we have been clear with Israel on the moral obligations and strategic imperative it has to protect civilians and the human rights of civilians.&nbsp; And in addition, we’ve been firm in stating that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law, investigate allegations of wrongdoing, including wrongful detentions, and ensure accountability.&nbsp; And that remains the U.S. commitment.QUESTION:&nbsp; So is it, in the view of the United States, that the administrative detention practiced by Israel – as practiced by Israel – are a violation of the international human rights?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I said with regard to the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports, the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports&nbsp;do not trigger any sanctions, do not provide any analysis, but rather provide an assessment of the facts on the ground as they are reported to our embassy.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Missy Ryan.QUESTION:&nbsp; Hi, Missy Ryan from&nbsp;The Washington Post.&nbsp; I wanted to ask you a little bit more about the assessment regarding Israel’s response to alleged human rights abuses by members of the government or the security forces.&nbsp; In the 2022 report, it says that the Israeli military and civilian justice systems have rarely found members of the security forces to have committed abuses, and then it says that some steps were taken.&nbsp; In the ‘23 report, it just says that some credible steps were taken to identify and punish.&nbsp; Is the U.S. assessment no longer that Israel rarely takes action against the security forces?&nbsp; Could you somehow provide &#8212;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think regarding that specific language &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; &#8212; I don’t have details with regard to that.&nbsp; But we can certainly get back to you with that.QUESTION:&nbsp; Could you give us some sort of assessment of the – to what extent – some steps were taken.&nbsp; To what extent were those steps taken?&nbsp; Was it occasionally?&nbsp; Do you feel like – how far did it go to what you feel like would be an adequate standard?&nbsp; If you could provide any context there.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think in the framework of the reports we don’t provide sort of a qualitative assessment of a particular situation or how things have evolved regarding that language.&nbsp; I can see if we have additional details I can provide you with it.&nbsp; I can say that, as I’ve said – as I just said, that we raise these issues with the Israeli Government continuously, and including at the highest levels, with the firm belief that Israel has a moral obligation and an imperative to protect civilians and the rights of individuals in Israel and the occupied territories.&nbsp; But I don’t have any further specifics with regard to that language.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Janne.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; On China, regarding the Chinese Government labor exploitation of North Korean defectors and their repatriation to North Korea, have you discussed this measure – I mean this matter with China, and what measures is the United States currently taking on this?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, as has been announced, the Secretary will soon be traveling to the PRC this week, and he will, as he does in all of his engagements with the PRC, raise human rights at the highest levels and in the clearest way.&nbsp; And that means with regard to the full array of concerns that we have with the PRC.&nbsp; I won’t go into details with regard to specific conversations, but of course this is an issue that remains of concern and is one that we raise with our Chinese counterparts.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Humeyra.QUESTION:&nbsp; Just one thing on the numbers that you’ve used.&nbsp; In this report you have more than 21,000 Palestinians.&nbsp; That’s obviously – I understand you had a cutoff at the end of the year 2023.&nbsp; What are those – what is the source for that number?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Our embassy and the U.S. Government used diverse sources.&nbsp; With regard to that specific source, that’s something we can get back to you.&nbsp; But we rely on – we rely on a range of sources for the information that we’re able to pull together for the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.QUESTION:&nbsp; And within those range of sources, do you use Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I – with regard to that specific number, I would say that we use a broad range of sources, including from local authorities, as well as from international organizations and NGOs.QUESTION:&nbsp; So it does include Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I can’t – I’m not saying that specifically.&nbsp; I’m providing a broader answer.QUESTION:&nbsp; You said local authorities, though.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; But I’m providing a broader assessment in terms of where the numbers come from for our&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; On Bangladesh – thank you for doing this – given the significant human rights abuse highlighted in your reports, including arbitrary killings, torture, and political imprisonment, particularly with reference to the case of former prime minister and leader of the opposition – as you mentioned, this is a political ploy to remove her from the political process.&nbsp; So how do you ensure these reports lead to tangible changes and that the regime responsible faces – face consequences for their extreme human rights violations?AMBASSADOR&nbsp;GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I think &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; And one more on India.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think ensuring anything will happen can be challenging.&nbsp; Certainly our hope with the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;is by shining a light on specific issues and specific human rights concerns, we’re able to help facilitate a change by governments and regimes in a positive direction.With regard to Bangladesh, we had the visa restriction policy that was announced in May 2023, implemented before the elections with the hope of reducing violence to deter actions that could undermine the democratic election process.&nbsp; I have nothing new to announce at this time, but as is our longstanding practice, we don’t often preview actions with regard to policy or with regard to visas.&nbsp; But we have repeatedly expressed concern about the efforts by the government to repress freedom of expression – including from members of the press – freedom of association, and other fundamental freedoms and human rights, and that remains a continued concern of the United States.QUESTION:&nbsp; So one more on India.&nbsp; Your report’s finding significant human rights issues, including credible reports of arbitrary unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings and the attack of the press.&nbsp; And you mentioned that the government took minimum – “minimal credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who may – ” – “who have committed human rights abuses.”&nbsp; I am quoting from your report.&nbsp;So what action you are taking to make the government accountable, as India is your very strategic partner of the United States?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; What I will say is the U.S. and India regularly consult at the highest levels on democracy and human rights issues.&nbsp; We strongly encourage, urge India to uphold its human rights obligations and commitments.&nbsp; We also regularly meet with civil society representatives, both in the U.S. and India, to hear their perspectives, and those sorts of perspectives inform the&nbsp;Human Rights Report.&nbsp; And we encourage the Government of India to consult and meet regularly with civil society organizations representing a diversity of people.&nbsp;So there are a number of steps.&nbsp; It remains a key component of our – not just our dialogue but in terms of our engagement with India.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Nadia?QUESTION:&nbsp; I just have a technical question, actually.&nbsp; Do you – when you said you have multiple sources of gathering information, do you rely on Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, especially B’Tselem?&nbsp; And does the embassy in Jerusalem have some kind of a final say on if – do they omit information, do they block certain information, or is the State Department basically the one who makes the final decision?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I would say, I mean, well, our embassy in Jerusalem is part of the State Department.&nbsp; So certainly the reports are pulled together in the field with information that’s compiled from our embassy but also in Washington, and in the end what this represents is the voice of the entire State Department.&nbsp; So – and it comes from a multitude of – we pull from a multitude of sources, including from within government and outside of government.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Alex.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thanks so much.&nbsp; Moving to South Caucasus, I have two questions.&nbsp; One is on Georgia.&nbsp; The report reflects last year Georgian Government’s attempt – failed attempt – to push a foreign agent law.&nbsp; Can you just put it in the context given the current events going on in the country?&nbsp; Why was it wrong back then, in your opinion, and why is it wrong right now?And second, on Azerbaijan, the Secretary last year spoke with President Aliyev and he raised human rights concerns in the country multiple times, but yet we see the report reflects 254 political prisoners in the country.&nbsp; Is it a reflection of the fact that you guys don’t have enough tools to move the needle?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Well, with regard to the foreign agents law in Georgia, the U.S. remains deeply concerned that, if enacted, this draft legislation would harm civil society and civil society organizations that are working to improve the lives of Georgian citizens, and will derail Georgia from its European path.&nbsp; We are equally concerned this draft legislation would impede independent media organizations working to provide access for Georgian citizens to high-quality information.&nbsp;With regard to Azerbaijan, the – we have significant concerns, as pointed out in the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, regarding credible reports of significant human rights abuses, including torture and other physical abuses, political prisoners, and a lack of independent judiciary.&nbsp; Further, law enforcement officials arrested an unprecedented number of people for having alleged links to Iran.&nbsp; The United States promotes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms when meeting with Azerbaijani officials at all levels, and through U.S. Government statements, statements of international organizations, and meetings with human rights advocates.For example, we continue to call publicly for the expeditious release of all unjustly detained political prisoners and detainees, including independent journalists, civil society activists, and government critics.&nbsp; We also employ social media – for example, the department’s Without Just Cause campaign to release unjustly detained political prisoners, including an Azerbaijani individual, until he was released during the year.&nbsp; So this remains, of course, something that we’re engaged on.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Okay, we’ll take one more in the back.QUESTION:&nbsp; Me?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, thank you very much for this opportunity.&nbsp; How do we describe human rights situation in Iran, especially in Kurdistan and Baluchistan regions, after Jina Amini’s revelations?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, let’s see.&nbsp; Well, thank you for your question.&nbsp; Well, I’ll say it bluntly:&nbsp; Iran’s dismal human rights record further deteriorated in 2023, as the regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists with intimidation, arrests, lengthy prison sentences, and used sexual violence and torture against prisoners and detainees.&nbsp; The Iranian regime, as I said earlier, expanded its discriminatory measures against women and increased its use of the death penalty, which was often applied after sham trials against defendants who lacked legal counsel.&nbsp; And this was disproportionately applied against members of the Baluchi and Kurdish ethnic minorities.&nbsp;The Iranian regime continued to project its repression abroad, intimidating, harassing, and silencing perceived dissidents beyond its border.&nbsp; The State Department used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iran’s authorities – Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We have taken action to restrict visas or impose sanctions on over 100 Iranian entities and individuals connected to human rights abuses, including the violent suppression of peaceful assembly.&nbsp;We provided support to help Iranians connect internet with anti-censorship tools, with 30 million Iranians used at the height – which they used this internet that we were able to help with at the height of the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We issued General License D-2, allowing U.S. companies to offer new internet services to Iranians.&nbsp; In the multilateral arena, the U.S. continued to support the fact-finding mission at the UN Human Rights Council that we helped stand up in November 2022.&nbsp; We were also instrumental in working with allies and partners to kick Iran off the UN Commission on the Status of Women.&nbsp;And regarding transnational repression, we worked across the U.S. Government to share information and coordinate action, collaborated with likeminded governments and international organizations, conducted outreach to affected individuals and communities, and raised TNR in international fora.&nbsp; So I would say we’ve been quite engaged.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Thank you, Ambassador.&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, thank you.						Tags																					Azerbaijan																								Bangladesh																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								China																								Georgia																																														Human Rights and Democracy																																							Human Rights Report																															India																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								West Bank
- The Impact of Aid on Economic Growth: Analysis of Quasi-Experimental Evaluations in Agriculture and Food Security -->			HomeBangladesh						hide			 -->	$( document ).ready(function() {		if ($(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {			$(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){				$("#bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");				$(".bc_middle").toggle();				$(".bc_ellipse").toggle();				$(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");			});			$("#bc_hide").click(function(){				$("#bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");				$(".bc_middle").toggle();				$(".bc_ellipse").toggle();				$(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");			});		} else {			$(".bc_ellipse").hide();		}	}); -->The Impact of Aid on Economic Growth: Analysis of Quasi-Experimental Evaluations in Agriculture and Food SecuritySeptember 2023Rigorous quasi-experimental design studies (i.e. cause-and-effect designs that assume near-random assignment of an intervention) suggest foreign assistance, especially in value chain investments, can positively impact economic growth. Evaluations like this can help decision-makers identify projects with growth-related benefits in both agriculture and food security.BackgroundThis review examines evaluations conducted by the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to identify which foreign assistance programs, aimed at fostering economic growth among partners, have demonstrated sustainable impacts on their economic development from 2014 to 2019. A working group analyzed information from rigorous evaluations that sought to determine whether foreign assistance projects have resulted in sustainable economic growth. The working group developed a report specifically focused on five projects that employed quasi-experimental designs on agriculture or food security.FindingsInvestments and projects focusing on agricultural value chains—enhancing, for example, production and distribution—when tailored to specific recipient groups, can yield substantial growth-related impacts, including:A 27% increase in profits from investments in- genetically modified seed investments.Minority communities being 22% more likely to be employed after participating in a job training program.Poor farmers provided with improved farming inputs and strategies are 30 percentage points more likely to use them.RecommendationsAdvocate for quasi-experimental design to improve quality of findings on sustainable economic development.Support interventions to affect change at the household and community level as they can have significant, growth-related impacts.Evaluate projects after completion to measure sustainability and emphasize building capacity to ensure long-term viability.Specify targeted communities as narrowly as possible, paying attention to dynamics of those groups while designing projects.Consider designs that actively encourage participation to ensure rigorous design without denying services to any community.Evaluation QuestionsIs there quantitative evidence that foreign assistance programs have produced sustainable economic growth in the agriculture sector?Does the evidence suggest some of these types of projects are more effective than others?What are the lessons that can be learned from the design of these projects?Approach, Methods, &amp; DataThe report examined 15 evaluations, chosen from a pool of 2,285. These 15 were selected based on the study criteria. Data scientists applied this criteria to searches using computer programming code on the Department of State and USAID databases of projects from 2015-2019. From the 15 evaluations, there were additional criteria added to determine inclusion in the report – specifically, evaluations needed to have positive findings, utilize quasi-experimental or experimental techniques, and represent final evaluations. One mid-term evaluation was included because it covered a five-year period. This led to five evaluations, out of the 15, to be included in the final report. The report sorted these five evaluations into two broad categories (specifically, value-chain investments and training and outreach investments), summarized their key results, tried to reasonably compare the projects, analyzed the findings to offer insights, examined research designs for all 15 projects to find broader lessons learned from how the projects were evaluated, and suggested next steps.Detailed FindingsBroadly, the projects analyzed were impactful, suggesting that foreign assistance can help lead to economic growth. However, the evaluations did not capture outcomes well after the interventions had concluded, only intermediary ones, so the positive impact to long-term economic growth would require further study.Value-chain investments might have a particularly strong return, at least in the shorter term: While the wide variation in the types of projects made it unfeasible to directly compare them, projects directly investing in value chain inputs did appear to have stronger returns compared to those providing training and strengthening organizations. The latter may have more sustainable outcomes because they invest in people and institutions, but the lack of projects measuring outcomes after their completion made that impossible to conclude.Targeted projects can have significant, growth-related impacts: projects that were very targeted were particularly successful. Specifically, the project in Colombia providing job training to Afro-Colombian and Indigenous populations led to a 22% increase in employment, and the project in Bangladesh providing genetically modified eggplant seeds to prevent a particular type of pest led to a 27% increase in profits. These are substantial results that directly address economic growth.Notable outcomes: communities in Colombia job training program were 22% more likely to be employed, 31% more likely to have retirement benefits; farmers in Bangladesh provided genetically modified eggplant seeds had a 27% increase in profits; those benefiting from water associations in Tajikistan cultivated .14 more hectares of high value crops; Ugandans encouraged to use e-verification of agricultural inputs were more likely to use better quality maize and herbicides; and Liberians trained on better agricultural strategies and techniques were 29 percentage points more likely to implement them.The evaluations were rigorous, ensuring confidence in their accuracy, which helps inform future work: There were important implementation and design lessons learned when examining all 15 projects under consideration for the report, particularly those that did not have positive results. First, it is likely that issues with project design affected the conclusions. Specifically, several projects failed to address the possibility that control group participants may have received similar interventions funded by other donors. This could eliminate much of a project’s measurable impact, since both control and treatment groups would be getting a similar treatment. Other projects would have benefited from more careful planning when they measured outcomes – for example, one project only had data for one year of implementation because they did not consider farming seasons when timing their surveys.Detailed RecommendationsAdvocate for quasi-experimental design to improve quality of findings on sustainable economic development: Quasi-experimental design relies on the near-random assignment of an intervention. Researchers who apply this method to existing data assume that they have identified a valid comparison group with which they can determine the impact of an intervention. Unlike experiments that are conducted- in the lab or field, researchers do not have the same amount of control in quasi-experiments. In this method, hidden variables may interfere with determining the impact of an intervention. Still, quasi-experiments can advance rigorous and ethical research.Support interventions at the household and community level as they can have significant, growth-related impacts: Given that most foreign aid projects are implemented in local communities or regions, the outcomes should be measured at the household or community level.Evaluate projects after completion to measure sustainability and emphasize building capacity to ensure long-term viability: Must examine outcomes well after projects finish to measure long-term gains.Specify targeted communities as narrowly as possible, paying attention to dynamics of those groups while designing projects: Projects are most likely to achieve success when they can really focus on the issues recipient groups face, and design around them to optimize delivery of services to them.Consider employing &#8216;encouragement&#8217; designs to maximize rigorous design without denying services to any community: Encouragement designs actively invite participation in the treatment groups. The difference in participation rates between those actively encouraged (the treatment group) and those not (the control group) contribute to assessing an intervention&#8217;s impact. This approach is ethically preferable as it does not withhold treatment from a control group, especially in impoverished regions receiving foreign assistance.Learning SummaryThe Department of State held four “Pause and Reflect” meetings to identify key lessons from this review that could inform current thinking and improve existing practices in the US Government (USG). Some of the lessons identified during the meetings were:The research products that resulted from this study capture important, growth-related insights. These insights can be used to inform (or provide background to) briefing checklists, information memos, interagency multilateral agendas, and other materials. In other words, there are efficiency and intelligence gains from ensuring that personnel at the Department of State have access to and can use the research products that resulted from this study.Dissemination of the findings will help raise awareness of USG efforts to support economic growth-related activities. It will provide examples of where growth-related programming has had impact.
- Bangladesh HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices:  Bangladesh				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Bangladesh																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																																																																																Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Forced Organ Harvesting																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Bangladesh during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; transnational repression against individuals in another country; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses of a relative; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, censorship, and enforcement of or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic and intimate partner violence, sexual violence, workplace violence, child, early, and forced marriage, and other forms of such violence; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of ethnic minority groups or Indigenous peoples; laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; significant restrictions on independent trade unions and workers’ freedom of association; and existence of the worst forms of child labor.There were numerous reports of widespread impunity for human rights abuses. In most cases, the government did not take credible steps to identify and punish officials or security force members who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings. Police policy required internal investigations of all significant uses of force by police, including actions that resulted in serious physical injury or death, usually by a professional standards unit that reports directly to the inspector general of police. The government, however, neither released official statistics on total killings by security personnel nor took transparent measures to investigate cases. Human rights groups expressed skepticism regarding the independence and professional standards of the units conducting these assessments. In the few known instances in which the government brought charges, those found guilty generally received administrative punishment.Law enforcement raids occurred throughout the year, allegedly to counter terrorist activity, drugs, and illegal firearms. Suspicious deaths occurred during some raids, arrests, and other law enforcement operations.Extrajudicial killings decreased from the previous year. Domestic human rights organization Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) reported eight individuals died from January to September in alleged extrajudicial killings or while in custody, including two in shootouts with law enforcement agencies and three due to physical torture before or while in custody. According to another domestic human rights organization, of 12 incidents of alleged extrajudicial killings between January and September, four deaths resulted from law enforcement crossfire killings, four persons were shot to death by law enforcement officers, and four others died from alleged torture while in custody.On March 26, Sultana Jasmine died in custody of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) due to brain bleeding. RAB officials said she suffered a stroke and fell while detained. Family members called the story a cover-up and pointed to evidence of a head injury. The commanding officer of the RAB unit involved told media they picked up Jasmine pursuant to a financial fraud complaint. The case filed against Jasmine under the Digital Security Act (DSA) “for siphoning money off from job seekers using her Facebook account,” however, was not recorded until the day after she was picked up. Following widespread media coverage of the death in custody, the High Court ordered the government to submit a report detailing the RAB officers involved in the incident and explaining why the RAB picked up Jasmine before a case was even filed. In May, the government formed a committee to examine the death and provide a report within 15 days. The committee turned over a report of the findings to the High Court in August, but the report was not made public. In October, two High Court justices stated the report was unclear and did not provide an adequate explanation of the circumstances of her arrest and detention. At the time of the justices’ comments, the report had still not been released to the public.On March 18, plainclothes RAB officers shot and killed a man and injured another during an attempt to arrest a murder suspect in Narayanganj’s Sonargaon sub-district. According to witnesses, the man saw individuals in plainclothes who refused to identify themselves as they detained the suspect. Fearing an abduction, the man and other neighbors reportedly tried to intervene and as more individuals joined the commotion, the RAB resorted to gunfire and shot the man in the stomach. Authorities claimed ”miscreants” opened fire on the RAB officers, injuring four officers and causing them to return fire in ”self-defense.” Witnesses contradicted that story and said the individuals were unarmed.There were no public reports of accountability for RAB officers who conducted alleged extrajudicial killings in 2022 against Shaheen Miah and Mohammad Raju.																																				b. Disappearance										There were reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities. Human rights groups and media reported disappearances and kidnappings continued, allegedly committed by security services. Between January and September, a local human rights organization reported 32 persons were victims of enforced disappearances. The government made limited efforts to prevent, investigate, or punish such acts. Civil society organizations reported most victims of enforced disappearance were opposition leaders, activists, and dissidents. Following alleged disappearances, security forces released some individuals without charge and arrested others.Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report noted, “security agencies continue to commit human rights abuses including enforced disappearances, the use of secret prisons, arbitrary arrests, and torture.”Throughout the year, families of enforced disappearance victims called on the government to return their family members and prosecute members of law enforcement agencies involved in their abductions. Mayer Dak, an organization advocating for victim families, held rallies and issued a statement saying its members received no legislative, administrative, or judicial remedy for the incidents of enforced disappearances.In February, media outlets reported UN rapporteurs, including the UN chair-rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), sent a letter to the government in December 2022 expressing concern over harassment of Mayer Dak and local human rights organization Odhikar.In March, the government stated it was looking into the cases of 28 victims of enforced disappearance but criticized civil society organizations for allegedly providing inflated numbers of enforced disappearance victims to the United Nations.In June, opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader Salahuddin Ahmed, who was stranded in India for eight years without valid documents after being forcibly disappeared in Bangladesh, secured a travel pass to return home. In 2015, Ahmed was abducted from his home in Dhaka and disappeared for two months before being released across the border in India.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										Although the constitution and law prohibited torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, local and international human rights organizations and media reported security forces, including those from the intelligence services, police, and soldiers seconded into civilian law enforcement agencies, employed such practices. The law allowed a magistrate to place a suspect in interrogative custody, known as remand, during which questioning of the suspect could take place without a lawyer present. Human rights organizations alleged many instances of torture occurred during remand. Some victims who filed cases under the Torture and Custodial (Prevention) Act were reportedly harassed and threatened, while some withdrew their cases due to fear of reprisal.According to multiple organizations, security forces reportedly used torture to gather information from alleged militants and members of political opposition parties. These forces reportedly used beatings with iron rods, kneecappings, electric shock, rape and other sexual abuse, and mock executions. Organizations also claimed security forces were involved in widespread and routine commission of torture, occasionally resulting in death, for the purpose of soliciting payment of bribes or obtaining confessions. According to civil society and media, impunity was a pervasive problem in the security forces, including but not limited to the RAB, Border Guards Bangladesh, Detective Branch of Police, and other units. Politicization of crimes, corruption, and lack of independent accountability mechanisms were significant factors contributing to impunity, including for custodial torture. While police were required to conduct internal investigations of significant abuses, civil society organizations alleged investigative mechanisms were not independent.In July, human rights organizations and media reported a fellow inmate abused Runa Laila in Dhaka’s Kashimpur prison, with the support of the prison guards. According to the reports, Shamima Noor Papia, an expelled leader of the ruling Awami League’s (AL) youth wing, attempted to steal money from Laila through physical force. Papia and prison guards allegedly beat Laila, stripped her naked, coerced her to drink sewer water, and subsequently denied her medical treatment.In June, media reported Ekramul Hossain Ershad died after alleged beatings in police custody. Police arrested Ershad on May 31 and took him to the hospital on June 3 where he was pronounced dead. His relatives claimed he died after severe beatings following his arrest.Also in June, a senior judicial magistrate in Shariatpur asked police to act against two police officers over the alleged abuse to extort bribes of four accused persons in custody. The victims alleged the accused officers blindfolded them, beat them with a hammer, and removed their fingernails and toenails with pliers.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh and at times life threatening due to severe overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and physical abuse.Local human rights organization ASK reported 77 prisoners, of whom 42 were on trial and 35 were convicted, died in jail custody from January to September. Former detainees reported some inmates who died in prison were transported to a hospital and pronounced dead due to natural causes. Another local human rights organization claimed 94 individuals died in jail between January and September.Abusive Physical Conditions: According to the Bangladesh Prisons Directorate (BPD), over 80,000 prisoners were held in 68 facilities across the country designed to hold approximately 42,600 inmates.Conditions in prisons, and often within the same prison complex, varied widely. Authorities held some prisoners in areas subject to high temperatures, poor ventilation, and overcrowding.In August, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General provided a report to parliament on prison conditions and noted prison meals were smaller than the minimums prescribed.Administration: Prisons lacked any formal process for offenders to submit grievances and authorities rarely conducted investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment. Prisons had no ombudsperson to receive prisoner complaints.Independent Monitoring: The government permitted visits from government inspectors and nongovernmental observers who were aligned with the ruling party. No reports on these inspections were released. The International Committee of the Red Cross continued to support the BPD and assisted 68 prison centers across the country. According to the BPD, district and magistrate judges visited the prisons at least once every month.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention, but the law permitted authorities to arrest and detain an individual without an order from a magistrate or a warrant if authorities perceived the individual might constitute a threat to security and public order, or if authorities perceived the individual was involved with a serious crime. The constitution provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court, but the government did not generally observe these requirements. Authorities often held detainees for a few days without divulging their whereabouts or circumstances to family or legal counsel, or without acknowledging having arrested them.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The constitution required arrests and detentions be authorized by a warrant or occur because of observation of a crime in progress, but the law granted broad exceptions to these protections.Under the constitution detainees had to be brought before a judicial officer to face charges within 24 hours, but this was not regularly enforced. The government or a district magistrate could order a person detained for 30 days to prevent the commission of an act that could threaten national security; however, authorities sometimes held detainees for longer periods with impunity.There was a functioning bail system, but police routinely rearrested bailed individuals on other charges, despite directives from the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division prohibiting rearrest of persons on new charges without first producing them in court.Authorities generally permitted defense lawyers to meet with their clients only after formal charges were filed in the courts, which in some cases occurred weeks or months after the initial arrest. Detainees were legally entitled to counsel even if they could not afford to pay for it, but the country lacked sufficient funds to provide this service. Many detainees were not permitted to communicate with others outside of detention.Arbitrary Arrest: Arbitrary arrests occurred, often in conjunction with political demonstrations or speech, or as part of security force responses to alleged terrorist activity, and the government held persons in detention without specific charges, sometimes to collect information regarding other suspects. The expansiveness of the 1974 Special Powers Act granted legal justification for arrests that would often otherwise be considered arbitrary, since it removed the requirement that arrests be based on crimes that have occurred previously. Human rights activists claimed police falsely constructed cases to target opposition leaders, workers, and supporters, and that the government used law enforcement agencies to crack down on political rivals.Police continued to arbitrarily arrest members of opposition political parties. In August, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and CIVICUS Monitor issued a joint statement noting media had reported police sent over 800 BNP leaders to jail prior to protests at the end of July. The statement called on authorities “to release all those arrested for exercising their peaceful right to protest and to undertake a prompt and independent investigation into human rights violations and abuses committed by security forces and ruling party activists.”Pretrial Detention: Arbitrary and lengthy pretrial detention continued due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited resources, lax enforcement of pretrial rules, and corruption. Lawyers attributed the overuse of laws such as the DSA, some of which had provisions that generally did not allow for bail, as another explanation for the high numbers of pretrial detentions. In some cases, the length of pretrial detention equaled or exceeded the sentence for the alleged crime.In July, the Bangladesh Appellate Court extended the pretrial detention without bail of Khadija Kubra for four more months. Khadija, age 17, was a university student arrested in September 2022 under the DSA after a guest on a webinar she hosted in 2020 made remarks critical of the ruling party. In February, the High Court granted bail to Khadija but the state appealed the decision. In November, she was released on bail, but the charges against her remain.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution provided for an independent judiciary, but corruption and political interference compromised its independence. The government generally did not respect judicial independence and impartiality.Human rights observers maintained that lower courts often ruled based on influence from or loyalty to political patronage networks, particularly in cases filed against opposition political party supporters. Observers claimed judges who made decisions unfavorable to the government risked transfer to other jurisdictions.Observers alleged judges sometimes accepted bribes from attorneys or other court officials for bail or acquittal in criminal cases.Corruption and a substantial backlog of cases hindered the court system, and the granting of extended continuances effectively prevented many defendants from obtaining fair trials. In some cases, defendants remained in custody during trial for longer than the maximum sentence of the crime for which they were charged. Media reported in June over 500,000 cases were pending with the High Court alone, with around 90,000 new cases filed every year. According to the Supreme Court Annual Report, the High Court disposed of 690 pending cases annually on average since 2018.Defendants who could not afford an attorney or chose to remain undefended were not eligible for bail during proceedings. The National Legal Aid Services Organization offered some services to defendants who could not afford private attorneys, but access to those services often required burdensome formalities and extensive periods of time. Many defendants were unaware of these services.																Trial Procedures																		The constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, but the judiciary did not always protect this right due to corruption, partisanship, and weak human resources. Legal experts noted prosecution witnesses often did not show up in court to give oral testimony and there were insufficient judges to handle the pending caseload in a timely manner.Defendants did not have the right to a timely trial. Indigent defendants had the right to a public defender, but in many cases public defenders were not well prepared or adequately acquainted with details of the case. Trials were conducted in the Bengali language; the government did not provide free interpretation for defendants who could not understand or speak Bengali.The government frequently did not respect the rights of accused persons to confront prosecution or plaintiff witnesses and present their own witnesses and evidence. Authorities did not always respect the right not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt, and defendants who did not confess were often kept in custody. Some defendants claimed police pressured them to confess under duress.The administrative process by which lower court and jail authorities were notified of the outcome of High Court appeals was very slow.Mobile courts headed by executive branch magistrates rendered immediate verdicts that often included prison terms for defendants who did not have legal representation.In October, media reported the court granted the RAB additional time to submit its probe report in a high-profile case involving the killing of two journalists in 2012. This was the 104th deferral of the probe deadline. Law enforcement officials arrested and charged eight individuals with the double murder, but the RAB had not submitted its report.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were reports of political prisoners or detainees. Political affiliation was often a factor in claims of arrest and prosecution of members of opposition parties, including through spurious charges under the pretext of responding to national security threats.Former prime minister and chairperson of the lead opposition political party BNP Khaleda Zia remained confined to her home. She was barred from receiving needed medical treatment abroad but was being treated in a Bangladeshi hospital. In 2018, she was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on corruption and embezzlement charges first filed in 2008. Zia was transferred from prison to a hospital in 2019 and released to house arrest in 2020. International and domestic legal experts noted the lack of evidence to support the conviction and suggested a political ploy to remove the leader of the opposition from the electoral process, even as multiple corruption charges against Prime Minister Hasina were dropped by prosecutors.The Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal, established in 2010 to conduct trials of those accused of war crimes and atrocities that took place during the 1971 War of Independence, continued to issue sentences, including the death penalty, to those accused of crimes during the war. Many observers viewed the proceedings as politically motivated, as the court had almost exclusively indicted members of opposition political parties.																										f. Transnational Repression										The government used transnational repression to intimidate or exact reprisals against individuals outside its sovereign borders, including against members of diaspora populations, such as political opponents, civil society activists, human rights defenders, and journalists.Threats, Harassment, Surveillance, and Coercion: According to the press, police and intelligence agencies continued to threaten, harass, and surveil human rights defenders, civil society leaders, and the family members of critics based outside of the country. Journalists living abroad continued to report police and intelligence agencies harassed and intimidated their relatives in the country to silence criticism. In March, four men allegedly associated with the ruling party attacked the brother of London-based journalist Zulkarnain Saer Khan, beating him with iron rods in retaliation for Khan’s Al-Jazeera reporting on the prime minister.In July, the prime minister instructed the country’s overseas diplomats to “be vigilant” against persons spreading “antistate” propaganda so that the international community would not be “misled.”In August, police arrested and detained Anisha Siddika on charges of conspiring to commit sabotage, three days after a widely shared Facebook post by her U.S.-based son, Michigan State University graduate student Tanzilur Rahman, criticizing the trial process of late war crimes convict Delwar Hossain Sayedee, an Islamic leader. A court granted her bail eight days later, after first denying it twice.Misuse of International Law Enforcement Tools: There were credible reports that the government attempted to misuse international law enforcement tools for politically motivated purposes against specific individuals located outside the country. In July, media reported police flagged three journalists for Interpol as “cyber terrorists” propagating antigovernment propaganda.Bilateral Pressure: There were credible reports the government, for politically motivated purposes, attempted to exert bilateral pressure on other countries aimed at having them take adverse action against specific individuals. In May, media reported the Ministry of Home Affairs sent Bangladesh missions abroad a list of those spreading “propaganda against the country” in foreign countries, instructing those missions to pressure host governments to take legal action against them under their existing laws.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										The government did not implement a 2001 act to accelerate the process of return of land primarily to Hindu individuals. The act allowed the government to confiscate property of anyone whom it declares to be an enemy of the state. It was often used to seize property abandoned by minority religious groups when they fled the country, particularly after the 1971 independence war.Minority groups continued to report land ownership disputes that disproportionately displaced members of Indigenous communities and ethnic minorities, especially in areas near new roads or industrial development zones. They also claimed local police, civil authorities, and political leaders were sometimes involved in evictions or shielded politically influential land grabbers from prosecution. While the law allowed for land restitution for Indigenous persons living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), this rarely occurred.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law did not prohibit arbitrary interference with private correspondence. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies could monitor private communications with the permission of the Ministry of Home Affairs, but police rarely obtained such permission when monitoring private correspondence. Human rights organizations alleged police, the National Security Intelligence, and the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence employed informers to conduct surveillance and report on citizens perceived to be critical of the government.There were reports that government authorities arbitrarily entered homes; accessed, collected, or used private communications or personal data of targeted individuals based on exercise of their human rights; and punished family members for offenses allegedly committed by relatives.In January, Israeli newspaper Haaretz alleged the country’s National Telecommunication Monitoring Center purchased vehicle-mounted surveillance devices from an Israeli company. As the two countries did not have diplomatic ties, the purchase was allegedly conducted via a firm registered in Cyprus.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but the government frequently contravened this right. There were significant limitations on freedom of expression. Members of media and bloggers self-censored their criticisms of the government due to harassment and fear of reprisal.Freedom of Expression: The constitution equated criticism of the constitution with sedition. Punishment for conviction of sedition ranged from three years to life imprisonment.The law limited hate speech but did not clearly define it, which permitted the government broad latitude to interpret it. The government could restrict speech deemed to be against the security of the state; against friendly relations with foreign states; and against public order, decency, or morality; or which constitutes contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense. The law criminalized any criticism of constitutional bodies.The DSA, passed ostensibly to reduce cybercrime, provided for sentences of up to life imprisonment for spreading “propaganda” against the Bangladesh Liberation War, the national anthem, or the national flag. Throughout the year the government widely used the DSA against persons criticizing the government. Media and the law minister reported over 7,000 DSA cases pending across the country, with one nongovernmental organization (NGO) reporting police brought cases against 20 children aged 13 to 17 years.The law was used against speech found on social media, websites, and other digital platforms, including for commentators living outside of the country. From January 2020 to March 2023, international rights organization Article 19 reported 229 journalists were indicted and 56 arrested under the DSA. The Centre for Governance Studies reported journalists made up 27 percent of those accused under DSA.In May, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights expressed grave concern over the DSA’s misuse to create a climate of fear and censorship. Recommending immediate suspension of the law, he stated journalists, human rights defenders, opposition politicians, and academics were detained under the DSA for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and opinion.Human rights organizations protested news in February that Hindu teen Poritosh Sarkar was put into solitary confinement for eight months after facing DSA charges for “hurting religious sentiments” through a 2021 social media post. Prison authorities told Sarkar’s family he was being kept in a solitary confinement cell without windows “for his safety” from local individuals offended by his post. The Rangpur Cyber Tribunal denied him bail three times before finally granting it in May 2022. In February, however, the court revoked his bail and sent him back to jail.In August, the government announced it would replace the DSA with the Cyber Security Act (CSA); parliament passed the CSA in September. The CSA reduced penalties for many crimes, made some crimes bailable that previously were not, and eliminated jail time as a punishment for defamation. The CSA, however, recycled almost all DSA sections, and the law continued to allow police the power to search, seize, and arrest suspects without a warrant. Observers charged the CSA was simply the same law with a new name and that the law continued to criminalize free speech. Cases initiated under the repealed DSA continued under the CSA.Violence and Harassment: Authorities, including intelligence services and student affiliates of the ruling party, subjected journalists to violence, harassment, and intimidation, especially when tied to the DSA, which human rights activists called a government and ruling party tool to intimidate journalists. Individuals faced the threat of being arrested, held in pretrial detention, subjected to expensive criminal trials, fines, and imprisonment, as well as the social stigma associated with having a criminal record.ASK reported 119 instances of journalist harassment from January to June. Another local human rights organization reported 309 cases of attacks on or harassment of journalists between January and September, including 138 journalists injured.In late March, an allegedly pro-ruling party lawyer filed a DSA charge against the editor and a reporter of prominent newspaper Prothom Alo, accusing them of using print, online, and electronic media to “tarnish the image and reputation of the state.” Police detained the reporter, Shamsuzzaman Shams, for 20 hours on unclear grounds. The charges against Rahman and Shams stemmed from a March 26 story Prothom Alo published on the country’s 52nd anniversary of independence. The situation sparked a public outcry against the DSA, as students, lawyers, human rights activists, civil society organizations, the Editors’ Council, and political parties demonstrated across the country to demand the law’s amendment or repeal.In June, the RAB arrested a union council chairman in Jamalpur, and police arrested several others accused of the murder of journalist Golam Rabbani Nadim. On June 14, a group of men ambushed Nadim, a correspondent for website Banglanews24 and broadcaster for Ekattor TV, while he was traveling home on his motorcycle. The men beat Nadim and left him unconscious; bystanders took him to the hospital. After he died the next day from a severe head injury, his family said he was targeted in retaliation for a series of reports in May for Banglanews24 about Mahmudul Alam Babu, chair of a local government unit and member of the ruling AL party.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: Both print and online independent media were active and expressed a variety of views; however, media outlets that criticized the government were pressured by the government. Independent media could not operate freely or without restrictions.The government maintained editorial control over the country’s public television station and allegedly mandated private channels broadcast government content for free. Civil society organizations stated political interference influenced the licensing process, since all television channel licenses granted by the government were for stations supporting the ruling party.In January, the government ordered the closure of 191 websites it accused of publishing “anti-state news.”In February, the government shut down Dainik Dinkal, a broadsheet Bengali-language newspaper and the only paper of the main opposition BNP. Dhaka district authorities first ordered the shutdown of the paper in December 2022, saying the paper violated the country’s printing and publication laws. Dainik Dinkal continued to publish, however, after lodging an appeal at the Press Council. The council rejected the appeal, upholding the district magistrate’s order to the paper to stop publication. Two Dhaka-based journalist unions issued a joint statement that the decision was a “reflection of the repression of opposition voices.”Prothom Alo journalist Rozina Islam continued to face charges in an Official Secrets Act case. In January, police opened further investigation into the case despite having submitted to the court a report in October 2022 stating that police found no evidence against her. The government arrested Islam in 2021 under the 1923 Official Secrets Act and sections of the penal code for investigating a corruption story involving the Ministry of Health, accusing her of taking photographs and stealing official documents from the ministry. If convicted, Islam could be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison or the death penalty.Independent journalists and media alleged intelligence services influenced media outlets in part by withholding financially important government advertising and pressing private companies to withhold their advertising. The government penalized media that criticized it or carried messages of the political opposition’s activities and statements.Privately owned newspapers usually were free to carry diverse views except on politically sensitive topics or those that criticized the ruling party. Political polarization and self-censorship remained a problem. Investigative journalists often complained of their management and of editors “killing” reports due to fear of pressure from the government and intelligence agencies. Some journalists received threats after publishing stories. According to journalists and human rights groups, journalists engaged in self-censorship due to fear of security force retribution, prosecution under the DSA, and the possibility of being charged with politically motivated cases. Although public criticism of the government was common and vocal, some media figures expressed fear of harassment by the government.Libel/Slander Laws: Libel, slander, defamation, and blasphemy were treated as criminal offenses, most often employed against individuals speaking against the government, the prime minister, or other government officials. Laws referring to defamation of individuals and organizations were used to prosecute opposition figures and members of civil society.Minority rights organizations criticized the arbitrary detention under the DSA of minority community members on the pretext of blasphemy.National Security:  Authorities stated the DSA was essential to protect national and cyber security and prevent communalism, though they allegedly used the law to arrest or punish critics of the government or deter criticism of government policies and officials.Nongovernmental Impact: Societal pressures limited freedom of expression. Atheist, secular, religious minority, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) writers and bloggers reported they continued to receive death threats from extremist organizations.																Internet Freedom						The government restricted and disrupted access to the internet and censored online content in numerous incidents. Laws banned virtual private networks and voice-over-internet-protocol telephone, but authorities rarely enforced the prohibition.In a number of incidents, the government interfered in internet communications, filtered or blocked access, restricted content, and censored websites or other communications and internet services. Throughout the year, the government blocked or slowed internet services in cities and neighborhoods where opposition parties held rallies. It suspended or closed many websites based on vague criteria, or with explicit reference to their pro-opposition content being in violation of legal requirements.Local NGOs reported at least 17 internet shutdowns since 2012 under various circumstances, including communal riots, civic and political protest, and elections. In a survey, 88 percent of respondents said they had experienced an internet shutdown in the past three years and 50 percent said they had had such an experience within the previous year.The Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission was charged with regulating telecommunications. It carried out law enforcement and government requests to block content by ordering internet service providers to act. The commission regularly ordered social media companies to take down content it deemed critical of the ruling party or harmful to religious beliefs. Sweden-based website Netra News remained blocked since 2020 after it published reports alleging corruption by a government minister.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The government restricted freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The law provided for the right to peaceful assembly, but the government generally did not respect this right. The law gave the government broad discretion to ban assemblies of more than four persons. The government required advance permission for gatherings such as protests and demonstrations.Press reporting documented authorities often prohibited gatherings by opposition groups and imposed unreasonable requirements for permits. Police and especially ruling party activists in many instances used force to block or disperse demonstrations assembled by opposition parties, organizations, and activists.Government authorities frequently denied the lead opposition BNP and other opposition parties permission to hold events. Government authorities allowed ruling party activists to intimidate and attack opposition supporters at their events.In August, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called on authorities to end use of excessive force against protestors following clashes during BNP sit-ins on July 28 and 29. Human Rights Watch reported police indiscriminately fired rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannons, and beat opposition party supporters with batons during protests.Media reported over 300 persons were injured on August 19 as BNP leaders and activists clashed with police during the party&#8217;s road march in Habiganj. BNP marchers allegedly hurled brick chips at police, and police officers opened fire and used tear gas. The BNP claimed their leaders and activists sustained bullet injuries, but police claimed they fired rubber bullets.						Freedom of Association						The law provided for the right of citizens to form associations, subject to “reasonable restrictions” in the interest of morality or public order, and the government generally respected this right. The law restricted the receipt of foreign funds by NGOs and provided for punishment of NGOs making derogatory comments regarding the constitution or constitutional institutions. The government’s NGO Affairs Bureau increasingly withheld or delayed approval for foreign funding to NGOs, especially those working on matters the bureau deemed sensitive, such as human rights, labor rights, Indigenous rights, LGBTQI+ rights, or humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees. Activists and NGOs in-country reported increasing instances of government scrutiny and bureaucratic restrictions and delays, including restricting funding to NGOs and use of other coercive tools such as bank account freezes, tax audits, and summary tax judgments.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights, except in three sensitive areas: the CHT, Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, and on the island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal.In-country Movement: The government enforced restrictions on access to the CHT by foreigners and restricted movement of Rohingya refugees. The refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar were surrounded by barbed and concertina wire fencing with few pedestrian gates to allow Rohingya to move among the camps or into the local community. Bhasan Char, an island with no regular transport links to the mainland, sheltered over 30,000 Rohingya refugees who voluntarily relocated there at the urging of the government. Authorities caught and detained many Rohingya who tried to leave Bhasan Char or camps in Cox’s Bazar and returned them to the registered camps.Foreign Travel: While foreign travel was allowed, some senior domestic civil society and international NGO representatives, as well as opposition party members, reported harassment and delays when applying for a visa, entering, or departing the country. The government prevented war crimes suspects from the 1971 independence war from leaving the country.CEOs of privately-owned banks reported they were not permitted to leave the country without obtaining express governmental permission, which was on occasion withheld. Some opposition political leaders also reported delays and harassment on attempting to leave the country.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to Rohingya refugees.The government was not a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol. As a result, the government claimed it was not under legal obligation to uphold the basic rights enshrined in this treaty.Prior to the 2017 Rohingya arrivals, the government and UNHCR provided temporary protection and basic assistance to approximately 33,000 registered Rohingya refugees from Burma living in two official camps (Kutupalong and Nayapara), while the government and the International Organization for Migration aided approximately 200,000 undocumented Rohingya living in makeshift settlements in Cox’s Bazar. In 2017, more than 750,000 Rohingya fled genocide in neighboring Burma to seek safe haven in Bangladesh. As of September 30, because of this influx, 965,467 registered Rohingya refugees were living in refugee camps. The government claimed actual numbers totaled more than 1.2 million. The government did not recognize the arrivals as refugees, referring to them instead as “forcibly displaced Myanmar nationals,” but abided by many of the established UN standards for refugees. One notable exception was that Rohingya did not enjoy full freedom of movement throughout the country. Government officials stated repatriation was the government’s only goal, stressing privileges such as freedom of movement, postsecondary education, or livelihood opportunities could not be afforded to the Rohingya population.A National Task Force of 25 ministries and department representatives and chaired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided oversight and strategic guidance for the overall Rohingya response. The Ministry of Home Affairs coordinated and maintained law and order for the response, with support from the Armed Police Battalion. At the local level, the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission, under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, was responsible for the management of the camps.As of September 30, Bhasan Char hosted 30,748 Rohingya refugees. Media reported the government spent 31 billion taka ($310 million) to prepare for the eventual transfer of 100,000 refugees to the island. Programs operated under a 2021 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the government and UNHCR that outlined the humanitarian and protection framework underlying UN operational engagements on the island. The MOU had provisions to improve protections and services for Rohingya refugees on Bhasan Char. It proposed expanded access to services, such as education, skills and vocational training, livelihoods, health care, and uninterrupted telecommunication services, which were funded by some international donors through the 2023 Joint Response Plan.In July, the High Court dismissed a bail application for a suspect in the murder of Mohammad Mohib Ullah, chairman and founder of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace and Human Rights. In 2022, the government brought charges against 29 Rohingya in connection with the September 2021 killing. In October, authorities arrested a suspect for his alleged role in Mohib Ullah’s murder.Access to Asylum: The law did not provide for granting asylum or refugee status, nor had the government established a formal system for providing protection to refugees. Nonetheless, the government provided significant protection and assistance to Rohingya refugees residing in the country. Prior to 2017, the government cooperated with UNHCR to provide temporary protection and basic assistance to registered refugees residing in two official camps. After the 2017 arrival of more than 750,000 additional Rohingya refugees, the government started to register the refugees biometrically and provided identity cards. UNHCR continued to operate registration centers to update individual and family status due to marriages, divorces, births, and deaths.Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: The government mostly cooperated with UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to Rohingya refugees, despite security concerns in the camps. Observers reported human trafficking and smuggling were common in the camps, with few cases prosecuted. When discovered, government officials returned trafficking victims to the camps.International organizations reported gender-based violence directed against women in the camps. Intimate partner violence comprised 81 percent of the cases for the first half of the year.Accountability for crimes against refugees remained a problem. Rohingya relied on government officials responsible for each camp (also known as the Camps in Charge, or CiC) to address allegations of crime. The CiCs were largely autonomous and varied in terms of responsiveness to camp needs. According to international organizations, some CiCs were susceptible to corruption. Observers alleged some border guard, military, and police officials were involved in facilitating trafficking of Rohingya women and children, ranging from “looking the other way,” to bribes for allowing traffickers to access Rohingya in the camps, to direct involvement in trafficking.The NGO Fortify Rights reported in August that members of the Armed Police Battalion, a specialized unit of the Bangladesh police with responsibility for security in the Rohingya camps, arbitrarily detained and allegedly tortured refugees while systematically extorting camp residents. According to media reports, battalion officers killed four Rohingya in crossfire gunfights.Police arrested at least 924 Rohingya outside the camps throughout the year. News sources reported that as of October 1, at least 54 Rohingya, including 19 Rohingya leaders (Majhis), 18 gang members, and a Rohingya volunteer worker, were killed in clashes or gunfights between gangs in the camps.Freedom of Movement: There were restrictions on Rohingya freedom of movement. According to the 1993 MOU between the government and UNHCR, registered Rohingya refugees were not permitted to move outside official camps. After the 2017 influx, police set up checkpoints on the roads to restrict travel by both registered refugees and arrivals beyond the Ukhiya and Teknaf subdistricts. Rohingya located at Bhasan Char had little means to exit the island or travel to camps in Cox’s Bazar, where many claimed to have family members, leading some human rights groups to label the situation on the island as “detention.”The government allowed at least two trips per month from the island to the camps in Cox’s Bazar for family visits. Regular and reliable connections to and from the mainland for logistics, trade, family visit, medical, and other reasons did not exist. Refugees complained to donor representatives that they often had to wait months for an opportunity to visit Cox’s Bazar, that visits were only permitted when deemed “urgent,” and that unpaid government-appointed Rohingya community leaders had to be bribed to certify a visit request as urgent enough to merit approval and vouch for the visitors’ intent to return to Bhasan Char.Many camp authorities conducted curfews and law enforcement patrols, particularly at night, in response to reported concerns regarding violent attacks, abductions, or kidnappings in the camps. Stating a desire to better secure the camp and protect Rohingya from migrant smuggling, the government maintained watchtowers and fencing in the camps in Cox’s Bazar. Humanitarian agencies said fencing hindered delivery of services to refugees and exacerbated tensions between refugees and host communities.Employment: There were credible reports the government imposed restrictions on refugees’ ability to work. The government did not formally authorize Rohingya refugees in the country to work, although it allowed some volunteer opportunities with small stipends and limited cash-for-work activities for Rohingya to perform tasks within the camps. A skills development framework endorsed by the National Task Force outlined the skills and training that could be provided to refugees and host communities, with UN support, based on assumptions of the kinds of livelihoods generally available to Rohingya in Rakhine State.On Bhasan Char, skills development and livelihood opportunities were limited but appeared to increase during the year.Despite movement restrictions, some refugees worked illegally as manual laborers on the informal economy, where some were exploited as labor trafficking victims.Access to Basic Services: While agencies made significant efforts to support those refugees who were most vulnerable, the shortage of land remained a central problem hindering the ability of Rohingya to access basic services. During the year, multiple cuts to food rations due to funding shortfalls dramatically reduced refugees’ access to adequate and nutritious food. This increased food insecurity throughout the camps.Public education remained a problem. Higher education remained out of reach of most of the population, but in July, UNICEF completed implementation of the Burmese curriculum and reported over 300,000 Rohingya children were enrolled in kindergarten and grades one through 10. The government continued to forbid education outside this program.Government authorities allowed registered and unregistered Rohingya regular access to public health care, but the Rohingya needed authorities’ permission to leave the camp. Humanitarian partners ensured their health-care expenses were covered and that they returned to the camps. The health sector maintained information on all the health facilities within the camps and the surrounding areas. Based on available data, overall coverage met the minimum requirements.Bhasan Char had primary healthcare facilities but lacked secondary and tertiary facilities, necessitating referrals to medical facilities off the island for advanced-level care. The transfer of patients to mainland facilities was hampered by required authorizations to depart the island, weather conditions, and boat availability.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons										Societal tensions and marginalization of Indigenous persons continued in the CHT because of a government policy initiated during an internal armed conflict from 1973-97. This policy relocated landless ethnic Bengalis to the CHT with the implicit objective of changing the demographic balance to make Bengalis the majority. The most recent national census revealed Indigenous people were now a minority in two of the three CHT districts.The internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the CHT had limited physical security. Community leaders maintained Indigenous persons faced widespread violation of their rights by settlers, sometimes supported by security forces.The number of IDPs in the CHT was in dispute. NGOs estimated the number could exceed 500,000, which included non-Indigenous as well as Indigenous persons. In 2020, the independent CHT Commission estimated slightly more than 90,000 Indigenous IDPs resided in the area.For further information about IDPs in the country, please see the materials of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center.																																				g. Stateless Persons										Rohingya in the country were legally or in fact stateless. They could not acquire Bangladeshi citizenship, nor did the government of Burma recognize them as citizens.Every individual born in Bangladesh was a citizen of the country by birth by law. This provision, however, was not afforded to Rohingya. A 2009 amendment to the law allowed anyone born in the country to either a Bangladeshi mother or father the right to claim citizenship. This amendment was not retroactively applied to Rohingya children born in the country to stateless fathers prior to 2009, so these children remained stateless. There were cases in which children born to one Bangladeshi parent and one Rohingya parent were not recognized as citizens, despite the 2009 amendment.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage. International observers reported recent elections were neither free nor fair because they were marred by serious irregularities.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: National elections were widely reported to not be fair or free of abuses and irregularities. Observers considered 2018 parliamentary elections neither free nor fair and marred by irregularities including ballot box stuffing and intimidation of opposition polling agents and voters. During the campaign leading to the election, there were many credible reports of harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrests, and violence that made it difficult for opposition candidates and their supporters to meet, hold rallies, or campaign freely.Intimidation, irregularities, and violence during campaigns and voting marked almost all parliamentary by-elections and local government elections during the year.Campaigning for a July 17 parliamentary by-election, independent candidate and social media star Ashraful &#8220;Hero&#8221; Alam was attacked, reportedly by AL-aligned activists. Local police officials refused to accept his filing of a case against his attackers. On election day he was attacked again and hospitalized after police ejected him from a polling station and, according to reporters present, refused to protect him from a mob of governing party supporters. Authorities arrested 10 suspects in relation to the second assault.Political Parties and Political Participation: The government mobilized law enforcement resources to level civil and criminal charges against opposition party leaders and activists. Press reporting supported claims by the BNP and other parties that police criminally charged thousands of BNP members related to political demonstrations during the year and detained many of the accused. Human rights observers claimed most of these charges were baseless.Opposition activists faced criminal charges. Leaders and members of Jamaat-e-Islami (Jamaat), the largest Islamist political party in the country, said they could not consistently exercise their constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly because of harassment by law enforcement authorities. The police granted Jamaat permission to hold rallies in a few instances but frequently denied it in others. As it was not registered as a political party, Jamaat candidates were prohibited from seeking office under the Jamaat name.AL-affiliated organizations, particularly its student wing, the Bangladesh Chhatra League, carried out violence and intimidation around the country with impunity against nonpartisan individuals as well as opposition groups and others deemed critical of the government. On April 10, after the prime minister&#8217;s denunciation in parliament of the country&#8217;s leading newspaper Prothom Alo, AL youth activists broke in and vandalized the newspaper&#8217;s offices, livestreaming their actions on social media.A series of BNP and AL rallies in July saw clashes as BNP activists tried to stage sit-ins at main roads and entry points to Dhaka and met with pushback from police and reportedly AL affiliates. In a common pattern, police withdrew from a BNP protest site and allowed AL activists to attack. In the July clashes scores of persons were injured, including some BNP leaders. Political rallies sparked violence again in late October, as the police and BNP supporters clashed, resulting in more than 13,700 arrests, and leaving at least 14 dead as of November.Press reported in June that police headquarters ordered units across the country to speed up pending criminal cases – often dormant or old – to legally entangle potential candidates from the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami ahead of possible national elections. Potential candidates reportedly faced dozens or hundreds of cases. Minutes of a July 6 meeting leaked to the press documented officials from police headquarters instructing police around the country to implicate BNP and Jamaat supporters in criminal cases filed since 2013, stating, &#8220;BNP and Jamaat have to be declared disqualified for the election&#8230;all BNP and Jamaat leaders who are expected to contest elections are accused in some cases.” Police were instructed to collaborate with the judiciary to speed up cases and coordinate witness testimony.In August, Human Rights Watch reported authorities filed cases against more than 1,500 named opposition leaders and activists and 15,000 unnamed individuals in the weeks leading up to BNP rallies at the end of July. In October, less than 90 days before expected elections and ahead of major political rallies in Dhaka, the BNP claimed authorities detained 200 of its leaders and activists within a 15-hour period.In numerous instances, the government interfered with the right of opposition parties to organize public functions and restricted broadcasting of opposition political events. Press reported that government authorities hindered telecommunications connectivity for rallygoers attending opposition events, even as ruling party rallies on the same day were undisturbed.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: No laws limited participation of women or members of minorities in the political process, and they did participate. Freedom House noted in its annual report that societal discrimination against women, as well as against LGBTQI+ persons, limited their participation in politics. Religious, ethnic, and other marginalized groups remained underrepresented in politics and state agencies.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for conviction of corruption by officials, but the government did not implement the law effectively. There were numerous reports of government corruption during the year, and officials frequently engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), set up in 2004 to serve as an independent monitoring mechanism, was mandated to focus on investigating cases of corruption, including but not limited to bribery, embezzlement, extortion, abuse of discretion, and improper political contributions. Local human rights organizations questioned the independence and effectiveness of the ACC, which they claimed was evidenced by the acquittal of most cases brought against ruling party officials and bureaucrats, while legal processes, investigations, and filing of cases against leaders of the opposition parties continued. In August, media sources reported the ACC faced a backlog of over 6,500 cases.Corruption: Corruption remained a serious problem. Freedom House’s annual report noted “corruption is endemic, and anticorruption efforts have been weakened by politicized enforcement.”In January, the ACC opened an inquiry based on allegations Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority managing director Taqsem A. Khan bought 14 houses and several cars in the United States during his 13-year tenure as the authority’s managing director. According to the allegations, Taqsem stole money from foreign-loan funded projects to fund his luxury purchases.In February, media outlets broke news of an internal government report outlining corruption allegations against the former mayor of Gazipur, Mohammad Zahangir Alam. Corruption claims included payments for garbage pickups which never took place, road construction projects which were not performed, skimming lease payments owed to the Gazipur City Corporation, and charges for public events which did not take place. The government did not publicly release the internal report.For additional information about corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						Several domestic and international human rights groups investigated and published their findings on human rights cases, but they generally operated with significant government restrictions. Government officials were rarely cooperative and responsive to their reports, occasionally verbally attacking critical organizations and activists by name.Although human rights groups often sharply criticized the government, they also practiced self-censorship. Observers alleged the government strategically reduced the effectiveness and inhibited operations of civil society through restrictions. Even civil society members affiliated with the ruling party reported receiving threats of arrest from the security forces for public criticism of government policies.The government continued to restrict the funding and operations of the human rights organization Odhikar following its rejection of the organization’s registration in 2022. The organization’s officials continued to report harassment, intimidation, and surveillance by government officials and security forces.The Dhaka Cyber Tribunal continued to conduct hearings in a case against Odhikar’s secretary Adilur Rahman Khan and director Nasiruddin Elan over alleged violations in 2013 of the Information and Communications Technology Act. In July, three UN special rapporteurs called on the government to stop harassing Odhikar and ensure respect for due process, calling the case emblematic of the use of criminal proceedings to silence human rights defenders and organizations. On September 14, the tribunal convicted Khan and Elan and sentenced them each to two years in prison and a fine of 10,000 taka ($90). On October 15 authorities released them on bail for one year and stayed the fine, following their appeal to the High Court and its subsequent ruling.The government required all NGOs, including religious organizations, to register with the Ministry of Social Welfare. Some local and international NGOs working on human rights issues claimed intelligence agencies monitored them. The government sometimes restricted international NGOs’ ability to operate through delays in project registration, cease-and-desist letters, and visa refusals.The NGO Affairs Bureau continued to block project approval and release of funding to several NGOs. Several NGOs said they received informal notification from the government to cease or slow down activities. Others faced repeated formal roadblocks to get projects approved despite submitting all the required paperwork. In some cases, banks refused to release funds to NGOs working on sensitive governance and rights issues. Lengthy delays caused some NGOs to curtail activities as they could not pay their staff.The law included what rights groups reported were punitive provisions for NGOs making “derogatory” comments regarding the constitution of the country, its founding history, or constitutional bodies.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: The government filed numerous cases against human rights defenders. Human rights defenders claimed they were under constant government surveillance and they and their family members experienced frequent harassment.In July, the Centre for Governance Studies released a report on the status of human rights defenders in the country. The report found at least 65 percent of surveyed human rights defenders said that the ruling AL party, law enforcement, and intelligence services obstructed their work. The report noted 62 percent of those surveyed claimed the overall environment of their work was “very unsafe” or “unsafe,” and 42 percent noted threats, intimidation and persecution from sources connected to the state, including law enforcement, state intelligence agencies, and government officials.The United Nations or Other International Bodies: Since 2013 the government had not responded to a request from the UN WGEID to visit the country. The Office of the UN Resident Coordinator in the country reported several other pending requests for UN special rapporteurs to visit the country since 2017, including the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions; the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. Some UN special rapporteurs visited throughout the year, including the rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in May and the rapporteur on the human rights of migrants in January.Government Human Rights Bodies: The National Human Rights Commission’s primary activities were to investigate human rights abuses, address discrimination in law, educate the public on human rights, and advise the government on key human rights matters. Most human rights organizations questioned the independence and effectiveness of the commission, alleging the government used state institutions including the commission to implement its political agenda.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law prohibited rape of girls and women by men and physical spousal abuse, but the law excluded marital rape if the girl or woman was older than 13. Conviction of rape was punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty. The government did not enforce the law effectively.Human rights organizations found rape remained a serious issue in the country. There were allegations of rapists blackmailing survivors by threatening to release the video of the rape on social media. There were many reports of sexual violence committed with impunity.In February, police arrested five men for the gang rape of a woman the month prior. According to news reports, the woman hired a rickshaw pulled by one of the accused, who then abducted her and took her to a building under construction where a group of five men raped her. In July, police arrested a man for raping a woman college student in Dhaka. According to police, the accused lured the student to the third floor of a shopping mall where he raped her.According to guidelines for handling rape cases, the officer in charge of a police station had to record any information relating to rape or sexual assault irrespective of the place of occurrence. Chemical and DNA tests had to be conducted within 48 hours from when the incident was reported. Guidelines also stipulated every police station was required to have a woman police officer available to survivors of rape or sexual assault during the recording of the case by the duty officer. The statements of the survivor had to be recorded in the presence of a lawyer, social worker, protection officer, or any other individual the survivor deemed appropriate.Survivors with disabilities were supposed to be provided with government-supported interpretation services, if necessary, and the investigating officer along with a woman police officer was required to escort the survivor to a timely medical examination.According to human rights monitors, many survivors did not report rapes due to lack of access to legal services, social stigma, fear of further harassment, and the legal requirement to produce witnesses. The burden was on the rape survivor to prove a rape occurred, using medical evidence.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Some NGOs reported violence against women related to disputes concerning dowries, despite dowry demands being illegal. By law, an individual convicted of demanding or giving a dowry could be imprisoned for up to five years, fined, or both, but the practice remained common throughout the country. From January to September, ASK found 114 incidents of dowry-related violence against women, with 51 women killed because of dowry disputes.In late July, six persons allegedly beat four girl soccer players in Khulna for wearing shorts during soccer practice. Though one of the victims filed a case with the police against the attackers, the alleged attackers continued to threaten the girls with promises to file false cases against them, acid attacks, harm to their family members, and death. Police arrested the main accused individual and pledged to provide security to the victims and other players; however, half of the players at the academy stopped attending practice due to the threats.ASK reported five incidents of fatwas (religious edicts) used to target women between January and August. A Supreme Court Appellate Division ruling allows the use of fatwas only to settle religious matters; fatwas could not be invoked to justify punishment, nor could they supersede secular law. Nevertheless, in some cases, these declarations resulted in extrajudicial punishments, often against women, for perceived moral transgressions.Cases of vigilantism against women occurred. The incidents included whipping, beating, and other forms of physical violence.Assailants threw acid in the faces of survivors, usually women, leaving them disfigured and often blind. Acid attacks were in some instances related to a woman’s refusal to accept a marriage proposal or to land or other money disputes.Although sexual harassment was prohibited by a 2009 High Court ruling, harassment, also known as “Eve teasing,” was common according to multiple NGOs.Discrimination: The constitution declared all citizens equal before the law with entitlement to equal protection under the law. It also explicitly recognized the equal rights of women to those of men “in all spheres of the state and of public life.” According to NGOs, the government did not always enforce gender equality laws effectively. Women did not enjoy the same legal status and rights as men in family, property, and inheritance law. Family and inheritance laws varied by religion.The labor law prohibited wage discrimination based on sex, but it did not prohibit other forms of labor-related discrimination. Women were generally underrepresented in supervisory and management positions and earned less than men counterparts even when performing similar functions.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.A full range of contraceptive methods, including long-acting reversible contraception and permanent methods, were available through government, NGO, and for-profit clinics and hospitals. Low-income families were more likely to rely on public family planning services offered free of cost. Government district hospitals had crisis management centers providing contraceptive care to survivors of sexual assault. These facilities did not provide postexposure prophylaxis. Due to cultural and religious factors, many women were unable to access contraception without their husbands’ permission. The UN Population Fund’s (UNFPA) State of World Population 2023 report claimed contraceptive prevalence rate was 64 percent, but that two-thirds of women lacked decision-making authority on sexual and reproductive health and rights.Weaknesses in the public-health system, such as lack of trained providers and equipment in rural areas, resulted in inequitable access to information and services.Taboos and stigma surrounding menstruation created social and religious barriers for menstruating women. In conservative communities some menstruating women could not use the kitchen or observe religious practices due to fear of contamination. A civil society organization estimated one in four girls stayed home from school while menstruating. The cost of menstrual products was relatively high compared to average wages, due in part to being heavily taxed, prompting some women to use potentially unhygienic materials while menstruating.Civil society organizations reported survivors of child marriage had less negotiating power to make family planning choices.LGBTQI+ groups reported nonmale persons faced legal, cultural, and social barriers that impeded access to sexual and reproductive health services. In many cases, there were requirements for a third party, such as a spouse or male guardian, to authorize access to health-care services.Many health practitioners expressed discomfort in discussing sexual activity, and shamed patients that discussed sexually transmitted infections. Discussions of women’s sexuality were particularly taboo. Civil society organizations and LGBTQI+ activists often cited social stigma against HIV and AIDS and against higher-risk populations as a barrier for accessing health services, especially for the transgender community.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The law provided for the protection of members of some marginalized ethnic or racial communities; however, these laws were rarely enforced. NGOs reported national origin, racial, and ethnic minorities faced discrimination. For example, some Dalits (lowest-caste Hindus) suffered from restricted access to land, adequate housing, education, and employment.Members of the estimated 300,000 Urdu-speaking population (known as Biharis, originally Urdu-speaking Muslims who migrated to then East Pakistan before the Bangladesh Liberation War) stated their requests to obtain passports were sometimes rejected by immigration officers due to their lack of a permanent address. Almost all of this population still resided in refugee-like camps established by the International Committee of the Red Cross in the 1970s, when Biharis believed they would return to Pakistan following the 1971 war. In 2008, a High Court ruling that the Bihari community had rights as citizens prompted the international donor community to cease support because the community was technically no longer stateless. While the government provided some basic services, including water and electricity, Biharis reported social and economic discrimination as well as a lack of initiatives integrating them into society, leaving them isolated in crowded camps.																																				Indigenous Peoples										The Indigenous communities of the CHT and other areas throughout the country experienced widespread discrimination and abuse despite nationwide government quotas for participation of Indigenous residents in the civil service and higher education. These conditions also persisted despite provisions for local governance in the 1997 Peace Accord, which was not fully implemented. Indigenous persons were unable to participate effectively in decisions affecting their lands due to disagreements regarding land dispute resolution procedures under the Land Commission Act. Local organizations claimed the army and intelligence forces carried out extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests; beat, harassed, threatened, and jailed Indigenous people on false charges; and labeled rights activists as terrorists and extortionists.Indigenous activists claimed ethnic minorities were drastically undercounted by the census, impacting land rights and the development budget of the CHT and other Indigenous lands. The official census reported 1.65 million minority persons, while the Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples’ Forum estimated there were around three million ethnic minority persons. While the country had a 20 percent poverty rate, poverty in the plains, where some Indigenous persons lived, was more than 80 percent and more than 65 percent in the CHT. Organizations corroborated health care available to Indigenous persons was well below the standard available to non-Indigenous persons in the country.Human rights organizations continued to allege evictions and communal attacks occurred against local populations in the CHT, often at the direction of the government, army, and intelligence agencies. To mark International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples on August 9, the Bangladesh Adivasi Forum organized a discussion to demand constitutional recognition of ethnic minorities as “indigenous people.”In January, media reported 100 persons armed with sticks attacked an Mro village in the CHT’s Bandarban district. Attackers vandalized and burned a dozen Mro houses, and looted the homes for mobile phones, household utensils, clothes, cattle, and poultry. Community members alleged the attackers were affiliated with Lama Rubber Industries and sought to drive villagers from the area. The rubber plantation company responded that Indigenous people were building houses on company land. Indigenous communities in areas other than the CHT reported the loss of land to Bengali Muslims, and Indigenous peoples’ advocacy groups reported deforestation to support Rohingya refugee camps and other commercial pursuits caused severe environmental degradation in their land, adversely affecting their livelihoods.In January, CHT political group the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) noted in an annual report 235 incidences of human rights violations by security forces, armed extremist groups, and land grabbers in the CHT the previous year. The PCJSS also stated the government escalated “military measure” to manage the situation in the CHT, instead of using political and peaceful means through the implementation of the 1997 accord.Reports of sexual assaults on Indigenous women and children by Bengali neighbors or security personnel remained unresolved.																																				Children										Birth Registration: The government did not register births for nor extend citizenship to Rohingya refugees born in the country, although it permitted UNHCR to register births within the refugee camps.Education: Education was free and compulsory through eighth grade by law, and the government offered subsidies to parents to keep girls in class through 10th grade. Enrollments in primary schools showed gender parity, but completion rates fell in secondary school, with more boys than girls completing that level. Early and forced marriage was a factor in girls’ attrition from secondary school.Child Abuse: Many forms of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical and humiliating punishment, child abandonment, kidnapping, and trafficking, continued to be serious and widespread. The law prohibited child abuse and neglect with the penalty for conviction of up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. The Department of Social Services operated “Child Helpline – 1098,” a free telephone service designed to help children facing violence, abuse, and exploitation. The hotline received approximately 80,000 calls a year on average and was accessible from anywhere in the country. The hotline center provided services such as removal, referral, and counseling.During the year, former students detailed multiple allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of teachers and older pupils in Islamic madrassas. In February, a Dhaka court sentenced a madrasa teacher to life in prison on charges of raping a student, age nine, in 2019. In May, a madrasa teacher reportedly raped a girl, age eight, after calling her to his room when she went to the madrasa to study around 4:00 p.m. In May, the AL student league suspended a local leader after police arrested him on charges of raping two teenage boys. In July, media reported police recovered the body of a girl, age eight, from a pond in Rajshahi after she was kidnapped from her house. Her body showed signs of rape.Despite advances, trafficking of children and inadequate care and protection for survivors of trafficking continued to be problems. Child labor and abuse at the workplace remained problems in certain industries, mostly in the informal sector, and child domestic workers were vulnerable to all forms of abuse.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The legal age of marriage was 18 for women and 21 for men. The law included a provision for marriages of women and men at any age in “special circumstances.”UNFPA’s 2023 report assessed 51 percent of girls married before the age of 18. High rates of child marriage resulted in girls leaving school at a higher rate than boys. UNICEF noted girls who marry in childhood were less likely to remain in school.The government’s own statistics were lower than UNFPA’s estimate but still high. In June, the BBS reported the number of early marriages involving girls under 15 and 18 years of age increased significantly in 2022. According to BBS, 40.9 percent of girls under 18 years of age married in 2022, compared to 32.4 percent in 2021. The rates were higher in rural areas than urban ones. The statistics further showed that 6.5 percent of girls under the age of 15 married in 2022, up from 4.7 percent in 2021.To reduce early and forced marriages, the government offered stipends for girls’ school expenses beyond the compulsory level. The government and NGOs conducted workshops and public events to teach parents the importance of their daughters waiting until age 18 before marrying.According to the Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs, two mobile services were available to report cases of child marriage and provide other services; the Joya App and a “109 Hotline.” The ministry’s website hosts a digital library to provide information on existing laws and other resources to prevent child marriage.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited sexual exploitation of children; the penalty for conviction was 10 years to life imprisonment. Child pornography and selling or distributing such material was prohibited. Child sex trafficking victims in brothels were able to produce notarized certificates stating they were older than age 18, and some observers claimed corrupt government and law enforcement officials condoned or facilitated these practices. In addition to cross-border trafficking, traffickers lured girls from around the country into domestic commercial sexual exploitation in legal and illegal brothels and hotels.																																				Antisemitism										There was no Jewish community in the country. Politicians and imams made antisemitic statements, reportedly to gain support from their constituencies.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Forced Organ Harvesting										Organ harvesting continued in the country. In July, the RAB publicized the arrests of suspects in a kidney trafficking ring. The accused leader of the ring claimed he was underpaid for his own kidney by a broker in India in 2019. According to the RAB, the man noted the huge demand for kidney transplant patients in India and started the organ trafficking ring. After finding wealthy clients who needed kidneys online or through local brokers from different areas, the accused arranged for donors to be sent to India. During the arrests, the RAB recovered fake certificates for kidney donors and recipients, passports, bank cards, Indian rupees, and Bangladeshi taka. The organ traffickers allegedly charged recipients as much as five million taka ($45,000) per kidney, but paid donors 500,000-600,000 taka ($4,500-$5,400). The RAB estimated the organ trafficking ring sold 50 kidneys before the arrests.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: Same-sex sexual conduct was illegal under the penal code, which carried with it punishment up to life imprisonment. The government did not actively enforce the law. Members of LGBTQI+ groups reported the government retained the law because of societal pressure. There were no credible efforts to rescind discriminatory laws that targeted LGBTQI+ persons.Violence and Harassment: Members of LGBTQI+ communities received threatening messages via telephone, text, and social media, and some were harassed by police. They stressed the need for online and physical security due to continued threats of physical violence. The government and police took few official actions to investigate, prosecute, and punish those complicit in violence and abuses against LGBTQI+ persons. LGBTQI+ advocacy organizations reported police used the law as a pretext to harass individuals who were perceived to be LGBTQI+ regardless of their sexual orientation. Some groups reported harassment under a suspicious behavior provision of the police code. LGBTQI+ individuals experienced high levels of fear, harassment, and law enforcement actions taken in the wake of violent extremist attacks in the past decade.On August 20, media reported Islamic extremists killed Golam Kibria, a gay schoolteacher in Savar, claiming Kibria’s sexual orientation contradicted their beliefs. Human rights groups emphasized this incident was not an isolated occurrence but rather emblematic of the broader human rights abuses faced by LGBTQI+ individuals within the country.NGOs reported high levels of sexual and gender-based violence against Rohingya LGBTQI+ individuals living in the refugee camps, who stated their ongoing physical and psychological needs were not adequately met.Discrimination: The law did not prohibit discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. LGBTQI+ groups reported official discrimination in employment and occupation, housing, and access to government services, including health care and access to justice. Though the government offered limited training and employment opportunities to help third-gender persons gain employment, rights activists stated only a small number of third-gender persons worked in the manufacturing and service sectors, and many faced workplace discrimination.Mental health care was a top concern and, according to these groups, mental health-care providers tended to use moralistic terms to shame LGBTQI+ persons. Access to preexposure and postexposure medications that prevent transmittal of HIV during sex was limited. HIV testing was free, but stigma regarding testing and seeking treatment remained strong.While some transgender women in the country identified as hijra (a cultural South Asian term for some transgender women as well as some intersex and gender-nonconforming individuals), due to an affinity for the hijra subculture or a desire for increased social protection, not all chose to do so. Many transgender women asserted their transgender identities and corrected those that identified them as hijra. Meanwhile, transgender men received little support or tolerance, particularly in poor and rural communities. Transgender rights advocates claimed the government conducted genitalia checks on hijra in some cases, before allowing them access to services.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: Passports and legal identification documents, including voter registration forms, included the option to select “X” or “Hijra” as a third gender. The most recent national census included a “third gender” category. Although the government made some progress in promoting social acceptance of hijra persons, the government made limited efforts to promote the rights of others in the LGBTQI+ community and did not offer legal recognition.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: LGBTQI+ activists reported so-called conversion therapy practices were widespread. Lesbian women and gay men recounted stories of being sent by their parents to drug rehabilitation facilities and forced to take sedatives, wear traditional clothing, and recite the Quran. The government did not condemn these practices.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: Organizations working on LGBTQI+ topics in the country faced major hurdles to fund and implement projects due to their inability to register with the government as formal LGBTQI+ NGOs and thus receive international funding. Organizations specifically assisting lesbians were rare, though programming by LGBTQI+ organizations continued to expand beyond traditional male and hijra participants. Severe social stigma regarding sexual orientation was common and prevented open discussion of the subject.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law provided for equal treatment and freedom from discrimination for persons with disabilities, and the government took mostly effective measures to enforce these provisions.The law required physical structures be made accessible to those with disabilities, but the government did not implement the law effectively and government buildings had no accommodations for persons with disabilities. The law required persons with disabilities to register for identity cards to track their enrollment in educational institutions and access to jobs. This registration allowed them to be included in voter lists, to cast votes, and to participate in elections. Local NGOs estimated 50 to 60 percent of those with disabilities were unable to exercise their right to vote, as voting centers lacked accommodations for persons with disabilities.According to NGOs, some children with disabilities did not attend public school due to lack of accommodation. The government trained teachers on inclusive education and recruited disability specialists at the district level. The government also allocated stipends for students with disabilities.Many organizations reported persons with visual disabilities experienced difficulties accessing technology. While individuals reported government websites contained more user-friendly services for persons with disabilities, they also reported information for persons with disabilities was usually uploaded on portals as scanned documents, which made it incompatible for software used by persons with visual impairments. The government provided students with visual impairments with accessible books every year.The government took some action to investigate those responsible for violence and abuses against persons with disabilities.Government facilities for treating persons with mental disabilities were inadequate.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right to join and, with government approval, to form unions. The law did not cover workers in the informal sector, who make up about 85 percent of the labor force. The legal definition of workers excluded managerial, supervisory, and administrative staff. Civil servants, firefighters, security guards, and employers’ confidential assistants were not allowed to join unions. Unions were not permitted in export processing zones (EPZ) and special economic zones. The law provided for workers in unions to bargain collectively and engage in legal strikes and prohibited antiunion discrimination.The law provided for workers in a collective bargaining union to have the right to strike in the event of a failure to reach settlement, but the law placed limitations on this right. At least 75 percent of union employees had to support a strike action. The government could prohibit a strike deemed to pose a “serious hardship to the community” and could terminate any strike lasting more than 30 days. The law additionally prohibited strikes for the first three years of commercial production if the factory was built with foreign investment or owned by a foreign investor. Few strikes followed the cumbersome legal requirements, however, and strikes or walkouts often occurred spontaneously. Work stoppages, strikes, and workplace actions regarding wage arrears, improper or illegal shutdowns, layoffs, terminations, and discrimination were prevalent in several sectors during the year.The law required every factory with more than 50 employees to have a participation committee. The law stated there was no requirement for a participation committee if a trade union existed in the establishment. Employers often selected or appointed workers to participation committees rather than allowing worker elections to those positions as required by law. Employers also failed to comply with laws and regulations that provided for the effectiveness and independence of participation committees.The law severely restricted the right to organize and bargain collectively for the nearly 488,000 workers in the EPZs. EPZ workers could establish worker welfare associations (WWA), but the law did not empower WWAs to independently represent workers in collective bargaining. WWAs were prohibited from establishing any connection to outside political parties, unions, federations, or NGOs.WWAs remained dominated by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) and continued to supplant independent unions. Among the 456 operating enterprises in the eight EPZs, WWAs were formed in only 288 enterprises. The law gave BEPZA discretion to ban any strike in EPZs it views as prejudicial to the public interest. The Ministry of Labour and Employment’s Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) continued to face obstacles to conducting inspections in the EPZs, including the requirement to obtain prior approval from the BEPZA Executive Chairman. Following the issuance of the October 2022 EPZ Labor Rules, the DIFE conducted roughly 45 inspections in EPZ factories. The law provided for EPZ labor tribunals, appellate tribunals, and conciliators, but those institutions were not established. Instead, 13 labor courts and one appellate labor court heard EPZ cases. The law did not empower the DIFE to file cases in the labor courts or give notice to an establishment for violations in EPZs factories, but the law required DIFE to send its observations directly to the BEPZA. More than 50 percent of WWAs in any particular zone of an EPZ were required to approve a federation.There were 10 economic zones in operation under the Bangladesh Economic Zones Authority. The DIFE, however, did not have the authority to inspect enterprises in the economic zones. Workers in the economic zones were prevented from forming trade unions and were not permitted to establish communication with external worker rights organizations.The government did not effectively enforce laws protecting freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, and the right to strike. Penalties for unfair labor practices and antiunion discrimination were not commensurate with penalties for other laws involving denials of civil rights. Penalties were sometimes applied against violators, more often against workers than employers. The Department of Labor (DOL) within the Ministry of Labour and Employment reported that between January 2022 and August 2023, workers filed 17 complaints regarding unfair labor practices and antiunion discrimination, and as of November all complaints remained under investigation.The law did not allow workers to file unfair labor practice or antiunion discrimination cases directly with the labor courts. Workers first had to file complaints with the DOL alleging unfair labor practices. The DOL first investigated and attempted to bring the parties to consensus through arbitration. DOL’s decisions were not binding. The DOL could file cases with the labor court if arbitration failed to reach a resolution between the parties. A labor court could order reinstatement of workers fired for union activities, but reinstatement was rarely awarded. The DIFE had authority to mediate wage-related disputes. Labor organizations reported the conciliation process slowed down workers’ access to justice.While the law allowed for more than one union in a factory, the DOL did not allow more than one union per factory in the garment industry. Labor leaders continued to report that only management-supported unions received quick union registration credentials.Barriers to union formation remained in law and practice. The law required a minimum of 20 percent of workers at an enterprise for union registration. According to labor leaders and labor organizations, unions in large enterprises faced significant difficulties meeting the 20 percent membership threshold. From January to August, the DOL rejected 37 registration applications for not meeting the membership threshold. Labor groups also cited practical barriers to registration beyond the law, including the DOL’s failure to review and issue registration certificates to unions within the 55-day legal limit, comparing worker signatures, and requiring unions to hold two general meetings for registration. Labor rights organizations reported that politically affiliated factory owners interfered with the union registration process and trade union activities. The International Trade Union Confederation noted the labor law did not align with international labor standards and raised concerns over obstruction in forming trade unions and police interference with peaceful workers protests. The confederation also called for stronger measures to restrain interference in union elections.Labor leaders, organizers, and workers faced violence, threats, and unfair labor practices for exercising the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. On June 25, assailants killed prominent labor organizer Shahidul Islam after he attempted to resolve a labor dispute over two months of unpaid wages and holiday bonuses at the Prince Jacquard Sweaters factory near Dhaka. Islam was the president of the Gazipur branch of the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation. According to press reports, an autopsy report from August 9 indicated he died from profuse bleeding after sustaining a blow to his head. The Industrial Police, the lead agency on this case, reported the arrest of nine individuals and confessional statements from key suspects.Following attempts by workers to organize at the Fashion Forum Limited factory, in March factory management beat three organizers of the proposed union and forced them to resign. The following day, workers protested and clashed with the management. On March 31, factory management filed a criminal case against Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation general secretary Babul Akter for supporting union activity at the factory and allegedly encouraging workers to engage in violence in the factory. Criminal charges against Akter remained pending as of November.Labor groups reported violence, intimidation and unfair labor practices against organizers, union leaders, and workers following the second attempted union registration of the Sommilito Sramik Union at Mondol Fashion. According to reports, on July 15, Mondol Fashion factory authorities detained, beat, and threatened union leaders and members. On July 29, factory management forced three union leaders to sign employment termination orders. Labor groups reported that at least six union leaders and members took shelter in the Sommilito Garment Shromik Federation office while others left the area in fear for their lives.During the year, the Ministry of Labour and Employment reported the garment sector had 1,203 active trade unions and around 450 active participation committees. Labor leaders, however, claimed much lower numbers of trade unions, asserting intimidation, corruption, and violence suppressed union organizing. The ministry reported the fisheries sector had 71 active unions. Only 70 tanneries were unionized under the sector’s single union. The tea sector had one union, the largest in the country, representing around 150,000 workers at 167 plantations.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings .																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The National Minimum Wage Board established minimum monthly wages by sector. The minimum wage was not indexed to inflation, but the board occasionally made cost-of-living adjustments to wages in some sectors. None of the set minimum wages provided a sufficient standard of living for urban dwellers, but many were above the poverty level. Failure to pay the specified minimum wage was punishable by imprisonment up to one year, a fine, or both, and the employer was supposed to repay owed wages. There were 42 sectors under minimum wage regulation. During the year, the government did not include any new industrial sectors under the minimum wage regulation. Despite a labor law requirement to revise the minimum wage every five years, wages in many sectors long remained unchanged. Wages received little attention in sectors lacking strong trade unions or labor organizations.By law a standard workday was eight hours. A standard workweek was 48 hours, but the workweek could be extended to 60 hours subject to payment of an overtime allowance double the basic wage. Overtime could not be compulsory. Workers had to have one hour of rest if they worked for more than six hours a day, or a half hour of rest for more than five hours’ work per day. The law stated every worker should be allowed at least 11 festival holidays with full wages in a year, fixed by the employer in consultation with the collective bargaining agent, if any. Factory workers were supposed to receive one day off every week. Shop workers received one-and-a-half days off per week. The labor law did not specify a penalty for forced overtime or failing to pay overtime wages.Occupational Safety and Health: The law establishes occupational safety and health (OSH) standards, and amendments to the law created mandatory worker safety committees. The labor law specified sanctions when failure to comply caused harm. Penalties for violations of OSH laws were commensurate with those for crimes such as negligence.Labor law implementing rules outlined the process for forming OSH committees in factories. The committees included both management and workers nominated by the collective bargaining agreement or, in absence of an agreement, worker representatives of the factory’s participation committee. Where there was no union or participation committee, the Ministry of Labour and Employment was responsible for arranging participation committee elections.The highest number of workplace accidents took place in the transport, construction, production, and service sectors. The construction and clothing sectors were reportedly the deadliest for workers.On May 4, a boiler explosion at the Rahima Industrial Complex Limited killed seven workers. According to the fire service, the explosion occurred due to excess temperature in the boiler chamber. During the investigation, the DIFE found several safety violations including absence of safety equipment.In 2022 the Ministry of Commerce approved and issued a framework between the DIFE and the Ready-Made Garment Sustainability Council (RSC), a private, tripartite organization with a mandate to oversee safety standards at garment factories. Under the framework, the DIFE held meetings with RSC; shared data and reports in prescribed format; conducted technical discussion on safety monitoring; and established a joint working group. The Ministry of Commerce supervised the activities of the RSC through the Government Coordination Council. The council included participation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Textiles and Jute, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Ministry of Industry, Bangladesh Economic Zones Authority, and BEPZA.The building code failed to meet basic international fire safety standards, and government oversight of building safety outside the garment export sector remained limited. Although prior work under the brand-led Accord and similar programs improved structural, fire, and electrical safety conditions in 2,300 ready-made garment factories producing for Western brands, safety auditors reported fire detection and suppression systems in these factories often did not work because they were not maintained properly. The government’s National Initiative covers 1,549 additional RMG factories producing for domestic sale or for export to other foreign markets. Under the DIFE, the government formed a Remediation and Coordination Cell to monitor and remediate National Initiative factories. The DIFE oversaw an Industrial Safety Unit, consisting of seven engineers, to oversee the National Initiative factories. The Industrial Safety Unit worked closely with the RSC to monitor and remediate industrial safety standards in the garment sector.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: DIFE labor inspectors only had the legal authority to make unannounced inspections in establishments outside the EPZs. Within EPZs, the DIFE could only conduct announced inspections, with limitations. The government did not effectively enforce minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws. Penalties for violations were not commensurate with those for similar crimes and were rarely applied against violators.DIFE inspectors did not have authority to issue penalties or initiate sanctions; they could notify establishments of violations in writing and file complaints with the labor courts. The DIFE regularly filed cases with the labor courts against employers for administrative violations of the law, such as not maintaining documents. The Ministry of Labour and Employment reported the DIFE filed cases against some factories for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime during the year, but labor organizations saw no cases.There were criticisms regarding the DIFE’s complaint mechanism. A worker had to enter their name, position, and identity number in the complaint form. Once the complaint was received, the DIFE issued a letter to factory management with reference to the complaint form, which identified the complainant. This mechanism provided inadequate protections to workers and raised doubts on efficacy. BEPZA maintains a helpline telephone number for EPZ workers.DIFE’s resources were inadequate to inspect and remediate problems effectively. The factory inspection department had only 401 inspectors and 31 inspectorate offices to review safety matters in more than 530,000 production units and shops.Although increased focus on the garment industry improved safety compliance, resources, inspections, and remediation across other sectors were inadequate. Legal limits on hours of work were routinely violated and a labor rights NGO found 95 percent of factories did not comply with overtime limits. Employers often required workers, including pregnant women, to work 12 hours a day or more to meet quotas and export deadlines, but they did not always properly compensate workers for their overtime. Employers in many cases delayed workers’ pay or denied full leave benefits.According to the Labour Force Survey 2016-2017, of a total of 61 million employed persons, 85 percent worked in the informal sector. Legal protection for workers in the informal sector was inadequate although most OSH incidents occurred there.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Forced Organ Harvesting																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bangladesh																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
- International Women of Courage Amplify Young Generation’s Voices Tolu OjoriOffice of Global Women&#8217;s IssuesMy voice is my courage.This March, the U.S. Department of State is celebrating remarkable women from around the world through the 18th annual International Women of Courage Award.  Like Jusic, they have dedicated their lives to reclaiming the voices of women in their communities. “Invest in Women” is the 2024 theme of International Women’s Day, and there is no better investment than the early intervention, engagement, and support of our youth. There are many girls around the world who will grow up to be future global leaders.  Unfortunately, many girls grow up disadvantaged and are stripped of their agency simply because of their gender.  According to a 2023 UNICEF study, one in five young women were married before the age of 18.  UNICEF also has reported that 129 million girls do not have access to education.  However, activists in every nation, including this year’s International Women of Courage, are doing the work to advance progress for women and girls.  For this article, I had the pleasure to interview a few of them.One in ten children worldwide are subject to child labor, with COVID-19 further exacerbating these numbers.  Due to work schedules, child laborers often do not receive an education or have access to healthcare. Girls have a unique experience in the child labor industry.  Many Bangladeshi girls are targeted for domestic labor like working as a housemaid.  Some girls are deceptively offered these jobs but are lured into sex work instead.  In Bangladesh, the unsafe conditions of the garment industry have an even worse impact on the children who unfortunately work in these factories.  These children must operate hazardous machines and are exposed to harmful chemicals. 2024 International Woman of Courage Fawzia Karim Firoze. (Photo courtesy of Meridian Communications)Fawzia Karim Firoze is a lawyer who has played an important role in establishing the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers Union Federation, a women-led trade union improving labor conditions and providing legal protection for workers in Bangladesh’s garment-making industry.  I asked Firoze how child labor impacts the livelihood of children and their family. Her response, “Children being deprived of basic education and opportunities for personal and professional growth, eventually trap themselves in a vicious cycle which they are unable to break free for the rest of their lives”.  For over 30 years, Firoze has advocated to strengthen the voice of many marginalized people working in abusive and unsafe conditions, including girls and young women. 2024 International Women of Courage Rabha El Haymar (left) with her daughter (right). (Photo courtesy Rabha El Haymar)Moroccan activist Rabha El Haymar was forced into an arranged marriage at only 14 years old. Her marriage was a traditional “Fatiha” marriage, which is not officially recognized under Moroccan law.  After Rabha’s husband abandoned her, their daughter was declared illegitimate because of the lack of legal documentation. Since then, Rabha has dedicated her life and professional career to advocating for children like her daughter, and their mothers.  She spoke to me about her journey for justice. “Confronted with family pressures, especially as my husband was my cousin, and the challenge of raising and financially supporting my daughter alone, I found myself in a relentless struggle. But my determination never wavered. I fought tirelessly for my marriage to be recognized, ensuring my daughter&#8217;s legitimacy in the eyes of the law.” 2024 International Woman of Courage Ajna Jusic. (Photo Courtest Ajna Jusic)Psychologist and feminist activist Ajna Jusic has fought a similar battle in Bosnia and Herzegovina towards the rights of children born from rape during war.  “We are still exposed to social condemnation, including political and legal rejection,” says Jusic.  “Precisely because of this, our mothers try to hide our father&#8217;s identities very wisely, which makes it more difficult to map and gather children born as a result of rape in a certain country.”  In 2015 Jusic founded the Forgotten Child of War Association, championing social and legal recognition of children born of conflict-related sexual violence.  She also helped pass a law granting special rights to these marginalized children such as educational opportunities and psychological support – the first of its kind. 2024 International Woman of Courage Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello. (Photo courtesy Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello )Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello is a former professor turned human rights defender from Cuba, who advocates for the rights of marginalized communities, including Cuban youth.  Her public denouncements of the oppressive Cuban regime have led her to prison on countless occasions, and yet she relentlessly continues to fight for her people.  When asked about the hardships facing Cuba’s youth, Roque stated, “For young people in Cuba, every situation becomes a difficulty.  They cannot think about forming a home, because they have to wait for a grandparent to die and leave an empty room .  That is why they see their future outside of Cuba, particularly in the United States of America.”  Through her activism, Roque aims to build a future for Cuba where younger generations can prosper. 2024 International Woman of Courage Fátima Corozo. (Photo courtesy of Meridian Communications)Feminist action and the protection of the youth are intertwined. It is mostly women who are doing the grassroots work in dangerous situations. Despite being most vulnerable, women put themselves on the frontlines to protect their community. Among these women is Fátima Corozo, another former teacher who is especially committed to elevating Ecuador’s youth. In the wake of the city of Esmeralda’s drug violence, Corozo has provided the children of her community with alternatives to the vicious cycle of crime. With the help of other local educators, she has established several development programs, providing Ecuador’s youth with the skills to succeed into adulthood.All the figures covered in this article are winners of the 2024 International Women of Courage Awards. The U.S. Department of State has platformed these leaders not only to showcase their impactful work, but to show future leaders that they can make a difference in any part of the world. Heroes like our IWOC winners have helped the Department implement programs supporting women and youth across the globe. If we want boys and girls of today prepared for the future, we must continue to invest in women who are giving them the tools to do so.About the author: Tolu Ojori served as an intern in the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues.
- Department Press Briefing – March 27, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; March 27, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; March 27, 2024																																																					March 27, 2024																																																								12:40 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m going to start with a travel announcement. Secretary Blinken will travel to Paris, France and Brussels and Leuven, Belgium, April 1st to 5th to underscore our commitment to the NATO Alliance, strengthening transatlantic partnerships, and addressing global challenges. In Paris, Secretary Blinken will meet with French President Macron to discuss support for Ukraine, efforts to prevent escalation of the conflict in Gaza, and a number of other important issues.The Secretary will then travel to Brussels, where he will participate in the NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting, which coincides with the 75th anniversary of NATO on April 4th, and have meetings with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba, and representatives from other allied nations. While in Brussels, Secretary Blinken and USAID Administrator Power will also join a U.S.-EU trilateral meeting with Armenia, together with European Commission President von der Leyen and Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, regarding U.S. and EU support for Armenia’s economic resilience as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs.In Leuven, Belgium, Secretary Blinken will participate in the 6th U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council meetings, emphasizing our shared dedication to innovation and economic collaboration. As part of this visit, Secretary Blinken will explore the innovative initiatives at imec, a Belgian semiconductor research center.And with that, Shaun, want to start us?QUESTION: Sure. Can I just – maybe just a really quick question on this. The Armenia meeting – probably not the first question you expected.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But it’s purely Armenia, not Azerbaijan &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct, purely Armenia meeting.QUESTION: Okay. And do you expect the issues with Azerbaijan to come up?MR MILLER: I suppose it’s always possible it could come up on the margins of the meeting, in that type of conversation, but that’s not the focus of the meeting. The meeting in Brussels is to focus on Armenia’s economic resilience as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs.QUESTION: Okay. Switching to Gaza, dissent in the State Department, one – of course, you’ve seen the statement by a State Department employee, if you – that’s the terminology, who quit over the policy in Gaza. Do you have any reaction to the resignation broadly, and more generally about how State Department employees can express dissent?MR MILLER: Yeah, a few things. So one, just a factual note on the point about employees. So she was a fellow at the State Department, and my understanding – had just finished the first year of a fellowship that could have gone for two years and did not exercise her option to return for a second year as a fellow.With respect to dissent at the State Department, so there is a broad diversity of views inside the State Department about our policy with respect to Gaza, just as there is a broad diversity within the State Department about our policy in a number of important foreign policy issues, as there is a broad diversity of views and opinions throughout American society about this issue and others.What we try to do in the State Department – what the Secretary has instructed his team to do – is to make sure that people have an opportunity to make their views known. He wants to hear them. He reads dissent cables when dissent cables are authored on any issue. He meets with employees who have a broad range of views. He listens to their feedback and he takes it into account in his decision-making, and he encourages other senior leaders in the department to do so as well. And that’s what he will continue to do and what we will all try to continue to do because we believe that actually listening to dissent informs better decisions. Having our – having decisions challenged helps us make better ones in the future. So it’s something that we will continue to encourage and support.QUESTION: I mean, to expand on that, I mean, is it helpful? Is it – does it – what does it say about U.S. policy to have an employee or a contractor resign? Is that something that you think is fine if somebody disagrees with a policy? How do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I think everyone can make decisions for themselves about what they’re going to do. One of the things I would note, even in the first story that I read about this, the individual in question herself noted that she attends meetings where there are people who have the exact opposite view of hers and express them openly, and that’s what we encourage people to do, and ultimately they have to make decisions about their future employment status.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR MILLER: Just &#8212;QUESTION: Can I follow up on that very quick?MR MILLER: Let me – oh, yeah, Michele.QUESTION: One of the things she talks about is the ongoing military aid to Israel. And I know you’ve heard concerns on the Hill about that and about some pushback on that, but I wonder if you’re hearing more pushback within the building on the issue of continued military sales to Israel.MR MILLER: So I wouldn’t say that I have noted a change in the – I mean, first of all, I should say it’s always hard to speak broadly for an employee base that encapsulates thousands of people. I don’t think there’s any one individual, short of doing some kind of quantitative survey, that could measure that. But I wouldn’t say that I’ve seen a marked change in employee opinion over time.But it is true that there have been a diversity of views for some time over our policy with respect to Israel. I don’t think that’s been any secret. You’ve seen people talk about it publicly. Some of the meetings that we’ve held have been extensively reported on by the individuals in those meetings. So all I can say is what – how we view that employee sentiment, and that’s what I just said a minute ago, which is the Secretary welcomes it. And what he doesn’t want to happen is for people to have views and not make them known. Whether they agree with the policy that the President has decided and the Secretary has decided and that we are pursuing or whether they disagree with them – maybe even especially when they disagree with them – that’s when he wants them to speak up and challenge his thinking and let him know what they think.And it doesn’t mean that we are going to change our policy just based on what every employee thinks. That’s not the way this organization works. It’s not the way any organization works. There’s a president that was elected by the American public; there is a secretary who was appointed by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate who have the responsibility to make policy decisions based on what they believe – excuse me – is in the national security interests of the United States, and they will continue to do that, and they are the only ones that can do that. But they do want to take into account the feedback that they get from employees, whether that is feedback where they agree or disagree with the decisions that they make.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, just switching a little bit on something else on Gaza, NBC is reporting that Netanyahu’s office has sought to reschedule the meeting that was supposed to happen this week in Washington and that it might happen as early as next week. Do you have anything on that at all?MR MILLER: I can’t confirm that exact report, but I can say that we do think it’s important that that meeting happen. As we have said, we think that the plan that Israel has said it intends to pursue with respect to Rafah is one that would be a mistake, that would have enormous – a terrible impact on the civilian population there and would weaken Israel’s security, and we think there’s a better way. And we want to have the opportunity to present that better alternative to Israel, so we do think it’s important that that meeting take place, but I don’t have any scheduling updates.QUESTION: Do you have – have you had any interactions since it – since that meeting was canceled with your Israeli counterparts that suggests that they are indeed willing to have that meeting and that it could happen anytime soon?MR MILLER: So we have had a number – we have had interactions with our Israeli counterparts since, and we have them every day. I’m not going to talk about when and if and where and how a meeting might be scheduled.QUESTION: Okay. On the hostage talks, what can you tell us on the latest? It looks like they’re in a bit of an impasse, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Are they at an impasse? Did they break down or are you still hopeful? And what, if at all – like, are there any U.S. teams on the ground indirectly talking to – continuing the negotiation?MR MILLER: So first of all, I would not share that characterization of the talks. I’m not going to speak to the presence of U.S. negotiating teams. We’ve often not done that because we wanted those conversations to happen privately. We do think that over the – let’s say the past week up into this weekend that real progress was made to achieving a deal, but – and you heard the Secretary speak to this; I think it was on Friday, in Israel. Just by nature of these types of negotiations, when you get down to the end – when you make progress, the issues that remain are often the hardest ones. You don’t usually solve the hardest issues first, you solve them last.And so some of the remaining issues that need to be resolved are some of the most difficult ones in areas where there is the most disagreement between Israel and Hamas. We do think it’s possible to bridge those differences, and we’re going to continue to try to bridge those differences because we think a ceasefire that secures the release of hostages would be in the interests of the United States, in the interests of Israel, and in the interests of the broader region.QUESTION: So you can confirm that the conversation on this is still ongoing?MR MILLER: I’m not confirming any particular conversation, but the hostage talks – the hostage negotiations, we do not believe, are over. We do not believe they have come to an end. We believe that there is an ability to continue to pursue the release of hostages, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly on one of the answers you gave to Humeyra?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: When she asked about Rafah, and you said that it would have – that the operation would have an enormous and terrible impact on the civilian population, weaken Israel’s security, just – the defense minister, Gallant, with – when he was at the Pentagon, the readout that the Pentagon gave said that Austin – Secretary Austin – told him that operations in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and implementable plan. I presume you’ll say there’s no daylight there, but is it the U.S. position that Rafah – that the Rafah operation should not go ahead at all, or that Israel can give assurances and can &#8212;MR MILLER: Our position has been that it should not go forward in the way that they have contemplated, the way that you’ve heard us describe it for the past I think it’s 10 days now, that a full-scale military operation into Rafah would be a mistake and it’s not something that we can support. What we have said is the kind of mission that we could support is a much more targeted, limited campaign that could still achieve the same objectives, that could still lead to the defeat of those remaining Hamas battalions inside Rafah, but without massive harm to the civilian population, without hindering the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and without actually weakening Israel’s security instead of strengthening it.Jen.QUESTION: Follow-up on that, and this might be more of a DOD question, but you do believe that a more limited campaign could take out those four battalions at (inaudible)?MR MILLER: We do. We do.QUESTION: And it – has Israel given any indication that they share that – they share the thinking that this is a possibility?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to – I think you mean with respect to the plan that we have – so we haven’t actually presented them that plan in any kind of detailed way. That’s the meeting that was supposed to be happening today and tomorrow that was cancelled. So it’s hard to – hard to – I think hard for them to react to something which they have not yet fully seen. (Inaudible.)QUESTION: And then separately, last week on Friday when the Secretary was in Israel, it was announced that Ben-Gvir’s coalition would be annexing additional land in the Jordan Valley in the – Palestine, Palestinian territory. Do you have any response to this?MR MILLER: So we have been very clear about this matter. We’ve been unequivocal. Number one, the Israeli Government’s settlement program is inconsistent with international law; and number two, settlement expansion only serves to hinder the prospect of real peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. This is – there’s something similar to the point I was making with respect to a full-scale Rafah campaign. The expansion of settlements doesn’t just harm the Palestinian people. We think that ultimately it makes Israel less safe. It makes Israel weaker, not stronger. It hinders the kind of further integration into the region that is ultimately the best path for long-term security to Israel.So we have made that quite clear to them. We’ve been very direct and candid about it in our conversations with them. And of course, we’ve said the same thing publicly and we’ll continue to do that at the highest levels of our government.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR MILLER: Go ahead – go &#8212;QUESTION: Just one &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and then we’ll &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; one thing on the dissent. And we’ve talked about it quite a bit over the last months, but you say that the Secretary takes it very seriously and listens to it and all that. But we have seen no change in U.S. policy in a way that shows us that that dissent or that feedback or that disagreement is taken into account. So I’m just wondering, what is the point of the whole channel, and like – I mean, the Secretary listens, and we’ve all reported about various listening sessions between mid-level or, like, more senior officials with the Secretary, more junior officials. If it’s not – if it’s being heard, but if it’s not taken into account in the policy at all then don’t you think it’s a little bit pointless?MR MILLER: So I would disagree with that completely. It is taken into account in the policy-making process. The Secretary has heard things in those meetings that he takes on board and that he – that influences his thinking and that he brings to bear in making policy decisions.Now, if what you mean is are we going to execute a complete reversal of the policy that &#8212;QUESTION: No, that’s not what I mean.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on – we implemented, or are you going to – are we going to implement exactly some of the policies that the people in these meetings have called for?QUESTION: No, it &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not how &#8211;QUESTION: But does &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on – I mean, just – that’s not how this process works, that’s not how government works, and that’s &#8212;QUESTION: No, I don’t think that’s anyone’s expectations.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s – I would just say that’s not how any organization works. I daresay any of the media organizations in this room, if reporters go to their bosses and offer feedback and the bosses say “Well, that’s a good point; we’re going to take that to bear, but on the larger policy this is the decision that we have made,” that’s how – that’s how leadership &#8212;QUESTION: You’re doing a long rant about something that I didn’t suggest.MR MILLER: &#8212; that is how leadership works.QUESTION: But do you have any examples on any &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah. I will &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; changes, like – I’m genuinely curious.MR MILLER: I will say with respect to any number of issues – with respect to the delivery of humanitarian assistance, we have heard good ideas from people inside the building who have come and offered constructive feedback, and we have implemented those.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: Now – now – there are people that when you say if – like, if the idea is that – to the United States to cut off support for Israel, that’s just a fundamental policy disagreement. So when you see people who offer interviews that say we want the United States to stop supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, that’s not something the Secretary agrees with, it’s not something the President agrees with, and ultimately they are the ones who have the responsibility of making those decisions.And so we want to listen to the feedback, but ultimately it’s only the President and the Secretary who can make those decisions that they were elected and appointed and confirmed by the Senate to do on behalf of the American people. So we want to hear the feedback, we’ll take in – take in that &#8212;QUESTION: And on humanitarian aid, you were saying you have actually heard out some of your more junior staffers in like the dissent from the administration and that actually helped you pressure Israel more, that perhaps you wouldn’t have otherwise?MR MILLER: It is – it – it’s not a question of pressuring Israel more. It’s a question of taking good ideas from people and incorporating them into the policies that we’re implementing.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I – on Jennifer’s point on the land expropriation that Israel just did in the Jordan Valley, now that they expropriated – took, stole, whatever you want to call it – 8,000 dunams, which is roughly 2,000 acres – now, this may be somebody’s backyard in Texas, but the West Bank, it’s a big chunk. It’s a huge piece of land. And also not the same amount, but the similar amount in Bethlehem.Now, I know you express time and again your displeasure with these actions. But really the Israelis never take your displeasure into account. Would you agree with that assessment, that they have not once retreated and said “Okay, the Americans are upset, so I’m going to cancel these plans”?MR MILLER: So I will say that we have a fundamental disagreement with the Israeli Government over this issue, and we have made that quite clear.QUESTION: Yeah, but – okay, you make it very clear, but beyond making it clear to them – because I am sure they understand your position, they have understood it for decades – what are you willing to do to put some leverage – I mean, a word that has been maybe overused – some leverage into your sentiments?MR MILLER: So you make a good point in your question, Said, which is this has been an issue on which the United States and the Government of Israel have disagreed for decades. And it is an issue that a number of administrations of both parties have pressed the Government of Israel to take action on, and we will continue to do that, and we will continue to be clear about what we think about these actions, and ultimately it’s why we will continue to pursue an effort to establish an independent Palestinian state and resolve these longstanding questions so you don’t have this decades of encroachment in the West Bank that are bedeviling the Israeli Government, bedeviling the Palestinian people, and ultimately making peace more difficult.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A couple more issues, if I may, just to follow up. You said in the beginning that – at the top, you said that the Secretary is going to Paris to discuss with his French counterparts and so on means to keep the level and not to have the war expand beyond what it is. But really for the people of Gaza, I don’t know how much worse this can go on – I mean, how it can get. I mean, it is life – I mean, being able to go back to what they had seems so light years away and so on. So what do you say to them? I mean, this is – I mean, I understand you don’t want this war to go into Lebanon and other places and so on. But for the people &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, I would – I would say to them what you have heard me say and what you have heard the Secretary say, which is that is exactly why we are working so hard &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; to get an immediate, sustained ceasefire that will secure the release of hostages, and why we wanted to ultimately expand on that and try to bring an enduring end to the conflict. Said, that is why – what we have been – exactly what we have been working on trying to accomplish, and it’s why you have seen U.S. negotiators travel to the region on multiple occasions. It’s why you’ve seen the Secretary engage with counterparts in Qatar and Egypt and Israel about this very question, because we don’t want to see this war go on a day longer than necessary. We don’t want to see any more Palestinian civilians die. We didn’t want to see any Palestinian civilians die in the first place, and so we do want to bring – we do want to achieve an immediate ceasefire that gets the hostages out and alleviates their suffering, which you didn’t mention in your question, and we want to see ultimately an enduring end to this conflict.QUESTION: Yeah, so let me ask you – have you – did you see or read the report made by Francesca Albanese yesterday in Geneva, where she cited – where she actually – what she showed was irrefutable – as far as she is concerned – irrefutable evidence that Israel engaged in genocide? Did you see the report? What is your comment on that?MR MILLER: I did see the report. Let me say a couple things about it. First, we have long – for longstanding – for a longstanding period of time opposed the mandate of this special rapporteur, which we believe is not productive. And when it comes to the individual who holds that position, I can’t help but note a history of antisemitic comments that she has made that have been reported. And &#8212;QUESTION: She has – she made antisemitic comments?MR MILLER: And – she has. And comments she made in December that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7th, so I think it’s important to take that into account. But with respect to the report itself, we have made clear that we believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded. But at the same time, we have – are deeply concerned by the number of civilian casualties in Gaza, and that’s why we have pressed the Government of Israel on multiple occasions to do everything it can to minimize those civilian casualties.QUESTION: Yeah, well, she’s been getting a lot of death threats and other threats and so on, because people think she made antisemitic comments and so on. Let me just go on &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, Said, hold on.QUESTION: &#8212; to another topic.MR MILLER: Hold up. You can’t make a comment like that without letting me respond. Obviously, death threats against anyone are inappropriate.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Let me ask you also about the – you’re talking with the Israelis about a different way of going after the operatives or leaders of Hamas in Rafah rather than a full-scale invasion. I mean, two things on this. One is, of course, Mr. Netanyahu said that by April come what may they’re going to go in to Rafah. But that aside, how do you envision this? I mean, we’re talking about a city that is – the population before October 7th was 250,000; now, it’s 1.4 million people. It is – and allegedly all of the operatives operate out of tunnels and so on. So you envision, let’s say, forces like the Delta Force or similar forces – Israeli forces and so on – going in while these people are so crowded being there. How will they do it?MR MILLER: So Said &#8212;QUESTION: How would this really happen &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; when you have such, like &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold up. Said, I go the question.QUESTION: Go.MR MILLER: I appreciate your request to be invited into the meeting where we would brief on these exact options to the Government of Israel, but I think I’m going to decline to make those public before and certainly before we can talk to the Government of Israel about them.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple questions about the trip, going back to Armenia trilateral meeting. You probably have seen the Azeri reaction this morning in response to yesterday’s comments. They called it “dividing,” quote/unquote. They said the U.S. and EU might share responsibility for potential escalation following this meeting. What is your reaction? I have a follow-up.MR MILLER: So I obviously would not agree with those comments. The focus of this meeting is on economic resilience to help Armenia diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs. I fail to see why that would be escalatory or would be of a concern to any country in the world.QUESTION: Can you walk us through what went into the decision to this establish this trilateral format? How much of Armenia’s decision to stay away from Russia and pursue the EU pathway triggered this meeting?MR MILLER: I don’t have any further comment other than what I just said.QUESTION: On the Paris leg of the trip, you might have seen Bloomberg’s report this morning that the U.S. has been angry at President Macron for his statements to send Western troops to Ukraine. Do you have any reaction? Will that be discussed between the Secretary and President Macron?MR MILLER: I don’t have any reaction to that report and I’m not going to preview the meeting in detail, but of course we have made clear that the United States is not going to send any troops to Ukraine.QUESTION: And finally, on Russia, I know I am beating a dead horse here &#8212;MR MILLER: And I should add that, of course, President Macron is a longtime – the head of a longtime ally of the United States and we work productively with him on a number of matters, including support for Ukraine.QUESTION: On that point, is it about the U.S. objecting sending American soldiers to Ukraine, or you are objecting sending Western soldiers altogether?MR MILLER: I don’t even know what – so I haven’t read the report you’re talking about. I don’t know who the I’m guessing anonymous official who’s quoted is. So I don’t have – I’m certainly not going to comment on it.QUESTION: Fair enough. And finally, on Russia, I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but do you have any reaction to Zakharova’s latest comments today? She doubled it down. She said the U.S. actually created – the West has created the ISIS; your initial rejection of Ukrainian involvement to Moscow concert was too soon, was suspicious. And she said that she has extremely hard time understanding why – how ISIS could conduct that that sort of terror.MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those comments as well as comments from President Putin as well as comments from others claiming that any host of countries were behind this terrorist attack. And I think it’s clear that these claims are categorically false; I think the Russian Government knows that the claims are categorically false. Ukraine wasn’t behind these attacks. The UK wasn’t behind these attacks. The United States wasn’t behind these attacks. In fact, the United States warned Russia about the possibility of these attacks in advance, because we wanted to see that the – if the attacks could be averted, and ultimately prevent a loss of life from the Russian people – or by the Russian people.So I would say that these comments from multiple Kremlin officials are irresponsible, they’re cynical, and it’s just another example of President Putin and the rest of his team exploiting a national tragedy to try to justify the illegal war against Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thank you so much, Matt. If I can go back to the UN Security Council resolution which was adopted Monday. Yesterday you said it should be implemented, but at the same time you’re also saying it’s nonbinding. So I don’t understand. Can you explain how this resolution will be implemented – implemented while you are calling it nonbinding?MR MILLER: So we believe – oh, sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: Can you say the last part? Because I interrupted you and then walked all over your words, as I would tell my kids.QUESTION: Okay, so how this can be implemented while you are calling it nonbinding?MR MILLER: We believe it can be implemented through a ceasefire agreement that secures the release of the hostages, which is what we are trying to pursue through negotiations. If you look at the resolution, it called for a number of things: a ceasefire and the release of hostages. And we think those – both of those goals are important, and that’s what we’re trying to implement through the negotiations that have been ongoing with the Government of Israel, with the Government of Egypt, and the Government of Qatar.QUESTION: But, I mean, are you still calling it nonbinding?MR MILLER: I spoke to this yesterday. We believe it’s nonbinding, that it doesn’t impose any new legal obligations on any of the parties, but we do believe it should be implemented. And we are working to try and see that it is implemented through a ceasefire agreement that secures the release of hostages.QUESTION: Just one more on that. Secretary Blinken and President Biden has been emphasizing the importance of the rules-based international order as the core of American foreign policy. And the core of the rules-based order is the UN Security Council resolutions, which essentially represents the international law. So do you think calling a UN Security Council resolution “nonbinding” contradicts with your commitment to rules-based order?MR MILLER: No, and I think if you look at exactly what we have meant by those comments, we were just offering an exact legal definition of what the resolution does and does not impose. But it does not change our belief in the importance of the UN Security Council resolution and – or the UN Security Council and our belief that UN Security Council resolutions should be implemented, including this one.QUESTION: Including this one and the previous ones, like all the UN Security Council resolutions?MR MILLER: The – with respect – yes, of course, all of them.QUESTION: Do you mind if I follow up?MR MILLER: If you’re referring to ones that vetoed – that we vetoed, obviously we don’t believe that – those are not – those did not pass the UN Security Council.QUESTION: Can I jump in on that?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just on the issue of nonbinding, is it the view of the administration that UN Security Council resolutions in general are nonbinding? I mean, every time North Korea does something there’s always a statement that North Korea is out of compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.MR MILLER: There &#8212;QUESTION: Should the North Koreans read what’s happening here and say well, this is just a – they’re not &#8212;MR MILLER: No. There are different types of UN Security Council resolutions. There are some UN Security Council resolutions that impose direct, binding obligations on the parties. And if you look at the sanctions resolutions that have – which are the ones that I think you’re speaking to with respect to North Korea – those impose direct obligations on the parties. And then there are different kinds of resolutions, like the one yesterday, which do not impose direct obligations but we very much believe should be implemented.QUESTION: If I might follow up on that?MR MILLER: Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, on Israel and Hizballah, the tensions – the tension and the fightings are escalating between both of them. Are you still hopeful that there will be a diplomatic solution for the situation there?MR MILLER: We do still want to see a diplomatic solution. It’s something that we have pursued. We believe that preventing escalation is of utmost importance, and we will continue to work towards a of diplomatic resolution that would allow Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return to their homes and live in peace and security.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I want to go back to Gaza, Matt. There’s been a lot of questioning and talking about getting food and water into Gaza. But there is also shortage of medicine, a shortage of hospitals. According to WHO, only two of the 36 hospitals in Gaza operates on limited capacity, and other 10 partially operating. One day they operate, three days they don’t, sort of like. Do you have any updates on the efforts to address this issue (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So if you look at my – I’m not trying to quibble with the first part of the question, but if you look at the way I’ve talked about it from this podium, I often talk about the need of getting food and water and medicine in. And the Secretary has talked about that too, and it’s not – it’s also been a focus of our diplomatic efforts and it’s been a focus of the work our team has done on the ground, is try to get not just food and water but medicine in, and it’s something we’ve coordinated with a number of countries, our &#8212; I would say in addition to those hospitals, there are – of course the UAE is operating a field hospital in Gaza to provide medical assistance to those who need it.It continues to be a focus of our diplomatic efforts. We want to see medical supplies get in. We want to see hospitals open and operating and able to treat patients who we know very much need it. We know the conditions under which doctors are working right now are extreme and incredibly difficult, and they’re making extraordinary sacrifices to deliver lifesaving treatment to people who really need it and, in many cases, don’t have anywhere else to go. So we will continue to support that work and do everything we can to see that it be expanded.Yeah, Shaun.QUESTION: Can I switch topics?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Niger. The Nigerien Government just today said that they met with the U.S. ambassador, Ambassador FitzGibbon, and that she laid out a timeline, some logistical timeline or logistical information on how U.S. troops would be withdrawn, and this of course comes a day after the junta leader spoke with Putin. Do you have any update on Niger and whether this &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t – only that you saw us say over the past 10 days or so, almost two weeks now, that we would be in touch with the transition authorities to seek clarification and discuss next steps, and we have been having those conversations. But I don’t think it would be productive for me to read them out publicly.QUESTION: I mean, is that false what they’re saying, that the &#8212;MR MILLER: Again, I just don’t – I don’t want to get into what – from our perspective, at least – are private diplomatic conversations.QUESTION: Okay. So the troops are – for the moment the troop situation is the same with U.S. forces?MR MILLER: It is the same, and of course with any – I say broadly the same; with respect to any specifics, I would refer that to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Sure. Just a couple of other issues. Do you have anything to say about Togo, the new constitution, and the crackdown on opposition?MR MILLER: I think I’ll have to take that one back, Shaun. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Sure. But I’ll try a different one, then. Completely different part of the world: Burma/Myanmar. The – another junta. The junta chief there was saying – I believe it was today – that it’s going to be difficult to hold elections because of insurgencies around the country. Does the U.S. have anything to say about that?MR MILLER: Let me take that. I haven’t seen that specific comment, so let me take it back and get you a comment.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, my question is about China, the Chinese regime. So this – there’s been a string of recent bomb threats that the FBI is investigating and a mass shooting threat against New York-based Shen Yun Performing Arts. These threats are being made in Chinese. And given the Chinese Communist Party’s track record of transnational repression against Falun Gong and on U.S. soil, how concerned is the State Department of these recent developments?MR MILLER: So we condemn transnational repression in any form committed by any country, but with respect to these specific developments, I would refer you to law enforcement to speak to them.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. This is on the Baltimore bridge. The crew of the ship that crashed into the Baltimore bridge is from India. Has the U.S. been in touch with India over the tragedy and the crew members?MR MILLER: I do not have any update on that. I’ll have to – I can say that the Office of Foreign Missions is generally continuing to monitor the situation and will reach out directly to any foreign missions should we receive information about their citizens being affected, but with respect to any one country I don’t have an update.QUESTION: And there were at least three foreigners who were members of the crew doing maintenance on the bridge when it collapsed. One was from Honduras, and according to Mexico’s president, two from Mexico. Can you confirm that one of the workers was or is from Honduras, as reported by The New York Times? Has State been in touch with the countries of those workers, including Honduras and Mexico? And does State have any information on the nationalities of the crew members?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports that some of the individuals on the bridge were form El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. I would just say, first of all, that our deepest condolences go out to the families of those who may have lost a loved one. And with respect to those who have injured, we wish for a quick recovery. And as I said, the Office of Foreign Missions is continuing to monitor the situation and will reach out directly to any foreign missions should we receive information about their citizens, but I don’t have specific updates to offer.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you so much, sir. Two questions, basically. So United States has reservations – very clear reservations – on Chinese investments in Pakistan. And in another terrorist attack, five Chinese (inaudible) it is just another follow-up of series of incidents. So there are many questions on United States and Pakistan that there is lack of intelligence sharing between Pakistan and United States, and United States is not addressing enough Pakistan’s security challenges to combated counterterrorism efforts. So will United States join any investigations for that murder there in which Chinese citizens killed? Number one.MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any request for us to do so.QUESTION: And secondly, United States warned Pakistan (inaudible) avoid Iran gas pipeline. That is, there are possibly large sanctions. So question is: United States itself have good energy deal to meet up its energy requirement status with its non-NATO major ally Qatar. But still we are looking that Pakistan that is another non-NATO major ally, it seems like United States left it at nowhere to meet up with energy crisis. Like, we are aware about United States Green Alliance with Pakistan, but still there is nowhere for Pakistan if – to complete the gas pipeline with Iran that, like, sanctioned from United States, and if not, then there will be $18 billions penalty from the Iranian side. So what is your comment?MR MILLER: So helping Pakistan address its energy shortage crisis is a priority for the United States. We have supported the addition of approximately 4,000 megawatts of clean energy capacity in Pakistan. Our projects have dramatically increased the nation’s electricity capacity, today powering the homes of millions of Pakistanis. Additionally, through the United States-Pakistan Green Alliance, a transformative initiative between our two countries, we are working together to address today’s most pressing environmental challenges, especially around water management, climate-smart agriculture, and renewable energy.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. What is your response to India’s summoning of the U.S. diplomat over comments regarding the arrest of Delhi’s Chief Minister Kejriwal, and how do you view the recent political turmoil in India, including the freezing of the opposition party’s bank account? As the Amnesty International described the situation, “Crackdown on opposition reaches a crisis point ahead of national elections.”MR MILLER: So with respect to the second question, we continue to follow these actions closely, including the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal. We are also aware of the Congress Party’s allegations that tax authorities have frozen some of their bank accounts in a manner that will make it challenging to effectively campaign in the upcoming elections, and we encourage fair, transparent, and timely legal processes for each of these issues.With respect to your first question, I’m not going to talk about any private diplomatic conversations. But of course what we have said publicly is what I just said from here, that we encourage fair, transparent, timely legal processes. We don’t think anyone should object to that, and we’ll make the same thing clear privately.QUESTION: One more on Bangladesh. On the occasion of Bangladesh National Day, Secretary Blinken reaffirmed his commitment, strengthening democratic governance and promoting human rights, in his statement. So could you please give us a sense what step the Biden administration may take, considering the country is led by an authoritarian prime minister and people are suffering due to absence of democracy and the rule of law?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific steps to preview with respect to Bangladesh, but we have made clear since the outset of this administration that the promotion of democracy is one of the top priorities for the President, and Secretary Blinken has said it’s of course one of his top priorities. So we continue to make clear in our conversations with the Government of Bangladesh – and you of course – you and I engaged on this matter quite a few times in the leadup to the election – that we wanted to see free and fair elections and we will continue to support free, full, open democracy in Bangladesh.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Question on Iraq. The United Nations mission UNITAD, which was set up in 2017 to help Iraq investigating the genocide and war crimes by ISIS; now, due to a souring of its relationship with Iraq, it is facing permanently shut down. And agency says that we haven’t finished our work and we need more time to finish the work, and the Iraqi Government says that UNITAD no longer needed and they were not successful in coordinating with the Iraqi Government. So any reaction and comment on that? And does the United States supports the continuation of UNITAD mission in Iraq, and how do you assess their mission in Iraq in investigating the ISIS crimes?MR MILLER: So since UNITAD’s creation, the United States has strongly supported its work, which has aided the international community’s efforts to bring ISIS members to justice for their atrocities, including acts of genocide against religious minorities in Iraq. We support an orderly conclusion of UNITAD’s work. UNITAD’s evidence-sharing with other countries in support of prosecutions of ISIS members abroad is an essential element of its work, and we encourage UNITAD to work with the Iraqi Government on continuing protection measures for witnesses and victims who have bravely provided testimony and evidence. And then finally, we are working to ensure that Iraq and other UN member states can continue to access and benefit from the evidence that UNITAD has collected, and that the evidence is properly archived and preserved for future use.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Before I get to my question, just a follow-up on Said and some other people. Can I get a yes or no as to whether or not the U.S. accepts the Geneva Conventions as applying to the occupied Palestinian territory?MR MILLER: We of course accept the Geneva Conventions. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. I wasn’t able to get that before. Thank you. Francis Boyle, who successfully represented Bosnia at the – and Herzegovina at the International Criminal Court, as well as Craig Mokhiber, a former UN official who resigned in protest given the ICJ orders against Israel and given the UN resolution this last week that demanded an immediate ceasefire, are arguing that what is needed now is the Uniting for Peace procedure at the General Assembly. They are saying that with that procedure, the General Assembly can effectively take control of the situation to some extent, given the deadlock at the Security Council, suspend Israel from UN – from participation at the General Assembly, admit Palestine as a member, urge economic sanctions against Israel, and set up a tribunal, as the UN did for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. What would the U.S. do if the General Assembly did that?MR MILLER: So I would say, first of all, I would reject the premise that there is deadlock at the UN Security Council. We just saw the UN Security Council pass a resolution this week on this very question.QUESTION: But it didn’t get a ceasefire.MR MILLER: And with respect – just with – just – with respect to any effort at the General Assembly to expel Israel, no. Obviously that’s &#8212;QUESTION: Not to expel, it’s to suspend.MR MILLER: To suspend Israel – it’s not something that we would support. Ultimately, we believe that the resolution to this conflict is something that can be done through direct negotiations, which is what we have – pursuing, to see – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows humanitarian assistance to flow in to the Palestinian people. And we would like to see that expanded, this initial ceasefire, into something more durable and lasting that ensures Hamas’s defeat and establishes long-lasting, durable peace for Israel and the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Thank you for the response. But just if I might, it’s just &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead. I’m going to take one here and then we’ll &#8212;QUESTION: No.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Guardian reported something which I reported and Ms. Karine at the White House didn’t like it, but I’m sure now at least Ms. Karine and you both would agree that President Biden has sacrificed his war bank to keep the U.S. national policy intact. And this is I’m saying with regard to The Guardian saying that the Afghans who have brought to the U.S., they are not going to vote for the President Biden because of the Afghanistan foreign policy. More than million – millions of girls are out. The Pakistanis are not – the millions of Pakistanis in the U.S. are not going to vote for President Biden because of the policy over there. The Arabs are not going to vote for President – so is it correct to say that President Biden, because of the national interests and because of his failure on the foreign policy, he is pretty much – from all the expatriates of these countries that I mentioned, they are not going to be voting for him?MR MILLER: So there are are number of premises to that question I reject. But I can’t really do so in a detailed way, in a way that discusses an election, something I’m obviously not going to do from the State Department podium. So I think I’ll decline to comment other than note my disagreement with that premise.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 1:23 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Bangladesh																								France																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Ukraine
- Bangladesh National Day HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Bangladesh National Day				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();			}		});	}																										Bangladesh National Day																																		Press Statement																														March 25, 2024																																							On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Bangladesh as they celebrate their day of independence on March 26.The United States is proud to partner with Bangladesh on many of today’s most pressing issues, including combating climate change, advancing economic development, responding to the Rohingya refugee crisis, supporting peacekeeping operations worldwide, and addressing global health challenges.&nbsp; Our partnership plays an important role in ensuring a free, open, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.&nbsp; As Bangladesh celebrates another year of independence, we reaffirm our commitment to strengthening democratic governance and protecting human rights – efforts which will increase Bangladesh’s prosperity.I extend warm wishes to all Bangladeshis on this special day and look forward to enhancing the partnership and people-to-people ties between our two countries in the year ahead.						Tags																					Bangladesh																								Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs																																														Economic Prosperity and Trade Policy																																							Human Rights																																							Indo-Pacific																															Office of the Spokesperson																																Refugees																															The Secretary of State
- Department Press Briefing – March 11, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 11, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 11, 2024																																																					March 11, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. We have a couple of guests today who are going to give opening comments. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Rich Verma will start, followed by Deputy Administrator of USAID for Management and Resources Paloma Adams-Allen. They will give opening comments, they’ll be happy to take a few questions, and then we’ll resume the usual briefing after they finish.With that.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you. Matt, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Nice to see you, and I want to thank my friend and colleague, USAID Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources Paloma Adams-Allen, for being here with us today. I also want to thank our Director of Bureau of Planning and Resources Doug Pitkin and our new Director of Foreign Assistance Tracy Carson, as well our USAID Budget Lead Roman Napoli, for being with us here as we walk through our FY25 budget with all of you.The budget request we are sending to Congress today will allow the Department of State and USAID to continue advancing the Biden administration’s vision of a free, open, secure, and prosperous world while delivering on issues that matter most to the lives and livelihoods of the American people. The President’s FY25 budget request includes 58.8 billion for the State Department and USAID. This is a $718 million or 1 percent increase above FY23. We are grateful for Congress’ partnership in resourcing State and USAID to meet the many challenges that we face today.U.S. diplomacy and development are more essential than ever to ensure American security and prosperity to solve global challenges and uphold universal values. Over the past year, the United States, with our friends and colleagues and allies around the world, have faced a range of significant challenges – from the conflict in the Middle East, to Russia’s ongoing brutal war against Ukraine, to historic levels of irregular migration and forced displacement, to unprecedented and growing global humanitarian needs.Our budget request invests in the personnel, the programs, and assistance that the State Department and USAID need as we stand at the front lines of these issues. Just allow me to outline some of our highest-priority areas in the request.First, we must employ all the tools at our disposal to outcompete China wherever possible. The FY25 request will allow us to continue to invest in the foundations of our strength at home aligned with likeminded partners to strengthen our shared interests and address the challenges posed by the PRC and harness those assets to compete with the PRC and defend our interests. We are aligning our foreign assistance to advance U.S. values by building a network of likeminded allies and partners both globally and with concerted focus on the Indo-Pacific as a region of vital importance to the U.S. and global security and prosperity.The $4 billion discretionary request across foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement for the Indo-Pacific Strategy represents our ironclad commitment to advancing an affirmative vision of U.S. values for the region. While many aspects of the discretionary request help advance this goal, discretionary resources alone cannot meet this need. It is imperative to our national security that we also have mandatory, reliable funding to outcompete China, and that is why the request also includes $4 billion over five years in mandatory funding to enable the United States to invest in new ways to outcompete China and focus on new and critical investments split between two important funds.We are requesting $2 billion to create a new international infrastructure fund which will outcompete China by providing a credible, reliable alternative to PRC options while also expanding markets and opportunities for U.S. businesses. This fund will support transformative, quality, and sustainable hard infrastructure projects. Additionally, we are seeking $2 billion to make game-changing investments in the Indo-Pacific to strengthen partner economies, improve good governance and the rule of law, bolster connectivity between partner countries, and support their efforts, including through multilateral fora, in building resilience and pushing back against predatory efforts.Our second key priority in this request is ensuring Russia’s war in Ukraine remains a strategic failure. We are requesting 482 million, which would sustain crucial support for Ukraine in its resolute defense of its people and independence from Russia. Our request also provides the resources needed to deliver critical economic development and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine’s brave and resilient citizens.Let me be clear, though. These funds are in addition to the October 2023 National Security Supplemental Request. The FY25 resources start re-establishing a base budget for core and enduring programs for Ukraine but cannot replace the funds requested as part of the supplemental.Third, advancing peace and security in the Middle East remains a top priority for us, including working with our partners to end the conflict between Israel and Hamas and deliver lifesaving assistance to Palestinians. The President’s request of 7.6 billion maintains our longstanding investments to support key partners in the Middle East and North Africa and their security against growing violence by extremists and Iran-linked malign actors. The funds would unlock resources to partner with citizens of the region, foster economic growth, and advance good governance and respect for human rights.Fourth, delivering solutions to shared global challenges such as irregular migration and forced displacement, countering synthetic drugs, a rapidly changing climate, and growing humanitarian crises. Now, to do this we are mobilizing resources to promote economic prosperity, grow energy sectors, strengthen health systems, invest in food security, and to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis. Our partnerships are crucial to tackling these global challenges, and ones that affect our own hemisphere, including irregular migration, forced displacement, and the illegal synthetic drug crisis in the United States. These additional resources will allow us to work together with key allies and partners on these challenges and towards a free, open, and secure, prosperous world.Fifth, we will continue to work – continue our work to ensure U.S. interests and values are protected in the digital and emerging technology sector, including through the CHIPS Act. We are grateful to Congress for providing 500 million over five years to work with our partners and allies to secure and expand our critical semiconductor supply chains and promote the adoption of trustworthy telecommunication technologies.Now, success in all of these policy areas is not possible if we do not have the people, the platforms, and the tools to achieve these objectives while being responsible stewards of taxpayer resources. So to that end, with FY25 funds, we must also continue the Secretary of State’s ambitious agenda to modernize American diplomacy, to ensure we are equipped to seize the opportunities of the 21st century. These resources will strengthen the department by improving the morale, recruitment, and retention of our global workforce, which spans the Foreign Service, the Civil Service, and our locally employed staff at embassies around the world.And to meet these global challenges and to fulfill the President’s priorities, we need a growing workforce empowered by more training and greater flexibility. Our request expands State’s and USAID’s workforce by establishing nearly 350 new positions, and also filling 200 of State’s existing Foreign Service vacancies. We will focus on expanding our engagement in the Indo-Pacific region, increasing professional development and training options, and establishing a new diplomatic reserve auxiliary corps to meet future crises. We will also continue to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives, to include broader recruitment and retention. We’ve requested 5.6 billion to keep our people, our buildings, and information around the globe safe and secure, including for an expanded presence in the Indo-Pacific, in Libya, and the Eastern Caribbean.In addition, the United States multilateral contributions are indispensable to shaping international institutions and partnerships critical to our national security interests. Therefore, our request includes 1.7 billion for contributions to international organizations such as the UN, WHO, NATO, and UNESCO, as well as 1.2 billion for contributions to UN international peacekeeping.Finally, I would also like to emphasize what we are doing to provide better services to the American people. Our request will enhance the department’s consular services for passports, visas, and U.S. citizen services overseas. Increased staffing and IT capacity will reduce wait times and improve customer service that many Americans and visitors to the United States count on.Now, as I said at the outset, this budget will advance the Biden administration’s vision of a free, open, secure, and prosperous world, but it also delivers on issues that matter to the lives and livelihoods of Americans. Better, faster, and more convenient services from our consular services is one area. But so is reducing the flow of fentanyl, promoting greater economic opportunity, ensuring global health security, and creating jobs. And these are all other examples of how the department will deliver on things that matter most to Americans.Now, with that, let me hand the floor to Deputy Administrator Paloma Adams-Allen, who will address the key USAID elements of the FY25 budget request, and then we would look forward to a few of your questions as well. Paloma.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you, Rich. Thanks so much, Rich. Thank you, Matt. Good morning. Good afternoon. As Rich has just described, we really find ourselves at another decisive juncture, where U.S. leadership on the global stage is critical for continued growth and prosperity here at home, for our national security, and for extending the reach of dignity around the world.The President’s FY25 budget request calls for 28 billion for USAID, a request that reflects our commitment to responding to the historic conflict and climate-driven disasters that continue to wreak havoc globally, while also advancing longer-term development objectives like strengthening democracy, global economic resilience, and our systems for the response and prevention of climate and health shocks. This request also assumes the appropriation of the critical humanitarian and economic support funds we’ve been fighting for in the National Security Supplemental. So before I take questions alongside Rich, I just wanted to highlight a few of the areas that are critical for USAID.On the humanitarian assistance front: In the last three years alone, due to natural disasters and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and beyond, the number of people in need of assistance has grown to 300 million, an increase of 64 million from 2021. For the U.S. to continue to lead, to support our partners and allies, and to save lives amidst some of the world’s toughest challenges, this year’s budget requests 6.3 billion for USAID’s humanitarian assistance efforts, which cover an average of 75 crises per year, including ongoing emergencies in Gaza, Haiti, and Afghanistan. It also includes 1.1 billion for USAID’s Feed the Future programs to address the global food crisis driven by climate-induced shocks and exacerbated by Russia’s war in Ukraine.Ukraine’s long-term economic stability depends on its ability to continue generating revenue, so this year’s request includes 321 million to bolster its economy, including building up its energy infrastructure and increasing agricultural exports. It also includes funding to continue the support that the government provides in terms of basic social services as well as the Ukrainian people’s work to strengthen democracy.In terms of our economic and democracy-strengthening priorities, we know that leveraging private sector capital and business expertise is critical to closing the gap between the current levels of development assistance and the increasing need. So we’re requesting $50 billion for USAID’s EDGE Fund, which is already generating partnerships and attracting the additional resources needed to promote sustainable business practices, market-based innovations, and inclusive entrepreneurship. And we’re asking for another 50 million to boost the economic resilience of countries facing mounting debt, slowing growth, high inflation, declining investment, and widening inequality, all of which we know can undermine democratic gains.To meet the urgency and magnitude of the digital threats to development progress, the request includes 94 million to scale USAID’s digital, cyber, and emerging technology programming, including our work to build and strengthen open, inclusive, and secure digital ecosystems, and leverage proven technology for better development outcomes.To meet our commitment to tackle the global climate crisis, this year’s budget requests 2.8 billion for USAID-managed climate programs that lay the foundation for the modernization and expansion of the energy infrastructure needed to power schools, hospitals, and economic growth. We will also continue to increase food and water security by providing people with access to lifesaving early warning systems and more resilient agriculture and conservation practices.To reaffirm the U.S. global health leadership, the budget request includes 4 billion for USAID-managed accounts to prevent child and maternal deaths, bolster nutrition, control the HIV/AIDS epidemic, protect the global health workforce through the President’s Global Health Worker initiative, and it includes 650 million for USAID to sustain global health security programs to help detect, respond to, and prevent future infectious disease threats.And last but not least, as Rich noted, we’re supporting our people. Beyond our critical programmatic funding, this request also reflects our commitment to strengthening and investing in our global workforce. With our $2.2 billion request, we are prioritizing the recruitment, retention, and training of the personnel with the skills and experience needed in a modern development and humanitarian enterprise. So an additional 145 positions will help us grow our ranks of career humanitarians, contracting and AI specialists, economists, engineers, and others. And it will position us to better address the compensation and other concerns of our local staff who serve our missions overseas, ensuring that we live up to our values but are also able to compete for much-needed talent.So, to wrap up, from day one the Biden-Harris administration – of the Biden-Harris administration, the United States has confronted and led the world to respond to complex threats and the most pressing global challenges of the day. We look forward to continuing this work with the support of the American people. Thank you.MR MILLER: Okay. Take a few questions. Matt.QUESTION: Thanks. I guess these are to both of you, and I don’t know, Rich, do we call you ambassador or a deputy secretary?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Whatever you want.QUESTION: What do you prefer?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Rich is great. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple, but I think they’ll be really quick. And the reason that I have a couple is because we have not actually seen the Function 150 justification. We’ve only seen a couple fact sheets that were sent out.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I think it came out just &#8212;QUESTION: Well, I haven’t seen it. It’s not been in my email, so anyway – but I think these will be real quick. Ukraine – in the 2025 budget, you said 482 million. Is that correct?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Correct.QUESTION: And then – and – but that’s on top of what is in the supplemental, which has not yet been approved already.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: That’s correct.QUESTION: Which is – how much is that? That’s part of the 60 billion?DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: It is 16.3 billion.QUESTION: 16.3?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Yes.QUESTION: Okay. So of the – all right. And then – okay, I just wanted to make sure that was right.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: And Matt, just – maybe I’ll just make the point that I made that this base budget in FY25 is not a substitute for that supplemental, and that supplemental is growing more and more important every day.QUESTION: Right. Okay. And then also part of that supplemental is some stuff for the Middle East, but in the 2025 request, you have 7.6 billion, right? Is it correct that about half of that, roughly – a little less than half, 3.3 billion – is for Israel alone?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Correct. Yes.QUESTION: And then on Taiwan, you mentioned – the Indo-Pacific, you say – in one of these fact sheets that we got a little while ago, it says that you’re making a historic investment in Taiwan’s military.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Think it’s $100 million in security assistance.QUESTION: Yeah, but you know what? I’ve seen individual arms sales to Taiwan that you guys have put out to TECRO that are more than 100 million, so I don’t understand how this is historic. Can you explain that?And then I’ve got one last one which is about embassies and consulates. I don’t know if you want to take those.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Happy to take that. Look, we break out Taiwan for the first time and have a specific line item for it. It reaffirms our commitment to security assistance for Taiwan and to a free and open Indo-Pacific. I think it’s very clear. I think it stands on its own.QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, it is not in itself historic because – the size of it is not historic. I mean, you guys have sold them &#8212;DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I think – yeah, here’s what I would say &#8212;QUESTION: You guys have – there have been many, numerous, transfers to the Taiwanese over the years that have exceeded 100 million at a time.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: That’s true. That’s true, and we’re very proud of the longstanding security assistance we’ve provided. I’d also say take a look at our Indo-Pacific Strategy more broadly and the new kind of funding requests that have gone in, including mandatory spending and new accounts.QUESTION: Okay. Last one – and this is just on – you said 5.6 billion for supporting the staff or&nbsp;– and improving and expanding the diplomatic presence abroad. Does that include funding for the new embassy in the Seychelles, which I know that you were there to announce? The Maldives, which former Secretary Pompeo was there to announce? And is there any funding for the consulate in Western Sahara that was announced by the previous administration? And is there any funding for a consulate in Jerusalem?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: So I was in Seychelles. I was also in Maldives, so glad to see the progress there. And we are kind of – Doug, why don’t you jump up? Yeah.MR PITKIN: On Western Sahara – Western Sahara, not at this time. I think that some of the planning is still ongoing for the appropriate presence, given the security conditions. And then at this point – no additional funding for Jerusalem at this point, but that still remains in a planning stage.QUESTION: All right. Then you mentioned Libya and the eastern Caribbean, so in Libya where? Back in Tripoli?MR PITKIN: Libya &#8212;QUESTION: Because you had an embassy that you closed down. I mean, it was in a hotel room, basically, but it was an embassy.MR PITKIN: We’re in active negotiations for an interim facility that would provide appropriate security and staffing support adjacent to other international &#8212;QUESTION: In Tripoli?MR PITKIN: Yeah. Yeah.QUESTION: All right. And then you mentioned, Rich, the eastern Caribbean.MR PITKIN: Eastern Caribbean. That planning is still going on, but several islands &#8212;QUESTION: For where?MR PITKIN: The Secretary has not made a final determination on which specific islands. That planning is ongoing, but would enable two very small, focused posts.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: This would build on the Vice President’s trip where she made the initial announcement, and the planning actually does continue. And I think what you’ll see is a very strategic focus on key areas where we believe having a diplomatic presence is important – the Indo-Pacific, eastern Caribbean, coming back to Libya – so these are again, I think, reflective of the need to be where the greatest kind of urgency and some of our crises are, but also just to kind of regularize our diplomatic presence in places.QUESTION: Thank you.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Paloma, you want to add anything?DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: No, I’m good.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay.MR MILLER: Humeyra.QUESTION: Hi, thank you very much.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I follow up super quickly on Western Sahara? I think, if I got it right, you said there’s still ongoing for the appropriate presence given the security conditions. Do you have at all a timeline on when you might move on opening this consulate in Western Sahara?MR PITKIN: I think we’d have to come back on the specifics for that, so we can follow up.QUESTION: You don’t have any timeline?MR PITKIN: Not at this point.QUESTION: But you have – can you confirm you have the political will to open it within this administration?MR PITKIN: All those elements are part of the decision process, both the political will, the security, the appropriate resources. So at this point I think we’d have to take that for the – a more specific timeline.QUESTION: Okay, understand. Thank you. And I just want to ask something about UNRWA, and please correct me if I missed it somewhere, but in the bullet points that are sent out and in the fact sheet, I did not see any funding for UNRWA. I do believe it falls under State Department/USAID. So does that – I mean, is it somewhere that’s hidden or we don’t – we haven’t seen or &#8212;DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: No, it’s not hidden. We have – as has been discussed here, I think, multiple times, we have a pause on our funding &#8212;QUESTION: Right.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: &#8212; to UNRWA until the investigation is complete. That doesn’t mean we are not providing funding for Gaza, for the West Bank, for the humanitarian needs, and there’s a significant commitment in here. But until that particular investigation concludes itself, we’re going to look to other organizations as we do today: World Food Program, UNICEF, other outlets.QUESTION: Right. And so it’s – it would be wrong to say that U.S. has written off the possibility to resume funding for UNRWA.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I think what I would say is there is a pause pending the outcome of the investigation.QUESTION: And you said there is significant commitment for Palestinian people. I’ve seen 3.3 for Israel. Does that number include for West Bank or Gaza?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: No, there’s an additional amount of funding. I think it’s around – Tracy, do you want to take that? Yeah.MS CARSON: There’s 10.3 billion in humanitarian assistance, and those are the sources we would use to support Palestinian refugees.QUESTION: Okay. And in terms of the agencies, the WFP, did you say?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Yeah, I think – look, we work with a range of partner agencies, and that’s what we do today to deliver the assistance, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: Thank you.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you. No, that’s it.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. A couple of questions, if I may. On Eurasia – Central Asia and Europe – what I have written there, line 199 – you mentioned some portion will go to Armenia’s economic and democratic resilience. Can you just give us the numbers? How much of that portion will go to &#8212;DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Sorry, you said on Armenia?MS ADAMS-ALLEN: Armenia.QUESTION: Yes.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay. You got it.MS CARSON: I’ll get back to you on that.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: In one – we have it broken out, but we’ll make sure we get that to you.QUESTION: I appreciate it. On democracy programming, I didn’t see any funding for a summit, democratic – democracy summit for 2025. Do you guys not expect a summit for 2025?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Again, if &#8212;MS CARSON: There is. There’s $3 billion in democracy, and of that we’re assuming roughly $345 million will support the work that we’ve been doing related to the democracy summit.QUESTION: In the summit. Yeah. And finally, well, Madam Deputy Administrator, can you speak to how much past couple of months impacted the capabilities in terms of delivery of humanitarian assistance in Ukraine? I see funding for upcoming year, but if you don’t – if you don’t have a lot of partners who will help you in Ukraine to deliver that assistance, do you – how much past couple of months have impacted your capabilities?DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: So we’re still providing assistance in Ukraine. We provided about 14.6 – up to 14.6 thousand – million folks. So we still have ongoing funding. The challenge will be if we don’t get the supplemental funding, that’s where we will have to cut off 400 or so health centers that are providing support, food assistance that’s going out to folks. So we are currently providing assistance, but that is ramping down, and that’s why we need the supplemental.Roman, do you have a figure in terms of numbers of folks who have received assistance? Sorry for &#8212;MR NAPOLI: Tracy might, I think.MS CARSON: I’ll get back.MR NAPOLI: Yeah.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Yeah.MR MILLER: Okay.MR NAPOLI: Go ahead.MR MILLER: We’ll take one &#8212;DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: So &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, sorry.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: That continues our issue, and this is why the supplemental is so urgent.MS CARSON: I’ll just answer your Armenia question. The budget assumes $52 million for Armenia.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: One more from Nike, and then we’ll wrap, and I’ll take questions.QUESTION: Thank you. This question is to follow and to clarify to both of you. The fact sheet mentioned “100.0 million for an historic investment in Taiwan’s security including new bilateral Foreign Military Financing request, to strengthen deterrence and maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” Can we please have a breakdown? Does that include a permanent training mission by the U.S. Special Forces, troops in Taiwan, Republic of China? Thank you.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I don’t – I don’t believe so. I think this is the traditional security assistance. There’s also IMET assistance. And again, you have to read that together with the totality of our assistance in the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the new mandatory funding we’ve also added. So I think that’s how I would describe that particular &#8212;MS CARSON: Yeah, it’s Foreign Military Financing grant-based assistance that we would provide to Taiwan.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Yeah.MR MILLER: Okay.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay.MR MILLER: Thank you both.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you, Matt. Thanks, everybody.MS ADAMS-ALLEN: Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Okay. Just get situated here. All right. Who wants to go first? I don’t know if I have to call on Matt first and if he’s already a first question, or I go to somebody else.QUESTION: You can go to someone else. I want to &#8212;MR MILLER: It doesn’t matter. I just want to – I just want to follow the rules, formal or informal.QUESTION: I don’t think there are any rules. I think you can – you can go to someone &#8212;MR MILLER: So we’ll go to somebody who hasn’t asked &#8212;QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Haiti.QUESTION: I mean, I also wanted to ask about Haiti.MR MILLER: We’ll go to somebody who hasn’t asked a question.QUESTION: What can you tell us about the expectations for the meeting in Jamaica today?MR MILLER: So the Secretary is in Kingston, Jamaica today to attend the CARICOM High-Level Meeting on Haiti to advance a compromise on the – to the ongoing political stalemate threatening the country’s citizens and security. The proposal that is on the table that CARICOM has developed over the past several days in consultation with Haitian stakeholders, in consultation with the United States, would expedite a political transition through the creation of a broad-based, independent presidential college to steer the country towards the deployment of a Multinational Security Support Mission and free and fair elections, and that’s what I expect the Secretary will be discussing with his colleagues.QUESTION: Will Prime Minister Henry have any presence there, virtually or other?MR MILLER: I am not aware of any, but as always, I will defer to him speak to his travels.QUESTION: And is it your understanding he’s still in Puerto Rico?MR MILLER: Again, I’m going to defer to him to speak to his travels.QUESTION: And then can you tell us any more about the decision to evacuate some embassy personnel over the weekend?MR MILLER: So as you may aware, we have been on ordered departure status since last July, where we have ordered a certain number of embassy personnel to leave. Since we went to that status last July, there have been embassy personnel that have left at different times, and at times we have moved additional personnel in. So we had a number of embassy personnel that left over the weekend. We had additional security forces that deployed to the mission because of the security situation there. And we’ll continue to assess the situation and what – make whatever appropriate decisions we need to protect our staff and personnel there.Camilla.QUESTION: Can you get – can you say anything further about any American passport holders in Haiti, if there’s any American citizens reaching out to the embassy hoping for assistance, given the – the precariousness of flights in and out of Haiti and things that are developing quickly?MR MILLER: So – yeah, so we are in contact with a number of American citizens in Haiti. I do want to reiterate that we have had a Level 4 travel alert for Haiti for more than four years now, making very clear to American citizens that, number one, they should not travel to Haiti, that it is not safe to travel to Haiti; and number two, that they are – if they’re in Haiti, they should leave as soon as it’s safe for them to do so. Now, obviously, that’s a warning that has been in place for four years. It’s not safe for a number of them to leave right now, and they’re not able to leave right now because the airport has been damaged and commercial carriers have suspended flights.So what we are asking U.S. citizens to do today is to register through our crisis intake form, which you can get to through the embassy’s website, and we will communicate with them the best information we have when we have it.Said – oh, Humeyra, go ahead. I will – let’s &#8212;QUESTION: If it’s on Haiti &#8212;MR MILLER: Let’s finish up on Haiti.QUESTION: Mine is about Palestine – yeah.MR MILLER: Yeah, we’ll finish up on Haiti and then go – yeah, Nike.QUESTION: MSS – the United States has placed $200 million assistance to the Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti. Can you provide more details on MSS? What are the exact plans? And is the United States able to execute the assistance under current security circumstance?MR MILLER: So we are committed to the success of the MSS. You have seen not only the United States commit money to the MSS, but also the Secretary has met with his foreign counterparts to seek to raise funds from additional countries to fund the MSS. Secretary spoke to the president of Kenya on Friday to discuss the deployment of the MSS, and we continue to look to expedite that mission as soon as possible. And so that’s something we’re in the – in conversation with the Government of Kenya about, and something we’re in conversation with other countries around the world. And I can assure you that the United States will do its part to fund that important mission.QUESTION: Can I please follow up?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: No offense here, but just for example, it’s fair to assume the Kenya forces do not speak Creole. So my question is: How are they going to communicate with the Haitians National Police? How are they going to tell who is good cop, who is bad cop? And same thing goes with other multinational forces.MR MILLER: So I will defer ultimately to the Government of Kenya to speak to how that mission will operate. We are there in a support function by – with providing them financial assistance and providing them logistic support. But obviously, there are translators that you can bring to bear, there are other resources you can bring to bear to work through those issues, and it’s something that we will look to do in the coming weeks.QUESTION: The bureau – State Department’s Bureau for INL used to have a – some teams on the ground to help with Haitian police – National Police forces to fight drugs, illegal – I mean, illegal drugs and crimes, and to help maintain security. Are they still there on the ground, or where are they when this violence happened?MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that back and follow up. I’m happy to look into it and follow up with you. Anything else on Haiti before we move on? Hands go up; hands go down.Go ahead, Tom. (Laughter.)QUESTION: We’re okay to move on now? Why is the United States building a port off the coast Gaza when there’s a perfectly good one that &#8212;MR MILLER: Wait, I thought we – let me just – I thought we were still on Haiti. Nothing else on Haiti?QUESTION: We’re still on Haiti?MR MILLER: Okay, we are moving on. Yeah, let me just – let me just – I’ll come to you &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, no, that’s fine. It’s fine.MR MILLER: Let me just – let me just make – let me – I want to close out Haiti before we move on.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So what’s going to happen with U.S. citizens who are still in Haiti? Are there any evacuation plans? And then second, how does this affect the southern border in terms of migrants and also drugs?MR MILLER: So I had spoke to the question with respect to American citizens a moment ago, which is that they should register with our crisis intake form. We will provide them information to the extent that we are able to do so at – the airport is – currently has been damaged, and the commercial carriers have suspended flights. And I just want to reiterate that we have made very clear for more than four years that United States citizens should not travel to Haiti.With respect to the question about the border, I would defer ultimately to other agencies to speak to this.Now, Haiti or something else?QUESTION: No – Gaza.MR MILLER: I promised Tom I’d come to him first, and then I’ll &#8212;QUESTION: Thanks. Why is the United States building a port off the coast of Gaza when there’s a perfectly good one about a 30-mile drive further north, in fact a major international container port?MR MILLER: So we are looking to build or looking to – or exploring a maritime option to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza because the other options have not proven sufficient so far, is the bottom-line answer to that question.So we are – have provided air drops. We’ve been providing those over the past – a little over a week to get emergency assistance in, and we are exploring a maritime option to get additional assistance in. But I should be clear – and you’ve heard me say this and others in the administration say that – that there – it is no substitute for assistance continuing to come in over land. And so we’ll continue to push for it to come over land. Now, whether that comes through Ashdod Port and then travels over land, or it comes through Jordan, or comes from Egypt, ultimately doesn’t actually matter. It matters how it gets – it matters that it gets into Gaza, whether it comes through a port or another means.So we’re going to push to see the land routes expanded. What we are doing is to supplement that, not replace it.QUESTION: But, I mean, it’s turned what is a political issue into a logistical one. This is not about trying to get into some remote region of the world with a natural disaster. This is a place that is very easily accessible. And you talked about the current situation you haven’t been able to get to sufficiently. That means you haven’t been able to persuade the Israelis to let enough aid in over land and to secure its distribution. So why is that still a problem?MR MILLER: So I will say that, first of all, we have seen some modest improvements in the humanitarian situation and the distribution of aid over the past few days. We’ve seen trucks able to move around the southern part of Gaza with more freedom than they were able to do, say, a week or 10 days ago. We’ve seen additional trucks move to the north of Gaza from the south. We saw for the first time flour released from Ashdod and make its way into Gaza, something we have been supporting for some time. And we saw the Government of Israel agree to open additional crossings.So yes, they need to do more. We’ve seen an improvement but we think they need to continue to do more, and so that’s what we’re going to continue to push them to do.QUESTION: I mean, it does just come back to this fundamental point about leverage. And when you’re providing the amount of military aid that you are providing, in fact, there’s a – the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act says that humanitarian aid should not be blocked by countries that are recipients of military aid from the United States. And it would seem extraordinary still that leverage cannot be brought to bear when the UN is now saying malnutrition is so severe, they’re quoting that 25 people have died now.MR MILLER: Well, first of all, it is the intervention of the United States that has led humanitarian assistance to go into Gaza in the first place. Secretary Blinken has engaged on this consistently in his meetings and his phone calls with leaders of the Government of Israel. The President of the United States has been involved in this. The President of the United States traveled to Israel and cemented a deal that Secretary Blinken initially reached to allow Rafah to open in the first place; and it was our intervention that allowed – that got Kerem Shalom to open; and it is our intervention that has led to the Government of Israel agree – to agree to open additional crossings into Gaza.So it is the work of the United States that has led to an improvement in the humanitarian assistance situation. Now, that improvement hasn’t been enough, and that’s why we continue to engage consistently at the highest levels of the Government of Israel, and that’s why the President continues to speak out on this and that’s why the Secretary continues to speak out on this, and that’s what we’ll continue – that’s what we will keep doing.QUESTION: Matthew?MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Has the Israeli Government presented Biden administration with a humanitarian and/or military plan for Rafah?MR MILLER: They have not.QUESTION: What is your latest assessment, based on your conversations with them, whether or not they would go ahead without the humanitarian plan?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to the conversations that we have had with them, but we have made clear, both in those private conversations and as you have heard us say publicly a number of times, that it is our judgment that they cannot, should not, go into Rafah without a humanitarian assistance plan that is credible and that they can actually implement.QUESTION: Right. And Netanyahu, we’ve heard him say multiple times, I think, over the past couple of days that the Rafah operation will happen one way or the other. And the President said in the MSNBC interview that Rafah is a red line, although he then quickly said he will continue to support Israel. So I guess I’m asking, what is the U.S. prepared to do when and if Israel goes ahead with the Rafah offensive?MR MILLER: So the “if” there – I think you know – triggered my answer that I’m not going to&nbsp;&#8212;QUESTION: But it’s not – it’s not &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, you – no, no, no, hold up. Well, you said that &#8212;QUESTION: What &#8212;MR MILLER: But the – no, because the “if” I &#8212;QUESTION: But the prime minister said that.QUESTION: I think the – well, no. Here’s the – here’s what I’m going to say. The “if,” I think, does make it a hypothetical, because we have said what we need to see to be able to support a Rafah operation, and that is a credible and implementable humanitarian assistance plan. The Government of Israel has said that they will implement a humanitarian assistance plan. They haven’t just said that to us; they have said that publicly. We haven’t seen such a plan yet. So I think before we either pass judgment on whether this is possible or whether any such plan is credible and can be implemented, and whether we talk about what we would do next, I think let’s wait and see what it is that they come up with.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Yeah, just a couple of things on the Rafah thing because we’re talking about 1.4 million people. It’s a lot of people. It’s crowded and so on. And, in fact, the Israelis have been bombing it, so they’re reducing the area in which people can live. So what, in your view or in your discussion – what methods, what methodology is Israel – will Israel use to basically move these people and get them out of harm’s way?MR MILLER: So, Said, I can’t &#8212;QUESTION: What is conceivable?MR MILLER: Sorry. I can’t answer that question because I haven’t seen the plan. It is incumbent upon them, not us, to develop that plan. We will wait and look at it and pass judgment on it when we see it.QUESTION: But can you see that you can actually move that many number of people to &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; let’s say either south or north and so on?MR MILLER: I think I want to &#8212;QUESTION: Will they be allowed to go north?MR MILLER: I think I want to wait and see what any plan looks like before I pass judgment on it &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: &#8212; which should be obvious.QUESTION: Yeah, one more question. Now, isn’t – doesn’t U.S. law call for stopping shipments of arms to a country that prevents the distribution of American aid, humanitarian aid, as we have seen with the flour?MR MILLER: So that is the law and we have seen the Government of Israel take steps to allow humanitarian assistance in, including to allow humanitarian assistance in. Now, they haven’t done enough &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; but we’ve seen them take steps. And because it’s our judgment that they haven’t done enough, that’s why we’re pushing them to do more.QUESTION: But they are still holding flour that you guys have sent to Gaza.MR MILLER: No, that’s not accurate.QUESTION: That’s not – okay.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Gaza?QUESTION: All right, let me just follow up on a couple of things.MR MILLER: Just hold on. Let me just – one at a time.QUESTION: On UNRWA, I wanted to ask about UNRWA. Now, today I think Canada and Sweden said that they will resume aid to UNRWA. They – basically they paused because of the very same reason, so they must be convinced that the evidence is enough, sufficient to allow the resumption of aid. Why not with the United States?MR MILLER: So every country has to make its own determination. But again, we’ve laid out a very clear standard that we’re going to apply, which is we are going to await the outcome of the investigations that the United Nations is conducting. I think it’s important to remember, Said, it’s not Israel that’s conducting this investigation, it’s not another body. It’s the United Nations itself, which of course administers all of this aid, that is conducting the investigation.Despite the number of times you have asked me this, we are going to wait until the outcome of that investigation before making any determinations, which I think is obviously the appropriate step to take.QUESTION: I fully understand, but it’s the same set of evidence and the same set of investigators and the same set of investigations that other countries are privy to, like you are.MR MILLER: It’s &#8212;QUESTION: If they can arrive &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t – hold on. Said, I don’t believe anyone is privy to the outcome of this investigation because it’s not been completed, let alone briefed to us yet or to any other country, for that matter.QUESTION: I just am saying they’re not different sets of investigations. It’s the same investigations.MR MILLER: Correct. And every country will have to make its own determinations.QUESTION: And one last thing. Have you – are you aware that UNRWA reports says that Israel coerced some agency employees to falsely admit Hamas links? Were you aware of &#8212;MR MILLER: I have seen those reports. I don’t have any independent &#8212;QUESTION: You haven’t &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any independent ability to assess them.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Do you still expect a truce to be announced during Ramadan, and is there any progress in the talks that the U.S. is doing?MR MILLER: So I am not going to make any forecasts one way or the other. We continue to believe that an agreement to achieve a ceasefire and secure the release of hostages is important. We’re continuing to work on it, we’re continuing to pursue it, but I wouldn’t want to offer any kind of assessment.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Can you just – like I’m trying to understand when President Biden said that entering Rafah is a red line, and the same time he will say we’re going to keep sending weapons and support Israel. I mean, just in English wording, how does it work? Red line, don’t enter Rafah; and the same time we’re going to give you weapons if you enter Rafah or not. Is that right?MR MILLER: So I think the President’s remarks were very clear. But again, as I said, with respect to Rafah, let’s just wait and see what the plan that Israel develops looks like before we pass any judgment either on whether it’s credible, whether it can be implemented, or what the United States will and will not do. But as the President said in that interview and as you’ve heard the Secretary say and me and others from the administration say a number of times, we support Israel’s right to continue to defend itself, and that’s what we’ll – that will be our policy.QUESTION: And so what about – did you watch the report on CNN inside Gaza hospital and see the starvation of children? Images we used to see in Uganda, some images we see in African countries like 20 years ago, now we’re seeing it in 2024. Kids are starving to death.MR MILLER: So I didn’t see that specific report, but obviously we’ve seen multiple reports of incredibly dire humanitarian conditions on the ground in Gaza. And that’s why we not only have been pushing the Government of Israel to do more – and as I’ve said, we’ve seen some modest improvements but not enough – but it’s why the United States has air dropped its own humanitarian assistance in and is working on a maritime option to get assistance in.Go ahead.QUESTION: A last question. Just last &#8212;MR MILLER: Last one. Last one, then I’m going to go to – go ahead.QUESTION: So basically, we experienced like dramatically the changing of tone of this administration. I mean, from this podium, Israel has a right to defend itself. People are dying day after day. Today the tonality changed. We saw the primary election. Some voters decided to stay uncommitted votes. President Biden in his speech changes tonality toward the – what’s happening in Gaza. Who is going to hold accountability for all the crimes that Israel committed for the past five months?MR MILLER: So first of all, I don’t think that’s an &#8212;QUESTION: Do you still think it’s &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me just say I don’t think that’s an accurate assessment of the situation. We have made our judgments based on the facts on the ground, and that is what has driven our policy and what will continue to drive our – to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Hold on. I said I was going to go to Matt next. Matt, go ahead.QUESTION: I just want to ask one brief thing about what you said in response there. You said let’s wait until we’ve seen the plan before we pass judgment on whether it is credible or implementable, correct?MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.QUESTION: So does that – does that mean that you are going to pass judgment on the plan when you see it?MR MILLER: I would expect that &#8212;QUESTION: So when – when the Israelis – so when the Israelis put out the plan, we’ll get the U.S. perspective?MR MILLER: I would expect that &#8212;QUESTION: Judgment up, down? Needs improvement?MR MILLER: I’m not going to say exactly the outcome, but I would expect that ultimately we will have a view on that plan, yes.QUESTION: Well, ultimately.MR MILLER: But I mean &#8212;QUESTION: After they finish, after they – if they’re done?MR MILLER: We are waiting to be briefed on that plan, but yes, we will obviously have a view on what it looks like.QUESTION: Okay. So if you don’t like it or if you do like it, we can expect to hear?MR MILLER: I’m going to wait to see what it looks like, but I am sure that &#8212;QUESTION: But you’re going to say &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. Hold on, Matt. Just to say I am –QUESTION: You’re going to pass judgment on it?MR MILLER: I am sure that I will be here and you will have questions, and I will answer those questions about the plan.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Matt, sorry. Just on that.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Whoa, whoa, everyone. I’ll get to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just on that &#8212;MR MILLER: Humeyra, then – and then Nadia third.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Nadia, I’m going to get to you.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: You seem to be putting a lot of hope on that plan, but do you – does the administration have any indication or any knowledge that the plan is being indeed developed?MR MILLER: The Government of Israel has said privately to us that they’re developing such a plan, and they &#8212;QUESTION: Have they said so in recent days?MR MILLER: Hold on. And they have said publicly that they are developing a plan.QUESTION: Right, that was a little while ago. Like, I mean, this moves really, really fast, and we have seen Netanyahu sort of say things that they’re going to go ahead with Rafah regardless.MR MILLER: I cannot speak &#8212;QUESTION: So do you still – you’re still certain they’re developing this plan?MR MILLER: I cannot speak for any government but my own, and I can tell you that they have told us that privately and they have said it publicly.QUESTION: And just one last thing, because I think – I’m just going through your answer to Tom’s question. You talk about how U.S. has pushed a lot Israel on the humanitarian aid and made progress even though incremental or sort of bigger in some other things. But what he was asking you – I think – was specifically related to 1961 Foreign Assistance Act that says humanitarian aid should not be blocked by countries that are recipients of military aid from the United States. So we have heard you a lot from this podium saying Israel should do more. So based on that, does the United States consider Israel to be impeding the flow of U.S. aid into Gaza or not?MR MILLER: That is not a judgment that we have made.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions on Turkish foreign minister’s – Fidan’s meeting with Secretary Blinken last week. First, the joint statement mentions a commitment to a result-oriented and a positive bilateral agenda. I was wondering if you could elaborate more on the specific areas of positive agenda between the two countries.MR MILLER: So we continue to work closely with Türkiye on a number of issues. They’re an important NATO Ally. We have worked with them on the Black Sea Grain Initiative and ensuring that Ukraine can continue to export grain through the Black Sea, and have worked with them on a number of regional security matters both in Europe and in the Middle East. And as you know, we have discussed with them post-conflict governance and issues related to Gaza.QUESTION: Thank you. And on the fight against terrorism, the – according to the joint statement, the two countries relaunched counterterrorism consultations to expand fight against terrorism. What steps will be taken in this regard? And additionally, what are the steps that the U.S. plan to take in order to overcome disagreements with Türkiye regarding its approach to defeating ISIS or Daesh in Syria, as Türkiye sees the U.S. support to YPG as the biggest obstacle to relations?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any additional steps with regard to your first question to announce other than that we will be working with our Turkish allies on this question very intently over the coming weeks and months. And when it comes to disagreements that we have with the Government of Türkiye, we will raise them directly and candidly, as we have done on a number of occasions, and seek to work through those.QUESTION: And was that discussed during the meetings, the U.S. support to YPG in Syria?MR MILLER: I don’t have any readout on the meetings other than the one that we put out on Friday.I promised Nadia I’d go – and she’s going to really get angry at me if I don’t, if I break that promise. (Laughter.) She’s already interrupting like everybody else, so &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Okay, thank you. So in addition to the questions asked by my colleagues, I have two more. So the President said that he – we cannot afford to have 30,000 more Palestinian dead, indicating a red line if Israel carries on with the plan to go to Rafah. So 60,000 Palestinian dead is a red line and 30,000 was not a red line?MR MILLER: So you are – hold on.QUESTION: And if your answer – just one second. If your answer is we don’t want to see any civilian Palestinians dead, which is the usual answer you give us, what did you do in the last five month to make sure that Israel avoid killing civilians, which we know as a fact 70 percent are women and children?MR MILLER: So first of all, I think you’re completely distorting the President’s remarks. That was not what he said. It’s not the intention of his remarks and I don’t think is a fair reading of his remarks. What he was saying is consistent with what we have always said, which is we don’t want to see a single civilian die in this conflict.Now, as we have talked about at length both in this room and in other rooms here in Washington, from other podiums and in other forums from – on behalf of the United States, this is a difficult situation precisely because of the way Hamas chose to conduct this war. Hamas launched this war on October 7th, went into Israel, then immediately fled back into Gaza, and not only hid behind hostages that they took – Israeli citizens, but hid behind Palestinian civilians. And so Hamas bears a great deal of responsibility for putting civilians in harm’s way.But that said, when you ask what it is that we have done, we have consistently engaged with the Government of Israel to encourage them to take steps to minimize civilian casualties. That has been the hallmark of our engagement with the Government of Israel since day one. But just the very tragic fact of the matter is that they are engaging in an urban environment where Hamas hides its tunnels under schools, under mosques, under apartment buildings. We see Hamas leaders embed themselves in apartment buildings with civilians, including children, including women. And so it is a very difficult situation.And that is – so I will say finally that because of that incredible human toll and because of the incredibly dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, it is why we have been so intensely engaged on trying to achieve a ceasefire that would see a cessation of hostilities, an alleviation of suffering of the Palestinian people, and an increase in humanitarian assistance coming in.QUESTION: Okay. But Hamas is not your ally, is not your partner. You designate it as a terrorist organization. I’m asking on the other side, which is you share the same value with them, which is Israel. So my question to you is not about Hamas and how the war was started, because we passed that stage.MR MILLER: No, no, but &#8212;QUESTION: Not to take away from what happened on October 7th. But my point to you is: What the – does this administration do &#8212;MR MILLER: yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; to use the leverage that Israel – that you have over Israel to make sure that no more civilians are dead?MR MILLER: But – but Nadia, my point is you can’t answer the question about Israel’s conduct without giving an accurate assessment of the situation that they are in of trying to conduct legitimate military and counter-terrorism operations against an enemy that has sworn the destruction of Israel – sworn that they would destroy Israel and kill Israeli civilians – and hides behind civilians. So this isn’t a situation – a traditional battle situation where Hamas troops are out in a field or deployed in a military garrison sometime and you conduct a – you can conduct a military operation where you have a simple target and you know there’s going to be no civilian harm. That’s just not the situation that Israel faces in Gaza because of the way Hamas is – has decided to quite cowardly hide behind civilians.So we will continue to press Israel to do everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, and everything I have said about the situation that they face doesn’t in a bit minimize their responsibility to do so. And that’s why we’ll continue to engage with them.QUESTION: Is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Yes &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on – I’m going to move on, only because we’ve –QUESTION: No, just – just &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. We’ve been here an hour already, and I’ve got other people I have to get to before we break.QUESTION: Matt, there’s a video &#8212;MR MILLER: So – go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; that shows how Israel &#8212;MR MILLER: I – as I’ve said, we’ve been here an hour and I’ve got other people I got to get to before I cut this short. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions – China and North Korea. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a press conference that U.S. and South Korea are more responsible for causing security anxiety to North Korea by mentioning the war on Korean Peninsula. How do you react to Wang Yi’s statement that the U.S. and South Korea are responsible?MR MILLER: So obviously we don’t agree with that comment. It is the – it is North Korea’s repeated reckless and provocative acts that have brought instability and continue to bring instability to the Korean Peninsula, and it’s why we stand with our South Korean allies.QUESTION: Second question. And the – the Chinese Government is forcibly sending North Korean defectors back to North Korea. What message is the United States taking in response to this?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you an answer.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Guita, I’ll come to you next. Behind – and then &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Ramadan Kareem; today is the first day of the Ramadan.QUESTION: Yes, it’s holy month for the Muslim.QUESTION: The Bangladesh Anti-Corruption Commission attorney accused and sought legal action against the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Haas, for his comments in favor of Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammud Yunus. As you’re aware, the ruling regime is harassing Professor Yunus in a political manner and worldwide criticism is mounting against the regime’s action. Could you please share your thoughts?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the comments in question. You have heard me speak before about the U.S. Government’s concerns surrounding the cases against Muhammad Yunus, including that they could represent a potential misuse of Bangladesh’s laws to harass and intimidate the doctor. Ambassador Haas simply reiterated those comments, acting in his capacity as the U.S. Government’s highest ranking representative in Bangladesh.QUESTION: One more, Matt. According to media reports, the “India out” campaign is growing larger in the region. Following the one-sided sham elections in Bangladesh, people are promoting a boycott of goods made in neighboring India, suspecting Indian authorities of covertly wanting to keep Sheikh Hasina in power. How do you read this situation?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports of this campaign. I’m obviously not going to comment on any individual consumers’ decisions, whether it’s in Bangladesh or anywhere around the world. But we value our relationship with both Bangladesh and India. We will continue to work with both countries’ governments to pursue our shared interests, including to ensure a free, open, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A lawsuit filed in Iran against the U.S. Government and a U.S.-based Iranian opposition group headed by Jamshid Sharmahd has ended, and the verdict is a – the payment of almost $2.5 billion in damages to the plaintiffs. Now, the incident – it was a bombing; it happened in 2008. Over 2,000 – 200 people were killed or wounded. And as you recall, Mr. Sharmahd is a dual citizen who is still in prison in Iran. I was wondering – I know it wasn’t during the Biden administration’s time, but does the U.S. Government in general back any opposition groups, any dissident groups living outside of Iran or their country of origin, and condone violent approach to a struggle for democracy?MR MILLER: So ultimately it is – we back the Iranian people in their expression of their democratic – legitimate democratic political aspirations, and we will continue to do that. We don’t endorse violence in any instance.QUESTION: How do you see the trials recently that Iranian judiciaries just putting on trials against – bringing lawsuits against the U.S. Government? See, they’re asking also for reparations in each of them. When the Iranian Government or even the plaintiffs don’t have any way of collecting, then what do you think these trials are for?MR MILLER: So I think we – it is safe to say that we have long had concerns about the rule of law in Iran, including the independence of its judiciary system.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Go ahead. Alex, you’ve already had one. I’m not sure I’m going to get back to you today. Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Oh.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So India today has tested the – a missile with the MRV technology. Since India is such an important partner in the Indo-Pacific, what does this really mean for the stability of the region?MR MILLER: So let me take that question and come back to you.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m going back to the question about your meetings with Turkish counterparts. Have you raised the concern – your concern about the Turkish military operation in Kurdistan region of Iraq and also northwest Syria?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t have any comments other than that we put out – about that meeting other than we put out in the readout. Other than that, I’ll keep the diplomatic conversations private.QUESTION: One more question on the – on Iraq. Is there any unannounced truce between you and the Iraqi militia groups through Iraqi Government, which they stopped the attacks on your forces in Iraq?MR MILLER: Certainly we welcome any decrease in hostilities against our forces. We have made clear that the attacks on our forces were unacceptable and that we would take action to defend U.S. interests and U.S. personnel, and we will continue to do so if appropriate.Go ahead, and then we’ll wrap there.QUESTION: So I’m sure you’ve seen that Pope Francis has called on Ukraine to have the courage to raise a white flag and negotiate with Russia. I’m curious about your response to that.MR MILLER: Sorry. So I have seen that the Vatican has subsequently clarified those comments. Obviously, we support Ukraine’s right to defend itself. We have said time and time again that nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. We support its peace formula, and we would support its efforts to peacefully end this war, but that requires Vladimir Putin to stop attacking, to stop trying to take and claim and hold Ukrainian territory, and to agree to negotiations – and he has so far not been willing to do so.QUESTION: And &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; one thing that ahead of his White House meeting Polish President Duda said in a Washington Post op-ed, that he will propose that NATO should raise the pledge of defense spending, the minimum defense spending from 3 – 2 to 3 percent. Would the U.S. support that?MR MILLER: I think the first step is to get every country meeting the 2 percent threshold, and we’ve seen improvement in that where nearly two-thirds of them now are, but I think that’s the first step before we start talking about additional proposals.QUESTION: Just a follow-up?MR MILLER: And then I’m going to wrap for today because I’ve got to run. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)# # # 1 $50 million						Tags																					Armenia																								Bangladesh																								China																								Haiti																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Korea																								Taiwan																								Turkey																								Ukraine																								Western Sahara
- Clean EDGE Asia: The Bangladeshi System Operator Received Cybersecurity Training hosted by ENR’s Power Sector Program (PSP) On February 28, experts from PSP implementer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) held the second virtual cybersecurity training for the Power Grid Company of Bangladesh’s (PGCB) Cyber and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) teams. In preparation for travel to Dhaka on March 3-5, PNNL delivered a workshop on the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) and introduced participants to the assessment methodology to evaluate PGCB’s current cyber capabilities.  The C2M2 assessment will form a programmatic baseline for PGCB to inform actions that improve cybersecurity practices and optimize security investments.